For almost 80 years (mid 1830s to 1913), the LDS church broke the law of the land re: polygamous marriages...to the point of even sending polygamous families to Juarez, Mexico to get hitched between 1890 & 1913. (Just as Mexicans will have "anchor" babies in the U.S. to establish citizenship for such kids, the Mormons would ship bride #2, or 3, or 4, etc. to Juarez to marry the groom-again -- establishing an "anchor" plural marriage so that when the growing families returned to the U.S., the LDS church could still claim technicalities of trying to obey the law of the land ceremony-wise...but certainly not lifestyle-wise).
So, the question would be then, in light of your earlier comment: Would you had been in favor of denying a good chunk of Mormons the right to buy private property up until 1913? (Estimates were that in the latter half of the 19th century, 15-30% of LDS families were polygamous families).
If I was in charge....yes.
IMO, the state of Texas didn't want the FLDS to move to Texas. I believe, since they couldn't do anything about it, they waited until this sect made a mistake. Now they've taken 400 children into the CPA system saying they are or will be in a dangerous situation.
This was their legal loophole. Whether these people will move on and/or get their children back, is yet to be seen.