Warren Jeffs FLDS compound in Texas surrounded by police #4

[golfmom]

7) For what its worth, I think that most people are having a hard time separating out the underage aspect of this from the polygamy part.

IMO, the polygamy part should not be separated. It's part of the abuses that this group practices and it's illegal. Underage girls marrying is illegal. Underage girls having babies is illegal. Plural "spiritual" spiritual marriage, whether between adults, or an adult and a child is illegal.

 

[mollymalone]

ALL pedophiles need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But, that needs to remain the issue.

MOO

Agreed. I'm all for a person's individual rights, but these "leaders" etc have been violating the civil rights of their followers for far too long. They've violated far too many laws that are covered under criminal law. But the children's rights to be free from sexual abuse and what amounts to sexual slavery are paramount.

If CPS removes children from parents who engage in the cooking, processing and dealing of meth in their home around the children, or allow them to be sexually abused by others thru their own neglect, the majority in society would be applauding CPS for removing the children for their own safety.

How then is this different? Only because the sect uses religion as an umbrella to protect their abuse against the children.

 

[Glow]

I strongly disagree with your #2 above. There will always be times when the rights of one person interfere with the rights of another. As I've previously said, if this happens and one party is an adult and the other is a child, then the child holds the trump card. If protecting the children means stepping on the rights of some adults, well then so be it. I will ALWAYS be an advocate for the child.

You make a very valid point about the definition of a pedophile. On that point I agree with you. For the most part these men are probably not pedophiles, though I would imagine some are, just like in the general populace.

I believe that these men take great pleasure in deflowering a virgin, and the younger, the better. I believe one of the reasons this religion was invented was to satisfy that sexual preoccupation and fantasies of the male members.

I don't agree about people having a hard time separating the child abuse aspect (underage "marriages) from the polygamy part. Both are repulsive to my way of thinking, but despite any laws against plural marriage, I think it will be hard to prosecute under those laws, and would be very ill-advised due to civil rights issues and possible reversal of those laws by both the state and federal supreme courts.

It very well may mean that none of these children will be entrusted to their parents again due to the child abuse issues. If the waterboarding torture, extreme spanking, locking in closets, depriving of food and water issues can be proven that it is a part of their belief system, then no child is safe with these people, and all children should be removed permanently.

Your statement, "Not anymore than I can condemn the entire Catholic church on the basis of the rampant pedophilia(meeting the ACCURATE definition) that has and still does occur in their ranks." is pure speculation on your part and I find it irresponsible and offensive. How do you know that there is still rampant pedophilia within the Catholic Church? I don't believe that for a nanosecond.

What a great post Pepper. I was really impressed with your thoughts here. I understand what you mean about putting children first...ahead of adults. The first ones we try to rescue off a sinking ship would be children correct? I think that is a universal viewpoint. What I was referring to is when it is determined or decided by the state. That concept is called Fascism. Very scary.

As far as the reports of waterboarding and other forms of torture, it is important to remember that none of those claims have been made on behalf of the children of YFZ itself. Former members of the Arizona and Colorado compounds have raised those issues. And the temptation seems to be to weave it all in together. As a matter of fact I first heard the term "waterboarding" here on WS. another titillating and inflammatory term that flies in the face of the statements by experts who are with the children who said the are well bonded with each other, beautiful and healthier than average.


I am sorry that I offended you by saying that pedophilia is still rampant in the Catholic Church. You re right, I have no way of knowing if it still is or not. What I do know is that it was rampant enough in the 80's and 90's that the church paid out billions in settlement suits and that many (I think 23) diocese were closed down because of it. I know too that it is a big enough problem that the Pope felt he had to address it while here on his visit this week. On a personal note, my best friend in high school was Catholic and two of my closest friends now are. I in know way want to imply derision for anyone who is of that faith. My apologies to you for that Pepper :blowkiss:

 

[Jolynna]

The other marriages aren't legal, but if a state recognizes common law marriages they might be viewed as committing bigamy.

