REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE  
Huffington Post / By Marci Hamilton
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 286

Prosecuting Polygamy

Authorities must vigorously enforce the laws against polygamy to stem the abuse of women and children in fundamentalist Mormon communities.
April 16, 2008  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
There is nothing so dangerous for a child as an insular, patriarchal religious organization, and the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, whose compound in El Dorado, Texas, is now under control of the Texas authorities, is one of the scariest examples. It took the extraordinary bravery of a 16-year-old girl to set in motion a chain of events that should have happened long ago.

She reported that she had been "married" to a 50-year-old man, forced to have sex, get pregnant, and have a baby. Because of her, Texas authorities have taken hundreds of children and women to safety. From all reports, they have yet to find her.

I give the Texas law enforcement and child protective agency officials a great deal of credit for moving in on the compound. They bucked the three trends in our culture that have kept these children at risk for far too long.

First, authorities in general are too fearful of intervening in religious enclaves, even when the harm is so awful and apparent. Yet, there is no right of religious liberty to engage in child and spousal abuse, or polygamy for that matter. The taboo against holding religious entities accountable is simply foolhardy.

In fact, enforcement of the polygamy laws could have stemmed many of these abuses. Yet, it is the rare prosecutor who will prosecute on the basis of the polygamy laws, despite the fact those laws are utterly clear and repeatedly have been upheld against constitutional attack. The largest enclave of FLDS resides in Bountiful, British Columbia. A misguided Canadian public official announced just yesterday that the government cannot go forward with a prosecution of polygamy against the FLDS (where the accounts of abuse are legendary), because of concerns about religious liberty. If Canadian law, though, protects polygamy, it also protects the child and spousal abuse that inevitably follow. That is not religious liberty, but rather religious licentiousness. American prosecutors have been marginally better, though there are many more cases out there that they ignore on daily basis.

If authorities (in TX, AZ, NV, and UT) had vigorously enforced the laws against polygamy, we would not have dangerous cults like the FLDS that are premised on extreme obedience of women and girls to domineering men and the disposal of teenage boys. Instead of preventing systemic abuse and neglect, authorities have been timid in the face of specious claims of religious liberty. It cannot be said often enough: no public official should tread lightly in the face of child abuse even if those perpetrating the abuse don the cloak of religion.

The sheer amount of statutory rape in the FLDS culture (along with physical abuse and neglect) is staggering, but it took the FBI years to put their prophet, Warren Jeffs, on the Ten Most Wanted List and then to apprehend him for taking underage girls across state lines to be married to older men. He was convicted in Utah for his involvement in the "marriage" of a 14-year-old girl to a 19-year-old boy and will face further state and federal charges in separate proceedings. His conviction alone should have put all authorities in the jurisdictions where the sect resides on the alert to rescue the women and children. (The boys do not fare well, either, as many are abandoned in adolescence in order to keep the ratio of men to girls favorable for the men.)

Second, Hollywood has romanticized polygamy. Thanks to actress Rita Wilson, Tom Hanks's wife, the fundamentalist Mormons' practice of polygamy has been glamorized in the nauseating HBO series, Big Love. When the members of Tapestry, a group of formerly polygamous wives fully (and sadly) educated on how the FLDS operates, objected to the show before it even appeared, she ignored their entreaties.

Big Love is business, obviously, but it's business that profits from the abuse of women and children. Hollywood pays tremendous attention to suffering children in Africa, but which ones have stood up for the American child victims of sex abuse at the hands of polygamist Mormons? It is a sad fact that American children who are victims of child sex abuse in all categories (clergy abuse, incest, teacher abuse, etc.) receive far less attention and support than foreign children. Do you know why children's issues are so difficult to get through state and federal legislatures? Children's advocates will tell you: "Children don't vote." It's also because too many wealthy adults don't give to suffering American children.

Third, as a culture, we are slow to react to evidence of child sex abuse. We worry about tarring the reputation of adults far more than we do about early intervention when a child is in trouble. It takes a whole culture for children to be sexually and physically abused -- adults to do it and others to take no action when they suspect what is happening. The worst thing that could happen in the El Dorado situation is that the apparent stonewalling by a number of the adults convinces authorities to restore these children to the cult. Adult members who will not talk truthfully to authorities should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Every humanly possible effort needs to be made to protect the children from further abuse.

The question that should be on everyone's mind at this point is where is the girl who tipped off authorities? I am afraid to know the answer, to be perfectly honest.

That leaves the question of justice for all of the other children in the cult.

Because of the insular nature of the FLDS and the general culture's failure to intervene earlier, it will likely take decades for FLDS victims to find the ability to come forward and demand justice from their perpetrators. They deserve whatever time they need to heal and to find that justice and, therefore, offer yet another reason to eliminate the statutes of limitations for childhood sexual abuse.
  • 1
View as a single page
 
submit to reddit
Marci Hamilton is the author of 'God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law' (Cambridge University Press) and the forthcoming Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children (Cambridge 2008).
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: child abuse, polygamy, flds, fundamentalist mormons
 
comments COMMENTS ( 286 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

AMAZING
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gellero1 on Apr 16, 2008 12:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never ceases to amaze me.....the excuses progressives/statists/feminists will make for Government oppression that suits their agenda.

I wonder what Ms. Hamilton's opinion of the assault with snipers, mini-tanks, ninja style troopers with automatic weapons is.

Oh???.....havn't seen the videos yet??

People of this ilk supported the heinous prosecution of the innocent McMartins in that nortorious 'child abuse at day care' cae in Los Angeles.

Funny how the government is quick to release 911 calls when it suits their purpose, but no info is forthcoming, nor is the 'secret informant'.

Shouldn't be long before the kids are brainwashed, like in the McMartin case, to say they were having sex with devils.

This story is far from over. I'm sure the pregnant teens would have been trotted out for the State's 'dog and pony show' long ago, if it had any degree of truth.

The age of consent is 16. Living an alternative lifestyle in the so-called 'land of the free, home of the brave'.......is not illegal....yet.

Oh....and having a communal family with several women is not poligamy, as long as there is no civil contract.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That would be a no. Posted by: Longdream
» Michael Savage talking points! Posted by: free woman
» RE: Michael Savage talking points! Posted by: Deadbeat Dad
» RE: Michael Savage talking points! Posted by: Deadbeat Dad
» the reality actually is that Posted by: goatini
» RE: AMAZING Posted by: lhoquin
» RE: AMAZING Posted by: clthompson
» RE: AMAZING Posted by: wishninja
» RE: AMAZING Posted by: e rice
» RE: AMAZING Posted by: cisc

Comments are closed-

IF there is abuse then yes, it should be stopped.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nzo on Apr 16, 2008 1:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But if people decide to live according to a lifestyle that is different to your own moral values, and that lifestyle does not set out disempower and harm, then keep your interfering toxic hands off! Many of these folks know more about community than you ever will.

In fact, most of you (including the heavy-handed social welfare agencies and law enforcement hammer wielders) would not know real community if you tripped over it.

One day, in the not too distant future, you may be thankful that there ARE communities you can learn from. But I somehow doubt it. Your armor-plating is way too thick to allow a different way of looking at the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

USA war is OK, Love No OK
[Report this comment]
Posted by: richholland on Apr 16, 2008 2:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spending my winter in Thailand I saw the institute of "mia luang"and "mia noi"Even the Crownprince has a concubine and a legal wife.

Many societies accept more than 1 wife and some (Etiopie) and africa allow more husbands.

Only sick people want to press their limited view on other societies.

The important thing is LOVE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: USA war is OK, Love No OK Posted by: mandiwrite
» RE: USA war is OK, Love No OK Posted by: dionysuseatsyou

Comments are closed-

It's important to distinguish between polygamy and abuse.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Morgaine Swann on Apr 16, 2008 3:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no problem with polygamy, polyandry, or any other form of plural marriage in which all participants are willing and over 18. Adults should live as they choose. That is freedom. It's not the issue here.

The problem with these cults is that they're abusing children. No girl of 14 should be married to anyone for any reason, but forcing her to marry an old man, who is often a relative, or even her mother's husband in some cases, is child molestation, plain and simple. The state has an obligation to protect children when the parents are incapable or unwilling to do so. These groups are fronts for institutionalized pedophilia. Young girls are raped, young boys driven out into the world with nothing, babies forced to have babies. That's what has to stop.

We have to stop kowtowing to ancient desert custom. This is NOT religion - it's culture that's been passed down from thousands of years and half a world away. It has nothing to do with worship, belief or free exercise of anything. Have 45 wives if you choose, but let them enter the arrangement willingly after age 18. If you can't find adult women who'll marry you, tough luck. We don't all get to live as we choose, and nothing gives anyone the right to force a child into an adult relationship. This is the 21st century - we know better than this, and we must do better than this. The state needs to be far more aggressive in saving these children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That is insane Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: That is insane Posted by: xenocyd
» RE: Let's be clear on words Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Let's be clear on words Posted by: Livemike
» You have any actual proof... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Yes, actually Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Yes, actually Posted by: brunowe
» RE: hmmm.... Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Yes, actually Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Better idea Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Absolutely agree Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» I bow to you, Morgaine Posted by: hurricane hugo

Comments are closed-

Mr Jazzy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jazzy on Apr 16, 2008 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is polygamy the cause for child and general spousal abuse? This is a social evil that every one in society regarded as normal until laws such as the Convention to Eliminate Discrmination against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child were ratified by governments in SA and the USA that such conduct is seen as unbecoming

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Life style? Incest?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: GPFrank on Apr 16, 2008 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry about that but polygamy lends to incest in a closed community, how can it be otherwise? If you like incest, look at the history of European royalty and its ailments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Life style? Incest? Posted by: Libertine
» RE: Life style? Incest? Posted by: Livemike

Comments are closed-

"A misguided Canadian public official. . ."
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fork on Apr 16, 2008 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hamilton:
"Yet, it is the rare prosecutor who will prosecute on the basis of the polygamy laws, despite the fact those laws are utterly clear and repeatedly have been upheld against constitutional attack. The largest enclave of FLDS resides in Bountiful, British Columbia. A misguided Canadian public official announced just yesterday that the government cannot go forward with a prosecution of polygamy against the FLDS (where the accounts of abuse are legendary), because of concerns about religious liberty."

While s. 293 of Canada's Criminal Code makes polygamy illegal, the worry is that it would not survive a constitutional challenge, and that this "utterly clear" law would be struck down. In Canada, s. 293 has not "repeatedly . . . been upheld against constitutional attack." The "misguided" official:
"Leonard Doust, a senior member of the B.C. bar, agreed with the conclusions of a special prosecutor last year — that having the state pursue polygamy charges against members of the breakaway Mormon sect in the Creston Valley enclave near the U.S. border would likely fail."

Of course, others disagree:
"After carefully considering some of the complexities attendant to this issue, the authors conclude that s. 293 would likely survive a Charter s. 2(a) challenge."

It is not as cut and dried as Hamilton makes it sound in the quoted paragraph above.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

In Defense of Traditional Marriage
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rcase on Apr 16, 2008 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This discussion gives argument to reasons for support of a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between one man and one woman. When marriage is defined otherwise we open ourselves up to societal breakdown. Multiple partners, groups, all sorts of arrangements are possible if we are left to define it however we want.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, it doesn't Posted by: hurricane hugo

Comments are closed-

conformity
[Report this comment]
Posted by: karyse on Apr 16, 2008 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
okay, assuming I agree with the idea that ALL citizens everywhere MUST conform to MY idea about the right way to live -- does anyone seriously believe that the children will be better off in government foster care? You can't be serious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» YES, they can be serious! Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Foster care Posted by: tulugaq
» RE: Foster care Posted by: Deadbeat Dad

Comments are closed-

conformity addendum
[Report this comment]
Posted by: karyse on Apr 16, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh ya, and since when is it okay to take ALL of the children from an entire community? Even if there were so called "abuse" is everyone in the community guilty? What next, arrest everyone in a "hippie" commune because pot was found? Progressives have lost their ever-loving minds and definitely have a problem remembering (or even ever knowing) history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: conformity addendum Posted by: free woman

Comments are closed-

Conflation
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Vaxalon2 on Apr 16, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article conflates violation of marriage norms with violation of child and spousal relationship norms. Yes, absolutely, it is universally wrong to create disempowering marriages. Yes, it is universally wrong for parents to abandon their children. These just fall under the general rule of "don't hurt people."

What this author seems to be coming at, obliquely (and some commenters, directly) is that for some reason there is a causal relationship between violation of the Western tradition of "One Man, One Woman, One Marriage" and these forms of abuse.

The correlation between fundamentalist religion and the abuse of children would be a much stronger point to make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Conflation Posted by: xenocyd

Comments are closed-

To bad McCain didnt pick Romney for vp before all this.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: yale on Apr 16, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He would have had to find a way to dispose of him if he did. I remember traveling through Utah about 20 years ago, and being told by L.D.S. community police that, if we didnt pick up and move along, we would be arrested. For what I didnt know, I assume we were to close to one of the compounds. So we left without conflict, if they searched us they would have found somthing for a legit arrest. But it always pissed me off that they told us to get out of their town. I thought we lived in a free country and always wondered if the Morman police had the authority to legally do what they were doing. Far as I know my tax dollars paid for that state road we were sitting on in Utah. So who the fuck are these people, who keep themselves isolated from the rest of society? I guess we are finding out now what they were trying to hide, their sick and abusive lifestyle. Oh well, Ive been waiting for Mitt Romney to come to the rescue and try to bail out his comrads in Texas, but we aint seen him yet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Similar sentiments confuse homosexuality with pedophilia
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DerekD on Apr 16, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole editorial is pretty offensive to me. The issue is not polygamy. Polygamy should be legal and in a perfect America it would be - it's the kind of relationship we have in my household and we should have the same legal protections.

Plenty of people attack homosexuality because they think it's the same as pedophilia - it isn't and most pedophiles are straight. But still people don't mind slandering a lifestyle because it's convenient to their agenda, and they care little about the people living other lives harmlessly since they want to have their say on everyone who is different.

Child abuse, statutory rape, etc. - there are laws for this stuff and this is what needs to be prosecuted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Whats sickening is....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Marlena on Apr 16, 2008 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all the defenders of this misogynistic, patriarchal cult, who under the guise of religion carry out the master and chattel male fantasy!!
The adult women are real life stepford wives, and you alleged "progressives" defend the robotazation of women?? And if you dont think they are robotic, look at the interviews, thay all have the same voice, they all talk and move roboticaly....perfect little living machines. All you defenders of this crap are just enabling it!!
Hope you are happy in your sick little minds

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who is a libertarian? Posted by: goatini
» RE: Who is a libertarian? Posted by: Livemike
» progressives and women Posted by: e rice
» RE: progressives and women Posted by: meeneecat

Comments are closed-

turning justice into injustice
[Report this comment]
Posted by: QCao009 on Apr 16, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When two cultures clash, and the conflict points come to the surface, there is much to learn for both sides. Unfortunately, El Dorado, Texas drives home the incompetence of our federal government the same way Katrina and Iraq have exposed their ineptitude.

I agree with the author that for too long, the authorities in Texas, Nevada, Utah have turned a blind eye to polygamy and the concomitant threat of abuse. Looking at its root cause, we may even find reasons for that blind eye. Does the culture of those small towns - the same reasoning Senator Obama used on the campaign trail to explain the oppression of guns and religion - not encourage this incestuous behavior ? So now, at the end of a faith-based reign of powergrabbing, isn't it predictable that the Bush administration would give free reins to a civil war within those small communities between different sects and cults, some even pretending to pass for Christian dogma and salvation to continue the practice of treating children and women as property ?

Good intention is merely spin if it's propped up by lies. In this case, the separation of the children from their mothers is akin to our disbanding the Iraqui army fresh from the intoxication with our "mission accomplished". Here, in Florida, the people knows better than to trust our child care agencies since the data reveal that our governmental social service foster care system loses the very same children they purport to take care of and wrestle away from the families which they accuse of abuse.

Replacing family abuse and neglect with system abuse and neglect is not the answer. Replacing it with a wink and a nod to the Government's branded and recognized Christian sects simply tears our communities apart and make those very same organizations less compassionate and more divisive.

Isn't it sad that Americans bought the scripted " fight them over there so we do not have to fight them here" line only to once again turn a blind eye to a government who is now fomenting civil strife within our own country ?

Yes, it is time we stop polygamy and abuse. No, having George Bush do it in the name of marriage and Jesus is about the best way to have our efforts to protect these children fail. Blind faith should never be offered to Judas. Even Jesus finds that out way too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Have you even watched "Big Love"?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: palladas on Apr 16, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What has gone without comment so far is that Ms. Hamilton didn't bother to watch the HBO series Big Love before attacking it as "glamor[ous]" and "nauseating". The show depicts -- in all its painful difficulties -- a polygamous arrangement between one man, three women, and seven children. It juxtaposes that arrangement with depictions of a polygamous community much like the one in El Dorado, TX. Life in that community involves authoritarian rule by an old patriarchal male figure and his sexual abuse of young teenage girls. Personally, I find those sections "nauseating" because they have not been glamorized.

As for the rest, Ms. Hamilton's central thesis that polygamy, by nature, leads to child abuse is no less ridiculous than someone suggesting that monogamous marriage, by nature, leads to the same. And yet, the vast majority of abused children reside in "one man, one woman" households, right?

Beware of columnists offering simple, knee-jerk solutions to complicated problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Authorities must vigorously enforce .....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xvictor on Apr 16, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BULLSHIT!!! MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you're absolutely right! Posted by: e rice

Comments are closed-

SO THIS IS THEIR RIGHT ?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 16, 2008 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we read about this in a foreign country it's uncivilized but here it's OK? Both parents should be put in jail. It's illegal to buy, sell or barter another human being for any reason. Hiding this ugly practice behind a religion is cowardly. This is beyond child abuse it's violence and rape. And that = jail time. The laws don't change inside the compound. It's time these people learned the rules. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Just a little correction
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rickiey on Apr 16, 2008 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone who was raised (and then subsequently left) the Mormon church, I'd like to point out that this was NOT a Mormon church.

The Mormons banned poligamy over a century ago. And not with a "our public policy is that it isn't allowed, nudge, nudge, wink, wink".

It is an automatic excommunication from their church.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just a little correction Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Just a little correction Posted by: herroyalhighness

Comments are closed-

More Credence If
[Report this comment]
Posted by: curiousdwk on Apr 16, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would give this author more credence if she were more objective. But by deliberately confusing the issue of polygamy with child abuse and intergenerational sex, she comes across as someone just ranting and raving. Which is too bad because what we need, especially now, is dialogue on these separate issues rather than emotional obfuscations.

And why didn't she discuss the issue of justice for the children? Is it really best for the 400 children to be separated from their mothers as well as their fathers? Why can't the children stay with their mothers? Wouldn't that be a much better system than making them wards of the state? And what happens now with the women? If the men are all removed (and incarcerated?), what happens to these women who were not working and are not prepared to take care of themselves? These issues need to be considered just as much as the guilt of the men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More Credence If Posted by: Deadbeat Dad
» RE: More Credence If Posted by: cisc
» RE: more credence if Posted by: sugarnut
» RE: More Credence If Posted by: dudelette

Comments are closed-

Geoff w/ag
[Report this comment]
Posted by: muzunguhowru on Apr 16, 2008 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the issue of so called polygamy were only about mature females submitting themselves to to a bunch of wacko white males in this bizarre lifestyle in the name of religion I wouldn't care less. This bleating over the "poor" mothers sickens me. The feminists are forever trying to treat grown women like children, too stupid to know whats right for them (whenever it suits them). I wonder if this was a bunch of native Americans doing this or an alternate "amazon" religious sect where women got to subject men/boys would they be so shrill?

Unfortunately this really about about a bunch of dirt bags using religion as a cover to gain access to little girls and to cast out young boys onto the street like trash (yes ladies; children with penises are being abused here too..not that you care)

Grown women can (and should) fend for themselves and be held accountable for enabling their so called husbands. Forget the religious BS. Lock up the men and lock up the co-conspiring mothers too. The insanity has to stop. Keep the extraneous agendas out of it. Its About the children stupid!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» muzunguhowru Posted by: dudelette
» RE: muzunguhowru Posted by: muzunguhowru

Comments are closed-

the whole truth and nothing but the truth
[Report this comment]
Posted by: solrev on Apr 16, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The truth is out there, but it is rally hard to find especially when people state their opinions as a matter of fact. “Prosecuting Polygamy” polygamy is not even an issue; these fundamentalists are not stupid. They have circumvented polygamy laws simply by not seeking legal status. An invisible extraordinary brave 16-year-old girl filed an anonymous complaint naming an individual living in Arizona on probation for a similar offense. If sexual abuse, real or imaginary, against a minor occurs in your town does the state have the authority to abduct every child in your town? What legal recourse do mothers of children who have not been abused have? Have they forfeited their rights as citizens by being members of a religious group? What length will Texas go to, now that they have journeyed down this slippery slope? Brainwashed, most progressives believe that anyone with a belief system beyond that of science is brainwashed. I do not even know anyone who holds the beliefs of this group, but I would be willing to bet that the incidence of child abuse as defined by statute is no greater in this population than in the general population. Then I do not see any difference between the Christian right trying to force their moral laws on a secular society or a secular society trying to force their moral laws on a religious community. Is it even possible for human beings to overcome the “my way or the highway” syndrome? Do the women of this group feel abused? I guess we need to start the swift boat people parade and find out. We are a nation of laws when it is convenient but we are always a nation of people. The truth may well turn out to be something we can not handle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Author Misidentifed the Root Cause of the Problem
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Libertine on Apr 16, 2008 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, to be completely correct technically, what the FLDS is practicing is PolyGYNY, not polygamy, per se. Polygyny is when only men may have multiple spouses, where polygamy allows both men and women to do so. Polygyny is the most common type of polygamy, but that doesn't make it synonymous with polygamy, as the media is usually prone to assume.

Second, the root cause behind the abuse of the women and children here is an extreme of patriarchal fundamentalist religion, not the polygyny, per se. The truth of this is borne out by the fact that children who live in insular patriarchal fundamentalist religious compounds in monogamous families typically are subject to the same types of abuse. Monogamy, in and of itself, is hardly a protection against abuse for children or women.

Third, the existence of polyamory, which allows both men and women to have multiple spouses, but is secular and egalitarian in nature, shows that abuse is not an inherent characteristic in multi-spouse families.

Fourth, adequate laws already exist to protect people from domestic abuse and underage/forced marriage, regardless of the form their families take. The fault here lies with law enforcement officials who were hesitant to enforce laws that they have no compunction about enforcing when the abuse happens in a monogamous and/or secular family, because our society tends to view religion as a sacred cow.

It's not the form a family takes that determines likelihood of abuse, but, rather, how people act within whatever form their relationships take. What increases the likelihood of abuse is adhering to an extreme insular patriarchal fundamentalist religion, regardless of whether the marriages are monogamous or polygynous.

The government rightly needs to protect children from underage marriage, whether it's monogamous or polygynous...or polyandrous, for that matter. It also needs to protect the women from marriage under duress, regardless of age. And for those polygynous marriages that were entered into by those old enough to consent of their own free will, then leave them alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Archie Bunker here Posted by: yale

Comments are closed-

"forced to have sex" = RAPE!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: madaha on Apr 16, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why can't journalists call a spade a spade anymore?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Yes, but....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mamadanc on Apr 16, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, each individual point Ms Hamilton made is relevant but the wholesale separation of children from their mothers is indefensible. And where are these children going after they have been separated from their mothers'? institutions? foster homes? The options are as bad if not worse than the cult. Our society has little ability to look at issues systemically, analyzing solutions to their logical and inevitable outcomes...in other words, the long view. These are children's lives we are manipulating and the State of Texas is doing mothers and children no favors. Instead, the government of Texas is acting in ill thought-out, destruction ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes, but.... Posted by: ladyoracle
» good fathers Posted by: e rice
» RE: good fathers Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

Religion should never be a cloak for molestation and rape
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ladyoracle on Apr 16, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It takes a whole culture for children to be sexually and physically abused -- adults to do it and others to take no action when they suspect what is happening."