I don't know if you can be a common-law wife to a man that has a legal wife. Especially if your legal status is single. (so you can collect state benefits)

 

[mollymalone]

IMO, the polygamy part should not be separated. It's part of the abuses that this group practices and it's illegal. Underage girls marrying is illegal. Underage girls having babies is illegal. Plural "spiritual" spiritual marriage, whether between adults, or an adult and a child is illegal.

The problem with separating polygamy from the abuse is that many or most of the women were born into this sect and were groomed from birth to participate in the polygamy and the systemic sexual or other physical and mental abuse. This case is about the systemic abuse.

If the states were to arrest everyone who practices polygamy, which is against the law, where do they house them? How many other children's lives ... who aren't being abused will be uprooted and affected because their parents were arrested for the charge of polygamy? That's the reason for inaction against polygamy a former Utah attorney general gave.

 

[golfmom]

Exactly. You and I agree that is what she was implying.

My question back was this:

If that were true in this case (the age span) would these people (FLDS)still be wrong?

this isn't "apples to oranges". I asked if the same original conditions still existed, would the same reasoning still apply.

the question should be easy on the surface to answer without resorting to misnomers.

But it isn't easy at all if a person has their mind made up and doesn't want to consider the question being asked. And that too is fine. This is just a discussion board and nothing said here is going to impact the situation in Texas at all.

It is not 200 years ago. It's not 2 years ago. It's today. And as of today, in the state of Texas, they are breaking the law. I might as well say, well it used to be legal to own slaves, so I disagree with the law and I'm going to buy some slaves. Or do some drugs ... or molest some children ... or use children for labor. Just because you don't agree with a law, doesn't make it right to ignore it. The constitution, does not protect illegal activities.

 

[mollymalone]

I don't know if you can be a common-law wife to a man that has a legal wife. Especially if your legal status is single. (so you can collect state benefits)

I don't know that either! I've seen mention that they can and have been charged with bigamy in other cases.

 

[mollymalone]

http://www.lvrj.com/news/17347999.html
A polygamist's wife in Arizona, writing under the assumed name Stacie Lee Hewitt, wrote a 90-page book published last year that describes her experience marrying a 40-year-old man when she was 20. The book skips the sex parts and focuses on power and control, describing the tough life of being a second wife.

"He Loves Me -- She Loves Me Not" is a quick read from one insider's perspective and the heavy is the first wife. Stacie calls the first wife her "tormentor" and dubs her "Sybil" in a deliberate, unflattering reference to multiple personalities. The husband remains nameless.

 

[Glow]

golfmom,

I understand what you are saying.

What you are talking about now is different than the question I posed.

And that is fine if no one wants to answer it.

 

[golfmom]

I don't know if you can be a common-law wife to a man that has a legal wife. Especially if your legal status is single. (so you can collect state benefits)

I posted TX law in one of these thread. Texas does legally recognize common-law marriages.

Common Law Marriage or Informal Marriage:
Texas also refers to common law marriage as an informal marriage.

For a marriage to be declared an informal marriage in Texas, a couple has two options.

1. Sign a declaration of their marriage under oath. The form is available at County Clerk's office.

The Declaration and Registration of Informal Marriage asks for full names, woman's maiden surname, addresses, dates of birth, places of birth, social security numbers, and relationship information.

The Declaration states: "I solemnly swear (or affirm) that we, the undersigned, are married to each other by virtue of the following facts: On or about (Date) we agreed to be married, and after that date we lived together as husband and wife and in this state we represented to others that we were married. Since the date of marriage to the other party I have not been married to any other person. This declaration is true and the information in it which I have given is correct."

2. Live together as husband and wife in Texas
Represent to others that they are married.
Agree with one another that they are married.

Individuals under the age of 18 may not enter into an informal marriage.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/p/texas.htm

 

[mollymalone]

Irene Spencer has sisters in the FLDS sect in Texas.

http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2008/04/09/news/2_polygamist_080409.txt

But Spencer, who is currently living in Woodbridge, has not communicated with them in years and doesn't believe she would be able to reach them now.
That's because they've been living in a cocoon-like world in which outsiders are regarded as dangerous and immoral. Still, Spencer has hope that her sisters may see that they have options. Her book, "Shattered Dreams," chronicles her life as a polygamist wife.