This is true, and applaud the writer for making note of it. There is a bias against the victims, in service of protecting the adults who are the abusers, and that is just wrong. The U.S. needs to be sure enough of itself to prosecute criminals who call sexual abuse "religion."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If You Want the Inside Story, Read This Book
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mcd on Apr 16, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe in religious freedom. I had no strong feelings about polygamy until I read Carolyn Jessup's book, Escape. If you have any doubts that the FLDS should be outlawed, read this book. It's riveting, scary reading and demonstrates that polygamy, as practiced by the FLDS, turns men into bullies and criminals, and women into slaves. And the seventh paragraph should be corrected to read "favorable old men," since the younger men are simply thrown out of the community so the old fellows can have the young women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

LDS needs a homeland
[Report this comment]
Posted by: billwald on Apr 16, 2008 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Utah should submit a declaration of independence to Congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fine by me. Posted by: Beck
» RE: LDS needs a homeland Posted by: yale

Comments are closed-

OK I live near Bountiful and I am APPALLED
[Report this comment]
Posted by: stellabloo on Apr 16, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... ack! The sad sad faces of the little FLDS girls, knowing that their destiny is to be forced into sexual slavery to their wrinkly ol uncle. Yes, this is child abuse and I am dismayed by my own powerlessness to help.
Our usually PC Canadian government is directly complicit. First, our local MP receives thousands in campaign contributions from Blackmore Construction (as in "Bishop" Blackmore). I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for this two-faced gutless bastard who is supposed to be representing ALL of his constituents, including me.
As well, our provincial government funds the two warring(!) FLDS schools to the tune of $1/2 million annually - for substandard education that focusses on "religious studies". There is no career preparedness or career training because there are no careers.
Moreover, child welfare authorities in Creston are unaccountable cowards who would rather harass innocent people in any other part of town, than step in and do their job. The silent pleas of those little girls with the dark circles under their eyes fall on willfully deaf ears.
Religious freedom, my ass ... I'm sorry. We theoretically have the right to do as we like behind closed doors - as long as we don't hurt anyone else. Any man is free to take a wife and a "lover" - or two - and draw up legal protection for his children - as long as there is mutual consent. If polygamy is legalized, then there is no protection for the wife who disagrees with her husband's self-righteous pretensions.
And Big Love is a load of crap too; none of those Hollywood actresses even remotely resemble the miserable and frumpy faces of the downtrodden pieces of meat that once held as much potential as any other human being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» protection for the wife Posted by: e rice

Comments are closed-

This is wonderful news...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blue Heron on Apr 16, 2008 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those redneck fanatical religious/ partners in crime wives won't be too happy about, but here ya go:

"U.S. Supreme Court hears Texas argue death penalty for child rapists"

- from Dallasnews.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is wonderful news... Posted by: Blue Heron

Comments are closed-

The LDS
[Report this comment]
Posted by: willymack on Apr 16, 2008 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are a bizarre mutation of an already bizarre superstitution/belief system called christianity, in which its followers are expected to believe preposterous puports, which have no more grounding in Reality than Bugs Bunny, the beautiful prose in the psalms and beatitudes notwithstanding. Is it any wonder that anyone so gullible as to accept the blandishments of the LDS church will also go along with polygamy? This is the ideal boys' club wherein men are lord and master over all they survey, including a harem of several women. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but iv'e found my wife of forty years to be all I can handle (and often MORE). Any more would probably kill me or drive me crazy, if it hasn't already. Hmmmmm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The LDS Posted by: SOWILO

Comments are closed-

What I'd like to know is...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JimmyVaughan on Apr 16, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...who are these guys who can handle more than one wife?

Frankly, I would have died from exhaustion after the first month or so of marriage. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

For your consideration
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Rishy on Apr 16, 2008 12:49 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are very good reasons for removing all the children in that community from BOTH parents

At minimum until the investigations are complete. Both parents of every child in that compound were complicit in neglect/endangerment of minor children. Not because of the plural marriages but because of the child molestation.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if this scenario had taken place in an urban "project" and the facade of "religion" were removed most people would be screaming for the mothers’ heads on a pike. But bleach the skin and throw them in a Prairie Dress and somehow the behavior is no longer tantamount to pimping out their underage daughters? Interesting how that works.

I am an activist for freedom of religion (I practice a belief set that is not considered mainstream in the USA). I am also a proponent of plural marriage (of self empowered adult humans)--I believe that can be a very stable arrangement for raising a family that will most likely never suffer poverty or a dearth of caring adults committed to caring for and raising the children.

While freedom from State sponsored religion is guaranteed in the first amendment it does not release the practitioners of any faith from the bounds of the law or decent human behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: For your consideration Posted by: SOWILO

Comments are closed-

Separate the issues
[Report this comment]
Posted by: PaulK on Apr 16, 2008 12:58 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are forced marriages legal in the U.S.? No. Can you prove a forced marriage? Yes, if the victim testifies.

Is statutory rape legal? No. Can you prove statutory rape? Definitely, if the girl has a child and you can get the father's DNA. Probably, if you get the victim in the hospital and can get a sperm and hair sample.

Is any form of polygamy legal? Not in the U.S. Can you prove polygamy? No, not unless one or preferably two of the participants testify. Any group of adults can be roommates.

I oppose polygyny as a practice because it leads to great numbers of half-crazy young loveless men in the countries which practice it. It has been implicated as one source of numbers of suicide bombers. Related to this inequality is a relative powerlessness among the women of these countries.

I feel that a law against polygamy doesn't prevent the practice completely, but does minimize its negative impact on society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Separate the issues Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

This is how WACO started
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Reader11722 on Apr 16, 2008 1:28 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first job of the gov't is to demonize the polygamists. Call their home a compound, allege sex rooms and warn of underage rape. Same as in WACO. WACO resisted and ALL 24 CHILDREN WERE KILLED. (Guess that saved them). Our over-aggressive law enforcement, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Impeach them all and save this great country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is how WACO started Posted by: willymack
» RE: This is how WACO started Posted by: ronniejw

Comments are closed-

Isn't as always: compared to what?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 16, 2008 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not uncommon for underage females in the Los Angeles urban area to offer sex for money and/or drugs. Authorities do what they can to prevent or punish that. By all estimates they are failing.

I won't presume to offer a better solution, even while I know it is much easier for bureaucrats to interfere in families than to do anything about illegal street behavior. I know of two cases where parents have had their lives made very difficult for questionable practices that were reported to authorities whose response was far more questionable than the parents' behavior.

Our social systems do not work well. I don't know that they ever did. But the unspoken assumption that children are being treated in a wholesome way in our American society is a chimera. Yes, there are lots of places where it is worse for kids. But there are also lots of places where it is better.

If our public systems use the excuse of "caring" to raise up some "enemy," the cure becomes worse than the disease. Isn't that exactly what we face with prohibition of drugs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This is a civil rights issue not an issue about child abuse by a cult
[Report this comment]
Posted by: logansafi on Apr 16, 2008 1:45 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, the authorities (a Republican judge, a Republican governor, and a Republican president) had an obligation to present charges against somebody for something before charging police into this compound. This minimal requirement was never met by government officials, and more than a week afterwards, there still are no real criminal charges that have been brought against anybody.

Separating children from parents permanently is not something that should ever be done on flimsy pretexts. However, that is exactly what the State of Texas did as it separated more than 400 children away from their biological parents. You trust The State of Texas and its CPS that much? As a native Texan and a registered nurse I certainly don't. I've seen more than enough of the CPS in my time to not think that they are 100% correct in anything. Far, far from that IMO.

The liberals don't like the people so they do not come to their defense. The conservatives want to show that they are tough (they're always playing tough on somebody or something are they not?) and so they pour their vitriol on the group.

It's a sad situation and reflects badly on Americans as a whole that they are allowing this government abuse of this admittedly rather nutty group of people. I feel sorry for the kids, not because of the abuse they might have suffered while in the compound, but for the abuse the government is putting them through now. And I feel for the parents who have had nobody come to their defense, even as the government has moved to take their kids away in about as an authoritarian and totolitarian a manner as can be imagined. These kids need to be with their parents and not roughed up by government bureaucracies.

Shame on all of America for sitting by stupidly on this one. We have had an obligation to speak out but most of us haven't, or have made the stupidest comments instead of putting any thought into what is actually going on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One person's experience. Posted by: Sojourner

Comments are closed-

Call me crazy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bgamett on Apr 16, 2008 1:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read through the article and all of the posts and am appalled at all of the posters who defend this FLDS community. Shame on you.

In the media, it is mainly the FLDS men who are targets for ridicule, but the women (note I said "women" here, not girls) should also be held accountable.

The adults, all of them, must be brainwashed to offer their daughters up for marriage as children. As a mother of 2 young daughters, I cringe at the thought of that idea. Our government and law enforcement is definately not perfect (show me a system that is!) but they absolutely have done the right thing in this case.

I support alternative lifestyles. With a group of CONSENTING ADULTS, do as you please. When it involves minors, that is where the line is drawn.

I am very familiar with the LDS church since I live in a very LDS area (although I am not LDS). I know that the FLDS are a branch of the LDS, but their views are similar in many respects. The LDS are no longer polygamists, but have a large number of children. The number of wives and number of children have something to do with the level of heaven that you reach in the afterlife. Funky, I know. I don't know all the details, but these people are "just" trying to secure their places. Unfortunately, they are using girls and counting them as wives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: logansafi
» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: bgamett
» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: logansafi
» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: bgamett
» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: logansafi
» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: bgamett
» RE: distinction Posted by: bgamett

Comments are closed-

Face It: "Old Men" Perverts Getting Off by Screwing Young Girls IS ABUSE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sofla100 on Apr 16, 2008 2:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are at all in favor of the rights of women and children then you have to support the action authorities took in Texas. Bottom line, in some countries, little children are nothing more then slaves and child brides and child sexual abuse may be tolerated. But, that is not the case in America. Just as it is illegal to hit your wife, it is illegal to "wed" a 14 year old girl to some old man. Let's face it, these "old men" are basically perverts getting off sexually on young girls. Referencing so-called "biblical references," that "allow it" are just rationalizations. These girls have been raped and sexually abused. As for those who should have been protecting them, their own mothers, if it is proven they did not do so, the children need to be permanently removed from them. Perhaps they can be adopted into better homes. As for the "old men" perverts, they should be charged with rape, then sent to jail. In jail, Bubba can deal with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Most of this world's problems are EVERY religion.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SOWILO on Apr 16, 2008 2:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish that I would see the destruction of every world religion in my lifetime.

This is garbage.

Pure garbage.

Maybe the war in the middle east will have one decent outcome- the pure destruction of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

We can only hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Right on SOWILO! Posted by: yale

Comments are closed-

Namby Pamby
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SOWILO on Apr 16, 2008 3:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The human race needs to stand on its own two feet away from religion.

This namby-pambyism needs to stop.

NOW.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

And
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SOWILO on Apr 16, 2008 4:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I loathe people who defend religion as something other than cute literature.

Sure, there might be a "spiritual element" in things and, hey, scientists may have found the "god/Tao" particle.

Religion was put in place to keep the human organism and the potential of human creativity in line. And it was a way to understand the universe before we grew as a species

Religion = Death.

Let's destroy it before it kills the whole human race.

Liberals and progressives who defend religion are abject traitors.

TRAITORS TO WOMEN AND TO THE HUMAN RACE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: And Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: And Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

AGAIN!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Longdream on Apr 16, 2008 4:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nine feet of thread.

About WHAT?

Some brand new mental defectives have shown up to defend polygamy and childhood marriage.

And a whole set of other people with time on their hands have "debated" with them at great, and I use the term quantitavely, length.

Polygamy is against the law. Period. Anyone who maintains that more than one woman is his wife on whatever grounds, is unjustified.

Anyone who impregnates a child is a criminal, and belongs in prison. Period.

Anyone responsible for a child who stood by and watched her be abused and did not do everything in his or her power to rescue the child is a criminal accessory. Period.

This isn't about religious freedom, governmental tyranny, or anyone's right to raise a child in a chosen way.

It's about criminal behavior that was allowed to go on too long, and it bears no debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sex hysteria AGAIN! Posted by: logansafi
» RE: Not even a good try. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Not even a good try. Posted by: Livemike
» RE: Not even a good try. Posted by: Longdream

Comments are closed-

It should be legal.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wishninja on Apr 16, 2008 7:25 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the cult is acting reasonable. They have a priest that personally knows the female that wants to be married. He judges her in his professional opinion guided by the laws of god to be old and wise enough to be a wife. The decision of who she should marry is a community decision and she trusts (knows) that is the best man on earth for her. Their marriage is divine. All people in different cultures mature at different rates. I think the law's suppression of the young has to end. These are people we are talking about not robots or states property. These "children" you are talking about are more mother, more mature, healthier, and much better at being a wife and running a house than the majority of mothers I know. Their families are efficient, safe and supportive. All I ask is they allow anyone who wants to leave to do so. No abuse (real abuse) should be tolerated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Prosecuting polygamy doesn't help the adult women
[Report this comment]
Posted by: YogiBear on Apr 16, 2008 10:04 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder. If polygamy were legal, wouldn't that eliminate the need for polygamists to retreat into compounds in the hills? There is nowhere for those folks to turn except each other. I presume many of the women who might otherwise object to aspects of the cults keep silent because they don't wish to be cast out entirely. (Problem is, if it were legal, we'd need about a million more lawyers to work out divorce, child custody and wills.)

Personally, I think most of the women who marry a man with other wives do so because they are bereft of self confidence, much like many of the women you see in domestic abuse relationships. But nothing is worse for a person like that than to further marginalize her by making her very existence illegal. I feel much the same way about prostitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If you think the USA is bad...check out the age of consent in other countries
[Report this comment]
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 16, 2008 10:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE WORTHLESS.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SOWILO on Apr 16, 2008 10:47 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it.

What use are they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well put. Posted by: herbal

Comments are closed-

Easy targets -- conditions unchanged
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Apr 17, 2008 1:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Narrowness, ignorance, denial of knowledge and reliance on particular faiths or asceticisms may bring about social reproductive arrangements such as polygamy. This is no proof that polygamy brings about such conditions. Mormon fundamentalism is only a special case of fundamentalisms, in this country largely centered on biblical and judeo-christian teaching. There are a multitude of fundamentalisms. It is not that the fundamentalism is Mormon that brings about the subjection of women, the abuse of progeny or unjust and un-equal relations; so do other fundamentalisms, both strictly 'religious' or 'secular'.

The "compounds" provided the State with a centralized and organized target containing a multitude of persons in order to facilitatate its exercise of power. The same conditions existing in these "compounds" exist in a dispersed and generalized way throughout our entire society of 300 million+ persons.

It is neither honest nor responsible to side, invoke and and invite State Power into the lives of these people in such a cavalier way without thinking very carefully about what this means in regard to the exercise of State Power in general. Indeed, there are positive and negative aspects to this intervention; however, it is well to heed that truism which is not repeated enough these days: "Be Careful What You Wish For".

We ARE in highly authoritarian, extremely hierarchic and un-equal social relations in this historical moment of ours. This has relevance to questions of justice, of equity, of dignity, and of human development in reaching forward for a better way of living. From the State's perspective, this particular intervention is but a PRACTICE of social control. They are 'learning as they go'. Ought we be surprised when suddenly a loud knock sounds at our OWN door accompanied by a full contingent of tanks, weaponry and specialized personnel because the State disapproves of other particular ways of living? It CAN happen here; it IS happen-ing here; it has, for a long long time. In struggling against Patriarchy, why invoke and invite THE contemporary Patriarch, the Corporate-State in collusion with the Church and it's own network of faith-based incorporations?

Monogamy holds no privilege over polygamy in questions of the oppression of children and women AND men. These conditions come from elsewhere -- that's where energies and struggles would be better directed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If gay marriage is OK, then polygamy is OK.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dwatkins9 on Apr 17, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Child abuse is against the law in its own right, and those laws should be enforced.

That said, you can't just assume that all who wish the polygamous lifestyle are child abusers, any more than you can assume that all gay men want to seduce teenaged boys. To assume so in either case is bigotry.

It seems to me that, if we can countenance gay marriage, then we should also countenance polygamy. They are equally legitimate lifestyle choices. Consenting adults should be allowed to love as they please, right? It seems to me that every argument in favor of gay marriage applies with equal force to polygamy. Restricting marriage to one man and one woman, as opposed to two men or two women, is arbitrary and hence unjust. Why, then, is it not equally arbitrary, and hence equally unjust, to restrict marriage to just two people?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Whether you see Jesus as a historical or
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cisc on Apr 17, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a religious figure, his fundamental message was/is that in the face of Roman tyranny human justice was possible, it is a choice every individual makes. We all know right from wrong and we all have the power to choose. When faith is misused it is not the philosophy that is criminal, it is the conduct of the person that is questionable. Faith IS used as a sacred cow to hide behind so that motives and actions cannot be questioned. You don't have to have any particular religious view to get the concept of right or wrong. Religion is not the crime here. What this cult is practicing is not religion it is a lifestyle choice. Their lifestyle choice breaks laws and endangers children. Those children are not being given the tools they need to survive, they are being illegally exploited. Moral, civil, and religious laws have all been broken here. Sixteen year olds with three or four children is pretty much iron clad evidence for anyone who can do simple math. Where is the sixteen year old who made the call? Do authorities have a name? When someone makes a hushed phone call begging for rescue and then cannot be found it is about considerably more than old men's sex fantasies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Balance the extremes
[Report this comment]
Posted by: herbal on Apr 17, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure underage sex is statutory rape before age of consent and should be prosecuted regardless of Wikka, LDS or athiest affiliations.

On the other hand, if consenting adults want to live a' trois or many in a group grope, sex and reproductive rights are a private affair.

My uncle, Ted Mullen, was a US Marshall in AZ when he was required to participate in the raid of a Mormon town near the Utah border in the 1950's. They forcibly separated families, taking children from their parents and from their siblings as well as extended families. There was much unnecessary suffering all around. Ted expressed this as his most regretful act of his life when he was in his 90's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

350 lawyers today try to defend 417 children and their children from the Texas Republican Witch Hunt
[Report this comment]
Posted by: logansafi on Apr 17, 2008 1:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a legal mess! This is as bad as the US federal government trying to defend its use of torture on the Guantanamo POWs in the courts. These Texas Republican witch hunters are now having to defend their stealing away 417 children from their parents.

Pretty sad that some on the liberal Democratic Party side are actually backing all this. In a country where law actually protects the people and not The Machine, one brings charges against the accused first based on some real evidence of an individual crime, and does not just steal hundreds of kids away from hundreds of parents as some sort of group punishment. Shame on the Republican governor and the Republican judge who are behind this, with the support of the Republican president who just greeted the pedophile loving Pope on his US vacation.

These Republican witch hunters are not protectors of children, but rather those who themselves are abusers of children in many, many ways. How 'bout medical coverage for our kids for just one thing? Got trillions of $$$ for killing kids in foreign lands but nothing for medical care for American kids?

Dumb Democrats for staying silent about this governmental abuse of power in Eldorado. Shame on you, too!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Breeding for Bucks
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Maxwell House on Apr 17, 2008 1:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sects push girls to breed like bunnies not just to get into their version of Heaven, but for money. While the polygamous-powers-that-be instill the thought that government outside the compounds are evil and not to be trusted (as is anyone outside the compound), they gladly sign up for welfare and food stamps, which adds up to a whole lot of kids and a whole lot of money when you have girls being raped as soon as their periods start. The first wife is the only "legal" wife; the rest are considered single parents by our law and used by the sect as breeders for bucks.

And for sex, of course, which is why they dump so many pre- and teenaged boys, whom the old guys consider competition.

I've read a lot of books on this subject and I just read an article about a woman who took her three children and fled the sect to Canada, and later was a top witness against Warren Jeffs. She's working and doing all she can to raise her children in a normal setting. Now her polygamous ex-husband is suing her for custody of their children, two girls and a boy. She already owes her lawyer thousands and it just keeps going up, while the sect is paying for the husband's legal fees. What I want to know is, why Canada is letting this happen? Would they really let these chidren be forced back to this dangerous lifestyle?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What is the penalty for Poligamy?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rickiey on Apr 17, 2008 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two wives.

*ducks and runs for cover*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Holding Court
[Report this comment]
Posted by: texasnature on Apr 17, 2008 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems a simple if not tedious thing to me for the judge to require that for every child to be considered to be returned to the "ranch", 2 parents must step forward and give names to be registered and acknowledged by the court. I believe we will either begin to see a pattern and be able to build a family tree for these kids after a while - or, the cowardly dads will run and hide and the kids won't go back. Each child surely has two parents, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Due process and the rule of law is more important than "children"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Apr 17, 2008 6:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So do not bother me with hysterical screams about "rapists" until we can get the facts in this case. And if evidence of rape or abuse cannot be presented SOON for each and every one of the families, then the children from those families should be returned. And where there is evidence of rape, then you may prosecute.

But no one needs to be convicted of anything on TV or in the "Huffington Post".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Wake up Fembots
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rwmk12 on Apr 17, 2008 9:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If polygamy and marrying sixteen year olds is a crime we need to invade two thirds of the world... it is none of the State's business... and media coverage has gone from sexual assault charges to polygamy smeer and religious cult charges... wake up spoon fed tweedle dumbs you are being manipulated by the media/State. No one has invaded a small village and taken all the children because one child was molested... no one has raided the Catholic Church. These people seem like retards, granted. But if these women are willing to settle for being wife 1 of 5, then that is their perogative, and none of your business! Take your veneer morality and shove it. Why don't you get outraged about something real, like the widespread child poverty in America. It is obvious that the State does not like people living collectively, and the media knows what buttons to press for the simpleton veneer moralists out there. Divide and conquer: No collective communities. The crime is they aren't insured and in debt up to their necks, and aren't interested in the society of spectacle and violence. Texas's children? Give me a break. This was a highly political act, which is being propagated to appear as a moral imperative, but as Waco showed there is nothing moral about a state violating it's citizen's rights. Murder and kidnapping in the name of morality... does no one see the inherent problem here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Shut up, dumbbots Posted by: dudelette

Comments are closed-

The Girls are never given a CHOICE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Maxwell House on Apr 17, 2008 10:22 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What some people here don't seem to understand (and thankfully they are in the minority), is that these children are being raised as virtual slaves. The children are isolated from the outside world and only taught what Warren Jeffs and the other perves in power want them to know. The girls don't stay in the compound school for long, where they are taught by compound teachers who teach them only what WJ wants them to know, as they are expected to "marry" (code for "be raped by") some old guy who is chosen as their "husband" as soon as the girls can start producing babies. These kids have never seen TV or read books from the library, or even talked to "outsiders" (anyone outside the compound). So the girls have no information to make informed choices with, and they don't get a choice, anyway. The religion aspect is merely used as a tool to not pay taxes and to hold power over the uneducated(obviously they are not the first to do that).

It's also common for the men to marry/rape sisters, so your half-sibling is also your cousin and will be married off to your uncle? Who knows. The point is, the girls have no education, no information and no choices. And that, my friends, is WRONG.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Starts lying from the first sentence.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Livemike on Apr 18, 2008 2:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is nothing so dangerous for a child as an insular, patriarchal religious organization, "

The children at Mount Carmel were perfectly safe until the US government intervened.

"extraordinary bravery of a 16-year-old girl"
What it requires courage to send an anonymous phone call?

"First, authorities in general are too fearful of intervening in religious enclaves, even when the harm is so awful and apparent."

Another lie, plenty of officials are salivating to take down "religious cults" and have been for years. As for the harm being "so awful and apparent" none of the victims seems to have complained! Nor was the harm apparent prior to the phone call.

"If Canadian law, though, protects polygamy, it also protects the child and spousal abuse that inevitably follow."

Another lie (actually two). Firstly even if something is protected it does not follow that abuse resulting from it is also protected. Gun rights for instance don't allow you to murder people.
Secondly child and spousal abuse do not inevitably follow polygamy, in fact they may reduce it.

"His conviction alone should have put all authorities in the jurisdictions where the sect resides on the alert to rescue the women and children."

His conviction was for telling someone that they would go to hell if they didn't marry someone. That is hardly rape. What it should have put authorities on alert for the extent that so called "victims" unscrupulousness and deceit.

"Second, Hollywood has romanticized polygamy. Thanks to actress Rita Wilson, Tom Hanks's wife, the fundamentalist Mormons' practice of polygamy has been glamorized in the nauseating HBO series, Big Love."

Big Love hardly glamourises polygamy and in fact shows some polygamists indulging in the very behaviour that the author condemns. In fact it merely shows polygamists as human beings rather than the devil incarnate. That's all it takes in leftwingistan to be condemned as "gloryifying" polygamy. Of course even this portrayal is far more positive than Hollywood usually gives. To claim that it in any way favours polygamists is delusional.

"Big Love is business, obviously, but it's business that profits from the abuse of women and children."

Rubbish. That's no more true than The Sopranos profits from prostitution, loan sharking and gambling.

"Do you know why children's issues are so difficult to get through state and federal legislatures?"

They aren't.

"Third, as a culture, we are slow to react to evidence of child sex abuse."

Again, rubbish. If there is any evidence of child sex abuse the police react far faster than any other crime I know of. Remember the McMartin case? Or Waco? Well the last one doesn't count since by the time of the raid the evidence had been discredited.

"Adult members who will not talk truthfully to authorities should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice."

Thank god the Bush administration removed the right to silence!

"The question that should be on everyone's mind at this point is where is the girl who tipped off authorities? I am afraid to know the answer, to be perfectly honest."

Because the answer might be that she's not anywhere near the "compound" and never was.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

There is the law.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Longdream on Apr 18, 2008 4:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But apart from the law, which is clear, is the human tragedy of this case.

One of the things that makes me so furious at the libertarian schmucks on this thread is that they care absolutely nothing for the kids, just for the principle that the authorities shouldn't be able to take them away.

There's a terrible human cost here. Those mothers have been powerless, have been forced to live inside cult walls, some of them have been born inside the cult walls, and the children don't understand, and only want to be left inside with their mothers. The children are not happy to be released. They're terrified and are despairing. The mothers are bereft.

For them, there's no rule of law. They're victims. The children would have to be deprogrammed for years before they could accept that they're not in the hands of Satan. Some of them would never accept it, and would be condemned to years of misery.

So what do we do? The People of the United States have agreed that keeping individuals captive by physical or mental means, and having sex with children are criminal behaviors. Groups that meet the criteria of cults come under federal scrutiny and are dismantled when people inside come to harm.

There's a fleet of lawyers on the case now, out to make some money or get name recognition, which in their business is as good as money, and they've parsed and split and complicated the case to the point that there's going to be stasis measured in weeks while conflicting motions are heard.

The people that should be removed from "the ranch" are the licentious old crocks who are "the Prophets". Without them, the children would be safe, and could be returned to their mothers. DNA evidence could be collected at a later time, and the grandiose beasts can rot in lockup until their trial dates.

Here's hoping the Texas prosecutor has his head on straight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What's more disturbing--
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Alli on Apr 18, 2008 5:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reports of underage girls forced to marry, have sex with, and bear children for older men, or the number of people here who insist on defending that lifestyle? Truly, truly sick.