 

[philamena]

It is not 200 years ago. It's not 2 years ago. It's today. And as of today, in the state of Texas, they are breaking the law. I might as well say, well it used to be legal to own slaves, so I disagree with the law and I'm going to buy some slaves. Or do some drugs ... or molest some children ... or use children for labor. Just because you don't agree with a law, doesn't make it right to ignore it. The constitution, does not protect illegal activities.

Excellent post Golfmom.
Damn right! :clap: :woohoo: :clap:

(Why do I get the not so fresh feeling that someone is constantly stiring the pot? There's a big difference between debating a subject and arguing for arguments sake.)

 

[mollymalone]

SNIP
Common Law Marriage or Informal Marriage: SNIP

2. Live together as husband and wife in Texas
Represent to others that they are married.
Agree with one another that they are married.

Individuals under the age of 18 may not enter into an informal marriage.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/p/texas.htm

So under Texas law if they hold themselves out to be married, whether that's "spiritual" or otherwise Texas views them as married. Thus if the man is legally married to one and he claims these other women are his "wives" then Texas could view that as bigamy?

 

[golfmom]

golfmom,

I understand what you are saying.

What you are talking about now is different than the question I posed.

And that is fine if no one wants to answer it.

The reason is the question is moot.

IF it was 200 years ago and IF we all had shorter life spans and IF it wasn't against the law. Would it be o.k.?

Well, it isn't 200 years ago ... we don't live an average life span of 35 years ... and it's against the law.

So, the short answer is it was o.k. then for an adult man to have a baby with a 13 year old girl. So yeah, what the heck ... they should be able to do it today too.

 

[philamena]

Did anyone read this from MSNBC's front page this morning?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24217663/

Adult mothers who have been allowed to stay with their young children since they were taken from a polygamous sect in Texas will be separated from them after DNA sampling is completed next week, a child welfare official said Saturday.

 

[golfmom]

So under Texas law if they hold themselves out to be married, whether that's "spiritual" or otherwise Texas views them as married. Thus if the man is legally married to one and he claims these other women are his "wives" then Texas could view that as bigamy?

Yep, in Utah, the only way a common law wife is recognized is if they go to a court and register their marriage. That's why although polygamy is illegal, it's an unenforceable law. In Arizona, it's in their constitution that polygamy is against the law, but there is no statute for enforcement.

Texas sewed those loopholes up.

 

[Glow]

Seems all of us agree that having sex with under aged minors is against the law and needs to be stopped.

I'm curious as to how many among us feel the same/different about polygamy?

 

[mollymalone]

ok!:crazy: I'll do it! Only we need to go ahead and call it rape when any 18 year old teenaged boy has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend too. AND we need to go to BOTH their parents homes and take away any other children that might be living there too while we're at it!

I would be interested in hearing why thousands of priests raping unknown numbers of little boys isnt just as worthy of looking at?

I mean I know it won't be...."looked at" that is. The Catholic Church is too mainstream and too powerful. The goverment wouldn't dare try to shut them down because of an anonymous phone call alledging child abuse.

I recall the authorities in quite a few states who went after said priests who were sexually abusing children. I believe there have been nuns who were prosecuted for physical abuse and there are other religions who have had members who committed sexual or physical abuse and were prosecuted for it.

The RELIGION didn't cause the abuse, the INDIVIDUALS did. They were "worthy of being looked at" as you deem it.
The law did not try to "shut down" those religions as a whole.

I also recall this point about the other religions being argued previously on the threads with the same arguments put forth and it's a circular argument.

From what I'm reading not all fundamentalists believe in child marriage nor do they condone sexual abuse. I doubt seriously the "govt." will try to "shut" them down as a religion. It's this particular sect who has decided on a course of "practice" that the "govt." can and will interfere with legally because it involves the rights and safety of children.

 

[Glow]

Did anyone read this from MSNBC's front page this morning?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24217663/

I did. Of course we knew it was inevitable, but it is still so sad. I wonder how many breastfeeding babies this will affect.

 

[golfmom]

I'm curious as to how many among us feel the same/different about polygamy?

Is it against the law?