The government isn't to blame in this case. The pedophiles who continue these fundamentalist sects deserve all of the blame. If not for their actions, the state wouldn't have any cause or reason to remove those children from their homes. They wouldn't be faced with trying to find the lesser evil--letting the children go back to that lifestyle, or placing them in foster care. There is no happy ending here. There's no perfect solution. People were raping children. Those of you who are ranting about "freedom for alternative lifestyles" should keep in mind that this "lifestyle" amounts to nothing more than abuse and rape. Would you have these children left in such an environment in the name of freedom? Isn't it impending on your neighbor's freedom to deny him the right to carry on his chosen lifestyle of raping your child? Come on! Those poor kids (and the women too, most likely) have had their lives ruined. Not by the state, but by the cult. Now the state has to try to find the best scenario, knowing that no matter what decision they make, those kids have still been raped. Any known FLDS compound in this country should be throroughly investigated and shut down immediately if ANY evidence of polygamy, underage marriage, or rape is found. The adults found practicing these things should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Maybe if these pedophiles can be stamped out now, the next generation of children born to raped teenagers might have a chance of growing up in an environment that won't perpetuate the cycle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Appalling; Mob Rules, Civil Rights Need Not Apply
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gazooks on Apr 19, 2008 7:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've come to expect a reasonably thoughtful and relatively intelligent forum of comments on Alternet, lacking to a measurable degree a Springeresque vitriol, venomous abusiveness, irrational and mindless bias and the unrestrained emotional regurgitation of moral self righteousness. It's a stunning pity and a shame for anyone with supposedly broad views and progressive sensibilities to witness the hysteria of mob mentality revealed in this issue.

I find the numerous expressions of willingness to abandon the sense of need to holding governmental authority to account for this grotesque transgression of civil liberties and constitutional protections of due process.

In Procedural Due Process the government is required to follow fair procedures in both criminal and civil cases in order to safeguard the individual against the power of the state. It's primary to the law despite evidence to the contrary in this administration's Justice Department.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause requires the government to comply with certain standards in criminal cases BEYOND the rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, which includes the right to a presumption of innocence.

The Court also ruled in the case of In re Gault (1967) that juveniles were entitled to some of the same procedural rights as adults.

The fourth Amendment states;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the PERSONS or things to be seized.

Therefore, the Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures must be reasonable, and that warrants for searches and arrests must be SPECIFIC.

The Fourteenth Amendment states;

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws.

This would include, by the way, the Colorado Springs woman, a 33 year old, who's been arrested for the bogus complaint call that precipitated this egregious abuse of law enforcement.

There have been many comments deriding "defenders of polygamy" and accusing others of not caring for the plight of the children involved. But the advocacy of abandoning the protections designed specifically to prevent this exact type of hysterical legal reaction to a situation, without constitutional considerations to all does a disservice not only to these children, but to all American children and every American citizen past, present and future.

The name calling and accusations are appalling, the disregard for the Bill of Rights is frightening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

POLYGAMIST CHILDREN ARE SAFER INSIDE THE COLONY
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Malcus Garvey on Apr 20, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Her story on polygamist colonies needing severe prosecution is very contradictory. She claims to have the lives of children and women in mind, but on the polygamist sites no children are being killed and buried; no women stalked and murdered; on the other hand, what is happening in the (so-called) safer world of the govt.?

I think possible pedophilia should outweigh the risks that await these children in the sex-trade, prostitution, and murderous capitals of the outside world. All these children will do is end-up worse off than they were inside the colony.


Manger Borne

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If this happened to the gay or lesbian community there would be marches
[Report this comment]
Posted by: onlyme on Apr 21, 2008 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you really want to address the problem we should repeal the anti-polygamy statutes. This will allow these societies to come out of the closet and into the open. Integration is the best approach.

Once polygamy is legal again, these families will feel safer to come out in the open. Polygamous families will be recorded with marriage certificates. The same standards that apply to marriage (blood test, blood relationships, age of consent) will used in polygamous marriages.

Parenthood will be known and tracable via county birth records.

So will their divorces and separations.

Repealing the anti-polygamy laws will allow everyone to have a better view of those who leave their faith and lifestyle, along with those who successfully practice polygamy.

In addition, those who desire to leave the faith or not participate in plural marriage will find it easier to do so - when they are free of the contempt and condemnation of others. I believe that the successes, trials, and failures of their marriages will be more widely known and documented once the anti-polygamy statutes are repealed.

And when it comes to abuse of minors - action can be taken quickly against real offenders without destroying the lives and families of innocents as collateral damage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Distinctions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dgleason on Apr 22, 2008 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grow tired of a populace where whatever side you are on of an issue your 'rationalizations' are justified, while the other guy's rationalizations are heresy.

Liberals and conservatives alike will wake up some morning and find that the government owns their children.

The rallying cry that infers that someone in the government knows how to solve these complex issues of how people choose to raise families is to me very problematic.

The same people that rail about gays being cast as pedifiles are willing to characterize all those who would pursue complex families as the same.

Why is it that criminals that are of our particular mainstream are criminals because of the individual's choices but criminals of a lifestyle we have chosen to judge are all criminal and debased as a group.

I long for a time where we approach issues rationally understanding that many family structures have been successful over the course of human events and it is as likely that it is the american stripe of culture that is impacting these expressions.

traditional marriage is not the cause of incest, even though that is where it shows up a lot.

Danielle

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

AMAZING
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gellero1 on Apr 16, 2008 12:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never ceases to amaze me.....the excuses progressives/statists/feminists will make for Government oppression that suits their agenda.

I wonder what Ms. Hamilton's opinion of the assault with snipers, mini-tanks, ninja style troopers with automatic weapons is.

Oh???.....havn't seen the videos yet??

People of this ilk supported the heinous prosecution of the innocent McMartins in that nortorious 'child abuse at day care' cae in Los Angeles.

Funny how the government is quick to release 911 calls when it suits their purpose, but no info is forthcoming, nor is the 'secret informant'.

Shouldn't be long before the kids are brainwashed, like in the McMartin case, to say they were having sex with devils.

This story is far from over. I'm sure the pregnant teens would have been trotted out for the State's 'dog and pony show' long ago, if it had any degree of truth.

The age of consent is 16. Living an alternative lifestyle in the so-called 'land of the free, home of the brave'.......is not illegal....yet.

Oh....and having a communal family with several women is not poligamy, as long as there is no civil contract.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That would be a no. Posted by: Longdream
» Michael Savage talking points! Posted by: free woman
» RE: Michael Savage talking points! Posted by: Deadbeat Dad
» RE: Michael Savage talking points! Posted by: Deadbeat Dad
» the reality actually is that Posted by: goatini
» RE: AMAZING Posted by: lhoquin
» RE: AMAZING Posted by: clthompson
» RE: AMAZING Posted by: wishninja
» RE: AMAZING Posted by: e rice
» RE: AMAZING Posted by: cisc

Comments are closed-

IF there is abuse then yes, it should be stopped.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nzo on Apr 16, 2008 1:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But if people decide to live according to a lifestyle that is different to your own moral values, and that lifestyle does not set out disempower and harm, then keep your interfering toxic hands off! Many of these folks know more about community than you ever will.

In fact, most of you (including the heavy-handed social welfare agencies and law enforcement hammer wielders) would not know real community if you tripped over it.

One day, in the not too distant future, you may be thankful that there ARE communities you can learn from. But I somehow doubt it. Your armor-plating is way too thick to allow a different way of looking at the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

USA war is OK, Love No OK
[Report this comment]
Posted by: richholland on Apr 16, 2008 2:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spending my winter in Thailand I saw the institute of "mia luang"and "mia noi"Even the Crownprince has a concubine and a legal wife.

Many societies accept more than 1 wife and some (Etiopie) and africa allow more husbands.

Only sick people want to press their limited view on other societies.

The important thing is LOVE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: USA war is OK, Love No OK Posted by: mandiwrite
» RE: USA war is OK, Love No OK Posted by: dionysuseatsyou

Comments are closed-

It's important to distinguish between polygamy and abuse.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Morgaine Swann on Apr 16, 2008 3:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no problem with polygamy, polyandry, or any other form of plural marriage in which all participants are willing and over 18. Adults should live as they choose. That is freedom. It's not the issue here.

The problem with these cults is that they're abusing children. No girl of 14 should be married to anyone for any reason, but forcing her to marry an old man, who is often a relative, or even her mother's husband in some cases, is child molestation, plain and simple. The state has an obligation to protect children when the parents are incapable or unwilling to do so. These groups are fronts for institutionalized pedophilia. Young girls are raped, young boys driven out into the world with nothing, babies forced to have babies. That's what has to stop.

We have to stop kowtowing to ancient desert custom. This is NOT religion - it's culture that's been passed down from thousands of years and half a world away. It has nothing to do with worship, belief or free exercise of anything. Have 45 wives if you choose, but let them enter the arrangement willingly after age 18. If you can't find adult women who'll marry you, tough luck. We don't all get to live as we choose, and nothing gives anyone the right to force a child into an adult relationship. This is the 21st century - we know better than this, and we must do better than this. The state needs to be far more aggressive in saving these children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That is insane Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: That is insane Posted by: xenocyd
» RE: Let's be clear on words Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Let's be clear on words Posted by: Livemike
» You have any actual proof... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Yes, actually Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Yes, actually Posted by: brunowe
» RE: hmmm.... Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Yes, actually Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Better idea Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Absolutely agree Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» I bow to you, Morgaine Posted by: hurricane hugo

Comments are closed-

Mr Jazzy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jazzy on Apr 16, 2008 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is polygamy the cause for child and general spousal abuse? This is a social evil that every one in society regarded as normal until laws such as the Convention to Eliminate Discrmination against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child were ratified by governments in SA and the USA that such conduct is seen as unbecoming

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Life style? Incest?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: GPFrank on Apr 16, 2008 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry about that but polygamy lends to incest in a closed community, how can it be otherwise? If you like incest, look at the history of European royalty and its ailments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Life style? Incest? Posted by: Libertine
» RE: Life style? Incest? Posted by: Livemike

Comments are closed-

"A misguided Canadian public official. . ."
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fork on Apr 16, 2008 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hamilton:
"Yet, it is the rare prosecutor who will prosecute on the basis of the polygamy laws, despite the fact those laws are utterly clear and repeatedly have been upheld against constitutional attack. The largest enclave of FLDS resides in Bountiful, British Columbia. A misguided Canadian public official announced just yesterday that the government cannot go forward with a prosecution of polygamy against the FLDS (where the accounts of abuse are legendary), because of concerns about religious liberty."

While s. 293 of Canada's Criminal Code makes polygamy illegal, the worry is that it would not survive a constitutional challenge, and that this "utterly clear" law would be struck down. In Canada, s. 293 has not "repeatedly . . . been upheld against constitutional attack." The "misguided" official:
"Leonard Doust, a senior member of the B.C. bar, agreed with the conclusions of a special prosecutor last year — that having the state pursue polygamy charges against members of the breakaway Mormon sect in the Creston Valley enclave near the U.S. border would likely fail."

Of course, others disagree:
"After carefully considering some of the complexities attendant to this issue, the authors conclude that s. 293 would likely survive a Charter s. 2(a) challenge."

It is not as cut and dried as Hamilton makes it sound in the quoted paragraph above.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

In Defense of Traditional Marriage
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rcase on Apr 16, 2008 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This discussion gives argument to reasons for support of a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between one man and one woman. When marriage is defined otherwise we open ourselves up to societal breakdown. Multiple partners, groups, all sorts of arrangements are possible if we are left to define it however we want.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, it doesn't Posted by: hurricane hugo

Comments are closed-

conformity
[Report this comment]
Posted by: karyse on Apr 16, 2008 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
okay, assuming I agree with the idea that ALL citizens everywhere MUST conform to MY idea about the right way to live -- does anyone seriously believe that the children will be better off in government foster care? You can't be serious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» YES, they can be serious! Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Foster care Posted by: tulugaq
» RE: Foster care Posted by: Deadbeat Dad

Comments are closed-

conformity addendum
[Report this comment]
Posted by: karyse on Apr 16, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh ya, and since when is it okay to take ALL of the children from an entire community? Even if there were so called "abuse" is everyone in the community guilty? What next, arrest everyone in a "hippie" commune because pot was found? Progressives have lost their ever-loving minds and definitely have a problem remembering (or even ever knowing) history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: conformity addendum Posted by: free woman

Comments are closed-

Conflation
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Vaxalon2 on Apr 16, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article conflates violation of marriage norms with violation of child and spousal relationship norms. Yes, absolutely, it is universally wrong to create disempowering marriages. Yes, it is universally wrong for parents to abandon their children. These just fall under the general rule of "don't hurt people."

What this author seems to be coming at, obliquely (and some commenters, directly) is that for some reason there is a causal relationship between violation of the Western tradition of "One Man, One Woman, One Marriage" and these forms of abuse.

The correlation between fundamentalist religion and the abuse of children would be a much stronger point to make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Conflation Posted by: xenocyd

Comments are closed-

To bad McCain didnt pick Romney for vp before all this.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: yale on Apr 16, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He would have had to find a way to dispose of him if he did. I remember traveling through Utah about 20 years ago, and being told by L.D.S. community police that, if we didnt pick up and move along, we would be arrested. For what I didnt know, I assume we were to close to one of the compounds. So we left without conflict, if they searched us they would have found somthing for a legit arrest. But it always pissed me off that they told us to get out of their town. I thought we lived in a free country and always wondered if the Morman police had the authority to legally do what they were doing. Far as I know my tax dollars paid for that state road we were sitting on in Utah. So who the fuck are these people, who keep themselves isolated from the rest of society? I guess we are finding out now what they were trying to hide, their sick and abusive lifestyle. Oh well, Ive been waiting for Mitt Romney to come to the rescue and try to bail out his comrads in Texas, but we aint seen him yet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Similar sentiments confuse homosexuality with pedophilia
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DerekD on Apr 16, 2008 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole editorial is pretty offensive to me. The issue is not polygamy. Polygamy should be legal and in a perfect America it would be - it's the kind of relationship we have in my household and we should have the same legal protections.

Plenty of people attack homosexuality because they think it's the same as pedophilia - it isn't and most pedophiles are straight. But still people don't mind slandering a lifestyle because it's convenient to their agenda, and they care little about the people living other lives harmlessly since they want to have their say on everyone who is different.

Child abuse, statutory rape, etc. - there are laws for this stuff and this is what needs to be prosecuted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Whats sickening is....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Marlena on Apr 16, 2008 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all the defenders of this misogynistic, patriarchal cult, who under the guise of religion carry out the master and chattel male fantasy!!
The adult women are real life stepford wives, and you alleged "progressives" defend the robotazation of women?? And if you dont think they are robotic, look at the interviews, thay all have the same voice, they all talk and move roboticaly....perfect little living machines. All you defenders of this crap are just enabling it!!
Hope you are happy in your sick little minds

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who is a libertarian? Posted by: goatini
» RE: Who is a libertarian? Posted by: Livemike
» progressives and women Posted by: e rice
» RE: progressives and women Posted by: meeneecat

Comments are closed-

turning justice into injustice
[Report this comment]
Posted by: QCao009 on Apr 16, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When two cultures clash, and the conflict points come to the surface, there is much to learn for both sides. Unfortunately, El Dorado, Texas drives home the incompetence of our federal government the same way Katrina and Iraq have exposed their ineptitude.

I agree with the author that for too long, the authorities in Texas, Nevada, Utah have turned a blind eye to polygamy and the concomitant threat of abuse. Looking at its root cause, we may even find reasons for that blind eye. Does the culture of those small towns - the same reasoning Senator Obama used on the campaign trail to explain the oppression of guns and religion - not encourage this incestuous behavior ? So now, at the end of a faith-based reign of powergrabbing, isn't it predictable that the Bush administration would give free reins to a civil war within those small communities between different sects and cults, some even pretending to pass for Christian dogma and salvation to continue the practice of treating children and women as property ?

Good intention is merely spin if it's propped up by lies. In this case, the separation of the children from their mothers is akin to our disbanding the Iraqui army fresh from the intoxication with our "mission accomplished". Here, in Florida, the people knows better than to trust our child care agencies since the data reveal that our governmental social service foster care system loses the very same children they purport to take care of and wrestle away from the families which they accuse of abuse.

Replacing family abuse and neglect with system abuse and neglect is not the answer. Replacing it with a wink and a nod to the Government's branded and recognized Christian sects simply tears our communities apart and make those very same organizations less compassionate and more divisive.

Isn't it sad that Americans bought the scripted " fight them over there so we do not have to fight them here" line only to once again turn a blind eye to a government who is now fomenting civil strife within our own country ?

Yes, it is time we stop polygamy and abuse. No, having George Bush do it in the name of marriage and Jesus is about the best way to have our efforts to protect these children fail. Blind faith should never be offered to Judas. Even Jesus finds that out way too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Have you even watched "Big Love"?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: palladas on Apr 16, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What has gone without comment so far is that Ms. Hamilton didn't bother to watch the HBO series Big Love before attacking it as "glamor[ous]" and "nauseating". The show depicts -- in all its painful difficulties -- a polygamous arrangement between one man, three women, and seven children. It juxtaposes that arrangement with depictions of a polygamous community much like the one in El Dorado, TX. Life in that community involves authoritarian rule by an old patriarchal male figure and his sexual abuse of young teenage girls. Personally, I find those sections "nauseating" because they have not been glamorized.

As for the rest, Ms. Hamilton's central thesis that polygamy, by nature, leads to child abuse is no less ridiculous than someone suggesting that monogamous marriage, by nature, leads to the same. And yet, the vast majority of abused children reside in "one man, one woman" households, right?

Beware of columnists offering simple, knee-jerk solutions to complicated problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Authorities must vigorously enforce .....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: xvictor on Apr 16, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BULLSHIT!!! MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you're absolutely right! Posted by: e rice

Comments are closed-

SO THIS IS THEIR RIGHT ?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 16, 2008 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we read about this in a foreign country it's uncivilized but here it's OK? Both parents should be put in jail. It's illegal to buy, sell or barter another human being for any reason. Hiding this ugly practice behind a religion is cowardly. This is beyond child abuse it's violence and rape. And that = jail time. The laws don't change inside the compound. It's time these people learned the rules. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Just a little correction
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rickiey on Apr 16, 2008 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone who was raised (and then subsequently left) the Mormon church, I'd like to point out that this was NOT a Mormon church.

The Mormons banned poligamy over a century ago. And not with a "our public policy is that it isn't allowed, nudge, nudge, wink, wink".

It is an automatic excommunication from their church.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just a little correction Posted by: rickiey
» RE: Just a little correction Posted by: herroyalhighness

Comments are closed-

More Credence If
[Report this comment]
Posted by: curiousdwk on Apr 16, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would give this author more credence if she were more objective. But by deliberately confusing the issue of polygamy with child abuse and intergenerational sex, she comes across as someone just ranting and raving. Which is too bad because what we need, especially now, is dialogue on these separate issues rather than emotional obfuscations.

And why didn't she discuss the issue of justice for the children? Is it really best for the 400 children to be separated from their mothers as well as their fathers? Why can't the children stay with their mothers? Wouldn't that be a much better system than making them wards of the state? And what happens now with the women? If the men are all removed (and incarcerated?), what happens to these women who were not working and are not prepared to take care of themselves? These issues need to be considered just as much as the guilt of the men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More Credence If Posted by: Deadbeat Dad
» RE: More Credence If Posted by: cisc
» RE: more credence if Posted by: sugarnut
» RE: More Credence If Posted by: dudelette

Comments are closed-

Geoff w/ag
[Report this comment]
Posted by: muzunguhowru on Apr 16, 2008 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the issue of so called polygamy were only about mature females submitting themselves to to a bunch of wacko white males in this bizarre lifestyle in the name of religion I wouldn't care less. This bleating over the "poor" mothers sickens me. The feminists are forever trying to treat grown women like children, too stupid to know whats right for them (whenever it suits them). I wonder if this was a bunch of native Americans doing this or an alternate "amazon" religious sect where women got to subject men/boys would they be so shrill?

Unfortunately this really about about a bunch of dirt bags using religion as a cover to gain access to little girls and to cast out young boys onto the street like trash (yes ladies; children with penises are being abused here too..not that you care)

Grown women can (and should) fend for themselves and be held accountable for enabling their so called husbands. Forget the religious BS. Lock up the men and lock up the co-conspiring mothers too. The insanity has to stop. Keep the extraneous agendas out of it. Its About the children stupid!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» muzunguhowru Posted by: dudelette
» RE: muzunguhowru Posted by: muzunguhowru

Comments are closed-

the whole truth and nothing but the truth
[Report this comment]
Posted by: solrev on Apr 16, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The truth is out there, but it is rally hard to find especially when people state their opinions as a matter of fact. “Prosecuting Polygamy” polygamy is not even an issue; these fundamentalists are not stupid. They have circumvented polygamy laws simply by not seeking legal status. An invisible extraordinary brave 16-year-old girl filed an anonymous complaint naming an individual living in Arizona on probation for a similar offense. If sexual abuse, real or imaginary, against a minor occurs in your town does the state have the authority to abduct every child in your town? What legal recourse do mothers of children who have not been abused have? Have they forfeited their rights as citizens by being members of a religious group? What length will Texas go to, now that they have journeyed down this slippery slope? Brainwashed, most progressives believe that anyone with a belief system beyond that of science is brainwashed. I do not even know anyone who holds the beliefs of this group, but I would be willing to bet that the incidence of child abuse as defined by statute is no greater in this population than in the general population. Then I do not see any difference between the Christian right trying to force their moral laws on a secular society or a secular society trying to force their moral laws on a religious community. Is it even possible for human beings to overcome the “my way or the highway” syndrome? Do the women of this group feel abused? I guess we need to start the swift boat people parade and find out. We are a nation of laws when it is convenient but we are always a nation of people. The truth may well turn out to be something we can not handle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Author Misidentifed the Root Cause of the Problem
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Libertine on Apr 16, 2008 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, to be completely correct technically, what the FLDS is practicing is PolyGYNY, not polygamy, per se. Polygyny is when only men may have multiple spouses, where polygamy allows both men and women to do so. Polygyny is the most common type of polygamy, but that doesn't make it synonymous with polygamy, as the media is usually prone to assume.

Second, the root cause behind the abuse of the women and children here is an extreme of patriarchal fundamentalist religion, not the polygyny, per se. The truth of this is borne out by the fact that children who live in insular patriarchal fundamentalist religious compounds in monogamous families typically are subject to the same types of abuse. Monogamy, in and of itself, is hardly a protection against abuse for children or women.

Third, the existence of polyamory, which allows both men and women to have multiple spouses, but is secular and egalitarian in nature, shows that abuse is not an inherent characteristic in multi-spouse families.

Fourth, adequate laws already exist to protect people from domestic abuse and underage/forced marriage, regardless of the form their families take. The fault here lies with law enforcement officials who were hesitant to enforce laws that they have no compunction about enforcing when the abuse happens in a monogamous and/or secular family, because our society tends to view religion as a sacred cow.

It's not the form a family takes that determines likelihood of abuse, but, rather, how people act within whatever form their relationships take. What increases the likelihood of abuse is adhering to an extreme insular patriarchal fundamentalist religion, regardless of whether the marriages are monogamous or polygynous.

The government rightly needs to protect children from underage marriage, whether it's monogamous or polygynous...or polyandrous, for that matter. It also needs to protect the women from marriage under duress, regardless of age. And for those polygynous marriages that were entered into by those old enough to consent of their own free will, then leave them alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Archie Bunker here Posted by: yale

Comments are closed-

"forced to have sex" = RAPE!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: madaha on Apr 16, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why can't journalists call a spade a spade anymore?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Yes, but....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mamadanc on Apr 16, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, each individual point Ms Hamilton made is relevant but the wholesale separation of children from their mothers is indefensible. And where are these children going after they have been separated from their mothers'? institutions? foster homes? The options are as bad if not worse than the cult. Our society has little ability to look at issues systemically, analyzing solutions to their logical and inevitable outcomes...in other words, the long view. These are children's lives we are manipulating and the State of Texas is doing mothers and children no favors. Instead, the government of Texas is acting in ill thought-out, destruction ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes, but.... Posted by: ladyoracle
» good fathers Posted by: e rice
» RE: good fathers Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

Religion should never be a cloak for molestation and rape
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ladyoracle on Apr 16, 2008 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It takes a whole culture for children to be sexually and physically abused -- adults to do it and others to take no action when they suspect what is happening."

This is true, and applaud the writer for making note of it. There is a bias against the victims, in service of protecting the adults who are the abusers, and that is just wrong. The U.S. needs to be sure enough of itself to prosecute criminals who call sexual abuse "religion."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If You Want the Inside Story, Read This Book
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mcd on Apr 16, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe in religious freedom. I had no strong feelings about polygamy until I read Carolyn Jessup's book, Escape. If you have any doubts that the FLDS should be outlawed, read this book. It's riveting, scary reading and demonstrates that polygamy, as practiced by the FLDS, turns men into bullies and criminals, and women into slaves. And the seventh paragraph should be corrected to read "favorable old men," since the younger men are simply thrown out of the community so the old fellows can have the young women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

LDS needs a homeland
[Report this comment]
Posted by: billwald on Apr 16, 2008 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Utah should submit a declaration of independence to Congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fine by me. Posted by: Beck
» RE: LDS needs a homeland Posted by: yale

Comments are closed-

OK I live near Bountiful and I am APPALLED
[Report this comment]
Posted by: stellabloo on Apr 16, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... ack! The sad sad faces of the little FLDS girls, knowing that their destiny is to be forced into sexual slavery to their wrinkly ol uncle. Yes, this is child abuse and I am dismayed by my own powerlessness to help.
Our usually PC Canadian government is directly complicit. First, our local MP receives thousands in campaign contributions from Blackmore Construction (as in "Bishop" Blackmore). I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for this two-faced gutless bastard who is supposed to be representing ALL of his constituents, including me.
As well, our provincial government funds the two warring(!) FLDS schools to the tune of $1/2 million annually - for substandard education that focusses on "religious studies". There is no career preparedness or career training because there are no careers.
Moreover, child welfare authorities in Creston are unaccountable cowards who would rather harass innocent people in any other part of town, than step in and do their job. The silent pleas of those little girls with the dark circles under their eyes fall on willfully deaf ears.
Religious freedom, my ass ... I'm sorry. We theoretically have the right to do as we like behind closed doors - as long as we don't hurt anyone else. Any man is free to take a wife and a "lover" - or two - and draw up legal protection for his children - as long as there is mutual consent. If polygamy is legalized, then there is no protection for the wife who disagrees with her husband's self-righteous pretensions.
And Big Love is a load of crap too; none of those Hollywood actresses even remotely resemble the miserable and frumpy faces of the downtrodden pieces of meat that once held as much potential as any other human being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» protection for the wife Posted by: e rice

Comments are closed-

This is wonderful news...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blue Heron on Apr 16, 2008 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those redneck fanatical religious/ partners in crime wives won't be too happy about, but here ya go:

"U.S. Supreme Court hears Texas argue death penalty for child rapists"

- from Dallasnews.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is wonderful news... Posted by: Blue Heron

Comments are closed-

The LDS
[Report this comment]
Posted by: willymack on Apr 16, 2008 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are a bizarre mutation of an already bizarre superstitution/belief system called christianity, in which its followers are expected to believe preposterous puports, which have no more grounding in Reality than Bugs Bunny, the beautiful prose in the psalms and beatitudes notwithstanding. Is it any wonder that anyone so gullible as to accept the blandishments of the LDS church will also go along with polygamy? This is the ideal boys' club wherein men are lord and master over all they survey, including a harem of several women. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but iv'e found my wife of forty years to be all I can handle (and often MORE). Any more would probably kill me or drive me crazy, if it hasn't already. Hmmmmm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The LDS Posted by: SOWILO

Comments are closed-

What I'd like to know is...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JimmyVaughan on Apr 16, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...who are these guys who can handle more than one wife?

Frankly, I would have died from exhaustion after the first month or so of marriage. :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

For your consideration
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Rishy on Apr 16, 2008 12:49 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are very good reasons for removing all the children in that community from BOTH parents

At minimum until the investigations are complete. Both parents of every child in that compound were complicit in neglect/endangerment of minor children. Not because of the plural marriages but because of the child molestation.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if this scenario had taken place in an urban "project" and the facade of "religion" were removed most people would be screaming for the mothers’ heads on a pike. But bleach the skin and throw them in a Prairie Dress and somehow the behavior is no longer tantamount to pimping out their underage daughters? Interesting how that works.

I am an activist for freedom of religion (I practice a belief set that is not considered mainstream in the USA). I am also a proponent of plural marriage (of self empowered adult humans)--I believe that can be a very stable arrangement for raising a family that will most likely never suffer poverty or a dearth of caring adults committed to caring for and raising the children.

While freedom from State sponsored religion is guaranteed in the first amendment it does not release the practitioners of any faith from the bounds of the law or decent human behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: For your consideration Posted by: SOWILO

Comments are closed-

Separate the issues
[Report this comment]
Posted by: PaulK on Apr 16, 2008 12:58 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are forced marriages legal in the U.S.? No. Can you prove a forced marriage? Yes, if the victim testifies.

Is statutory rape legal? No. Can you prove statutory rape? Definitely, if the girl has a child and you can get the father's DNA. Probably, if you get the victim in the hospital and can get a sperm and hair sample.

Is any form of polygamy legal? Not in the U.S. Can you prove polygamy? No, not unless one or preferably two of the participants testify. Any group of adults can be roommates.

I oppose polygyny as a practice because it leads to great numbers of half-crazy young loveless men in the countries which practice it. It has been implicated as one source of numbers of suicide bombers. Related to this inequality is a relative powerlessness among the women of these countries.

I feel that a law against polygamy doesn't prevent the practice completely, but does minimize its negative impact on society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Separate the issues Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

This is how WACO started
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Reader11722 on Apr 16, 2008 1:28 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first job of the gov't is to demonize the polygamists. Call their home a compound, allege sex rooms and warn of underage rape. Same as in WACO. WACO resisted and ALL 24 CHILDREN WERE KILLED. (Guess that saved them). Our over-aggressive law enforcement, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Impeach them all and save this great country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is how WACO started Posted by: willymack
» RE: This is how WACO started Posted by: ronniejw

Comments are closed-

Isn't as always: compared to what?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 16, 2008 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not uncommon for underage females in the Los Angeles urban area to offer sex for money and/or drugs. Authorities do what they can to prevent or punish that. By all estimates they are failing.

I won't presume to offer a better solution, even while I know it is much easier for bureaucrats to interfere in families than to do anything about illegal street behavior. I know of two cases where parents have had their lives made very difficult for questionable practices that were reported to authorities whose response was far more questionable than the parents' behavior.

Our social systems do not work well. I don't know that they ever did. But the unspoken assumption that children are being treated in a wholesome way in our American society is a chimera. Yes, there are lots of places where it is worse for kids. But there are also lots of places where it is better.

If our public systems use the excuse of "caring" to raise up some "enemy," the cure becomes worse than the disease. Isn't that exactly what we face with prohibition of drugs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This is a civil rights issue not an issue about child abuse by a cult
[Report this comment]
Posted by: logansafi on Apr 16, 2008 1:45 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First off, the authorities (a Republican judge, a Republican governor, and a Republican president) had an obligation to present charges against somebody for something before charging police into this compound. This minimal requirement was never met by government officials, and more than a week afterwards, there still are no real criminal charges that have been brought against anybody.

Separating children from parents permanently is not something that should ever be done on flimsy pretexts. However, that is exactly what the State of Texas did as it separated more than 400 children away from their biological parents. You trust The State of Texas and its CPS that much? As a native Texan and a registered nurse I certainly don't. I've seen more than enough of the CPS in my time to not think that they are 100% correct in anything. Far, far from that IMO.

The liberals don't like the people so they do not come to their defense. The conservatives want to show that they are tough (they're always playing tough on somebody or something are they not?) and so they pour their vitriol on the group.

It's a sad situation and reflects badly on Americans as a whole that they are allowing this government abuse of this admittedly rather nutty group of people. I feel sorry for the kids, not because of the abuse they might have suffered while in the compound, but for the abuse the government is putting them through now. And I feel for the parents who have had nobody come to their defense, even as the government has moved to take their kids away in about as an authoritarian and totolitarian a manner as can be imagined. These kids need to be with their parents and not roughed up by government bureaucracies.

Shame on all of America for sitting by stupidly on this one. We have had an obligation to speak out but most of us haven't, or have made the stupidest comments instead of putting any thought into what is actually going on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» One person's experience. Posted by: Sojourner

Comments are closed-

Call me crazy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bgamett on Apr 16, 2008 1:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read through the article and all of the posts and am appalled at all of the posters who defend this FLDS community. Shame on you.

In the media, it is mainly the FLDS men who are targets for ridicule, but the women (note I said "women" here, not girls) should also be held accountable.

The adults, all of them, must be brainwashed to offer their daughters up for marriage as children. As a mother of 2 young daughters, I cringe at the thought of that idea. Our government and law enforcement is definately not perfect (show me a system that is!) but they absolutely have done the right thing in this case.

I support alternative lifestyles. With a group of CONSENTING ADULTS, do as you please. When it involves minors, that is where the line is drawn.

I am very familiar with the LDS church since I live in a very LDS area (although I am not LDS). I know that the FLDS are a branch of the LDS, but their views are similar in many respects. The LDS are no longer polygamists, but have a large number of children. The number of wives and number of children have something to do with the level of heaven that you reach in the afterlife. Funky, I know. I don't know all the details, but these people are "just" trying to secure their places. Unfortunately, they are using girls and counting them as wives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: logansafi
» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: bgamett
» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: logansafi
» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: bgamett
» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: logansafi
» RE: Call me crazy Posted by: bgamett
» RE: distinction Posted by: bgamett

Comments are closed-

Face It: "Old Men" Perverts Getting Off by Screwing Young Girls IS ABUSE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sofla100 on Apr 16, 2008 2:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are at all in favor of the rights of women and children then you have to support the action authorities took in Texas. Bottom line, in some countries, little children are nothing more then slaves and child brides and child sexual abuse may be tolerated. But, that is not the case in America. Just as it is illegal to hit your wife, it is illegal to "wed" a 14 year old girl to some old man. Let's face it, these "old men" are basically perverts getting off sexually on young girls. Referencing so-called "biblical references," that "allow it" are just rationalizations. These girls have been raped and sexually abused. As for those who should have been protecting them, their own mothers, if it is proven they did not do so, the children need to be permanently removed from them. Perhaps they can be adopted into better homes. As for the "old men" perverts, they should be charged with rape, then sent to jail. In jail, Bubba can deal with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Most of this world's problems are EVERY religion.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SOWILO on Apr 16, 2008 2:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish that I would see the destruction of every world religion in my lifetime.

This is garbage.

Pure garbage.

Maybe the war in the middle east will have one decent outcome- the pure destruction of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

We can only hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Right on SOWILO! Posted by: yale

Comments are closed-

Namby Pamby
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SOWILO on Apr 16, 2008 3:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The human race needs to stand on its own two feet away from religion.

This namby-pambyism needs to stop.

NOW.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

And
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SOWILO on Apr 16, 2008 4:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I loathe people who defend religion as something other than cute literature.

Sure, there might be a "spiritual element" in things and, hey, scientists may have found the "god/Tao" particle.

Religion was put in place to keep the human organism and the potential of human creativity in line. And it was a way to understand the universe before we grew as a species

Religion = Death.

Let's destroy it before it kills the whole human race.

Liberals and progressives who defend religion are abject traitors.

TRAITORS TO WOMEN AND TO THE HUMAN RACE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: And Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: And Posted by: YogiBear

Comments are closed-

AGAIN!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Longdream on Apr 16, 2008 4:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nine feet of thread.

About WHAT?

Some brand new mental defectives have shown up to defend polygamy and childhood marriage.

And a whole set of other people with time on their hands have "debated" with them at great, and I use the term quantitavely, length.

Polygamy is against the law. Period. Anyone who maintains that more than one woman is his wife on whatever grounds, is unjustified.

Anyone who impregnates a child is a criminal, and belongs in prison. Period.

Anyone responsible for a child who stood by and watched her be abused and did not do everything in his or her power to rescue the child is a criminal accessory. Period.

This isn't about religious freedom, governmental tyranny, or anyone's right to raise a child in a chosen way.

It's about criminal behavior that was allowed to go on too long, and it bears no debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sex hysteria AGAIN! Posted by: logansafi
» RE: Not even a good try. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Not even a good try. Posted by: Livemike
» RE: Not even a good try. Posted by: Longdream

Comments are closed-

It should be legal.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wishninja on Apr 16, 2008 7:25 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the cult is acting reasonable. They have a priest that personally knows the female that wants to be married. He judges her in his professional opinion guided by the laws of god to be old and wise enough to be a wife. The decision of who she should marry is a community decision and she trusts (knows) that is the best man on earth for her. Their marriage is divine. All people in different cultures mature at different rates. I think the law's suppression of the young has to end. These are people we are talking about not robots or states property. These "children" you are talking about are more mother, more mature, healthier, and much better at being a wife and running a house than the majority of mothers I know. Their families are efficient, safe and supportive. All I ask is they allow anyone who wants to leave to do so. No abuse (real abuse) should be tolerated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Prosecuting polygamy doesn't help the adult women
[Report this comment]
Posted by: YogiBear on Apr 16, 2008 10:04 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder. If polygamy were legal, wouldn't that eliminate the need for polygamists to retreat into compounds in the hills? There is nowhere for those folks to turn except each other. I presume many of the women who might otherwise object to aspects of the cults keep silent because they don't wish to be cast out entirely. (Problem is, if it were legal, we'd need about a million more lawyers to work out divorce, child custody and wills.)

Personally, I think most of the women who marry a man with other wives do so because they are bereft of self confidence, much like many of the women you see in domestic abuse relationships. But nothing is worse for a person like that than to further marginalize her by making her very existence illegal. I feel much the same way about prostitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If you think the USA is bad...check out the age of consent in other countries
[Report this comment]
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 16, 2008 10:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE WORTHLESS.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SOWILO on Apr 16, 2008 10:47 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it.

What use are they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well put. Posted by: herbal

Comments are closed-

Easy targets -- conditions unchanged
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Apr 17, 2008 1:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Narrowness, ignorance, denial of knowledge and reliance on particular faiths or asceticisms may bring about social reproductive arrangements such as polygamy. This is no proof that polygamy brings about such conditions. Mormon fundamentalism is only a special case of fundamentalisms, in this country largely centered on biblical and judeo-christian teaching. There are a multitude of fundamentalisms. It is not that the fundamentalism is Mormon that brings about the subjection of women, the abuse of progeny or unjust and un-equal relations; so do other fundamentalisms, both strictly 'religious' or 'secular'.

The "compounds" provided the State with a centralized and organized target containing a multitude of persons in order to facilitatate its exercise of power. The same conditions existing in these "compounds" exist in a dispersed and generalized way throughout our entire society of 300 million+ persons.

It is neither honest nor responsible to side, invoke and and invite State Power into the lives of these people in such a cavalier way without thinking very carefully about what this means in regard to the exercise of State Power in general. Indeed, there are positive and negative aspects to this intervention; however, it is well to heed that truism which is not repeated enough these days: "Be Careful What You Wish For".

We ARE in highly authoritarian, extremely hierarchic and un-equal social relations in this historical moment of ours. This has relevance to questions of justice, of equity, of dignity, and of human development in reaching forward for a better way of living. From the State's perspective, this particular intervention is but a PRACTICE of social control. They are 'learning as they go'. Ought we be surprised when suddenly a loud knock sounds at our OWN door accompanied by a full contingent of tanks, weaponry and specialized personnel because the State disapproves of other particular ways of living? It CAN happen here; it IS happen-ing here; it has, for a long long time. In struggling against Patriarchy, why invoke and invite THE contemporary Patriarch, the Corporate-State in collusion with the Church and it's own network of faith-based incorporations?

Monogamy holds no privilege over polygamy in questions of the oppression of children and women AND men. These conditions come from elsewhere -- that's where energies and struggles would be better directed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If gay marriage is OK, then polygamy is OK.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dwatkins9 on Apr 17, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Child abuse is against the law in its own right, and those laws should be enforced.

That said, you can't just assume that all who wish the polygamous lifestyle are child abusers, any more than you can assume that all gay men want to seduce teenaged boys. To assume so in either case is bigotry.

It seems to me that, if we can countenance gay marriage, then we should also countenance polygamy. They are equally legitimate lifestyle choices. Consenting adults should be allowed to love as they please, right? It seems to me that every argument in favor of gay marriage applies with equal force to polygamy. Restricting marriage to one man and one woman, as opposed to two men or two women, is arbitrary and hence unjust. Why, then, is it not equally arbitrary, and hence equally unjust, to restrict marriage to just two people?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Whether you see Jesus as a historical or
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cisc on Apr 17, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a religious figure, his fundamental message was/is that in the face of Roman tyranny human justice was possible, it is a choice every individual makes. We all know right from wrong and we all have the power to choose. When faith is misused it is not the philosophy that is criminal, it is the conduct of the person that is questionable. Faith IS used as a sacred cow to hide behind so that motives and actions cannot be questioned. You don't have to have any particular religious view to get the concept of right or wrong. Religion is not the crime here. What this cult is practicing is not religion it is a lifestyle choice. Their lifestyle choice breaks laws and endangers children. Those children are not being given the tools they need to survive, they are being illegally exploited. Moral, civil, and religious laws have all been broken here. Sixteen year olds with three or four children is pretty much iron clad evidence for anyone who can do simple math. Where is the sixteen year old who made the call? Do authorities have a name? When someone makes a hushed phone call begging for rescue and then cannot be found it is about considerably more than old men's sex fantasies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Balance the extremes
[Report this comment]
Posted by: herbal on Apr 17, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure underage sex is statutory rape before age of consent and should be prosecuted regardless of Wikka, LDS or athiest affiliations.

On the other hand, if consenting adults want to live a' trois or many in a group grope, sex and reproductive rights are a private affair.

My uncle, Ted Mullen, was a US Marshall in AZ when he was required to participate in the raid of a Mormon town near the Utah border in the 1950's. They forcibly separated families, taking children from their parents and from their siblings as well as extended families. There was much unnecessary suffering all around. Ted expressed this as his most regretful act of his life when he was in his 90's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

350 lawyers today try to defend 417 children and their children from the Texas Republican Witch Hunt
[Report this comment]
Posted by: logansafi on Apr 17, 2008 1:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a legal mess! This is as bad as the US federal government trying to defend its use of torture on the Guantanamo POWs in the courts. These Texas Republican witch hunters are now having to defend their stealing away 417 children from their parents.

Pretty sad that some on the liberal Democratic Party side are actually backing all this. In a country where law actually protects the people and not The Machine, one brings charges against the accused first based on some real evidence of an individual crime, and does not just steal hundreds of kids away from hundreds of parents as some sort of group punishment. Shame on the Republican governor and the Republican judge who are behind this, with the support of the Republican president who just greeted the pedophile loving Pope on his US vacation.

These Republican witch hunters are not protectors of children, but rather those who themselves are abusers of children in many, many ways. How 'bout medical coverage for our kids for just one thing? Got trillions of $$$ for killing kids in foreign lands but nothing for medical care for American kids?

Dumb Democrats for staying silent about this governmental abuse of power in Eldorado. Shame on you, too!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Breeding for Bucks
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Maxwell House on Apr 17, 2008 1:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sects push girls to breed like bunnies not just to get into their version of Heaven, but for money. While the polygamous-powers-that-be instill the thought that government outside the compounds are evil and not to be trusted (as is anyone outside the compound), they gladly sign up for welfare and food stamps, which adds up to a whole lot of kids and a whole lot of money when you have girls being raped as soon as their periods start. The first wife is the only "legal" wife; the rest are considered single parents by our law and used by the sect as breeders for bucks.

And for sex, of course, which is why they dump so many pre- and teenaged boys, whom the old guys consider competition.

I've read a lot of books on this subject and I just read an article about a woman who took her three children and fled the sect to Canada, and later was a top witness against Warren Jeffs. She's working and doing all she can to raise her children in a normal setting. Now her polygamous ex-husband is suing her for custody of their children, two girls and a boy. She already owes her lawyer thousands and it just keeps going up, while the sect is paying for the husband's legal fees. What I want to know is, why Canada is letting this happen? Would they really let these chidren be forced back to this dangerous lifestyle?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What is the penalty for Poligamy?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rickiey on Apr 17, 2008 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two wives.

*ducks and runs for cover*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Holding Court
[Report this comment]
Posted by: texasnature on Apr 17, 2008 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems a simple if not tedious thing to me for the judge to require that for every child to be considered to be returned to the "ranch", 2 parents must step forward and give names to be registered and acknowledged by the court. I believe we will either begin to see a pattern and be able to build a family tree for these kids after a while - or, the cowardly dads will run and hide and the kids won't go back. Each child surely has two parents, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Due process and the rule of law is more important than "children"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Apr 17, 2008 6:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So do not bother me with hysterical screams about "rapists" until we can get the facts in this case. And if evidence of rape or abuse cannot be presented SOON for each and every one of the families, then the children from those families should be returned. And where there is evidence of rape, then you may prosecute.

But no one needs to be convicted of anything on TV or in the "Huffington Post".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Wake up Fembots
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rwmk12 on Apr 17, 2008 9:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If polygamy and marrying sixteen year olds is a crime we need to invade two thirds of the world... it is none of the State's business... and media coverage has gone from sexual assault charges to polygamy smeer and religious cult charges... wake up spoon fed tweedle dumbs you are being manipulated by the media/State. No one has invaded a small village and taken all the children because one child was molested... no one has raided the Catholic Church. These people seem like retards, granted. But if these women are willing to settle for being wife 1 of 5, then that is their perogative, and none of your business! Take your veneer morality and shove it. Why don't you get outraged about something real, like the widespread child poverty in America. It is obvious that the State does not like people living collectively, and the media knows what buttons to press for the simpleton veneer moralists out there. Divide and conquer: No collective communities. The crime is they aren't insured and in debt up to their necks, and aren't interested in the society of spectacle and violence. Texas's children? Give me a break. This was a highly political act, which is being propagated to appear as a moral imperative, but as Waco showed there is nothing moral about a state violating it's citizen's rights. Murder and kidnapping in the name of morality... does no one see the inherent problem here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Shut up, dumbbots Posted by: dudelette

Comments are closed-

The Girls are never given a CHOICE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Maxwell House on Apr 17, 2008 10:22 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What some people here don't seem to understand (and thankfully they are in the minority), is that these children are being raised as virtual slaves. The children are isolated from the outside world and only taught what Warren Jeffs and the other perves in power want them to know. The girls don't stay in the compound school for long, where they are taught by compound teachers who teach them only what WJ wants them to know, as they are expected to "marry" (code for "be raped by") some old guy who is chosen as their "husband" as soon as the girls can start producing babies. These kids have never seen TV or read books from the library, or even talked to "outsiders" (anyone outside the compound). So the girls have no information to make informed choices with, and they don't get a choice, anyway. The religion aspect is merely used as a tool to not pay taxes and to hold power over the uneducated(obviously they are not the first to do that).

It's also common for the men to marry/rape sisters, so your half-sibling is also your cousin and will be married off to your uncle? Who knows. The point is, the girls have no education, no information and no choices. And that, my friends, is WRONG.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Starts lying from the first sentence.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Livemike on Apr 18, 2008 2:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is nothing so dangerous for a child as an insular, patriarchal religious organization, "

The children at Mount Carmel were perfectly safe until the US government intervened.

"extraordinary bravery of a 16-year-old girl"
What it requires courage to send an anonymous phone call?

"First, authorities in general are too fearful of intervening in religious enclaves, even when the harm is so awful and apparent."

Another lie, plenty of officials are salivating to take down "religious cults" and have been for years. As for the harm being "so awful and apparent" none of the victims seems to have complained! Nor was the harm apparent prior to the phone call.

"If Canadian law, though, protects polygamy, it also protects the child and spousal abuse that inevitably follow."

Another lie (actually two). Firstly even if something is protected it does not follow that abuse resulting from it is also protected. Gun rights for instance don't allow you to murder people.
Secondly child and spousal abuse do not inevitably follow polygamy, in fact they may reduce it.

"His conviction alone should have put all authorities in the jurisdictions where the sect resides on the alert to rescue the women and children."

His conviction was for telling someone that they would go to hell if they didn't marry someone. That is hardly rape. What it should have put authorities on alert for the extent that so called "victims" unscrupulousness and deceit.

"Second, Hollywood has romanticized polygamy. Thanks to actress Rita Wilson, Tom Hanks's wife, the fundamentalist Mormons' practice of polygamy has been glamorized in the nauseating HBO series, Big Love."

Big Love hardly glamourises polygamy and in fact shows some polygamists indulging in the very behaviour that the author condemns. In fact it merely shows polygamists as human beings rather than the devil incarnate. That's all it takes in leftwingistan to be condemned as "gloryifying" polygamy. Of course even this portrayal is far more positive than Hollywood usually gives. To claim that it in any way favours polygamists is delusional.

"Big Love is business, obviously, but it's business that profits from the abuse of women and children."

Rubbish. That's no more true than The Sopranos profits from prostitution, loan sharking and gambling.

"Do you know why children's issues are so difficult to get through state and federal legislatures?"

They aren't.

"Third, as a culture, we are slow to react to evidence of child sex abuse."

Again, rubbish. If there is any evidence of child sex abuse the police react far faster than any other crime I know of. Remember the McMartin case? Or Waco? Well the last one doesn't count since by the time of the raid the evidence had been discredited.

"Adult members who will not talk truthfully to authorities should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice."

Thank god the Bush administration removed the right to silence!

"The question that should be on everyone's mind at this point is where is the girl who tipped off authorities? I am afraid to know the answer, to be perfectly honest."

Because the answer might be that she's not anywhere near the "compound" and never was.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

There is the law.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Longdream on Apr 18, 2008 4:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But apart from the law, which is clear, is the human tragedy of this case.

One of the things that makes me so furious at the libertarian schmucks on this thread is that they care absolutely nothing for the kids, just for the principle that the authorities shouldn't be able to take them away.

There's a terrible human cost here. Those mothers have been powerless, have been forced to live inside cult walls, some of them have been born inside the cult walls, and the children don't understand, and only want to be left inside with their mothers. The children are not happy to be released. They're terrified and are despairing. The mothers are bereft.

For them, there's no rule of law. They're victims. The children would have to be deprogrammed for years before they could accept that they're not in the hands of Satan. Some of them would never accept it, and would be condemned to years of misery.

So what do we do? The People of the United States have agreed that keeping individuals captive by physical or mental means, and having sex with children are criminal behaviors. Groups that meet the criteria of cults come under federal scrutiny and are dismantled when people inside come to harm.

There's a fleet of lawyers on the case now, out to make some money or get name recognition, which in their business is as good as money, and they've parsed and split and complicated the case to the point that there's going to be stasis measured in weeks while conflicting motions are heard.

The people that should be removed from "the ranch" are the licentious old crocks who are "the Prophets". Without them, the children would be safe, and could be returned to their mothers. DNA evidence could be collected at a later time, and the grandiose beasts can rot in lockup until their trial dates.

Here's hoping the Texas prosecutor has his head on straight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What's more disturbing--
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Alli on Apr 18, 2008 5:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reports of underage girls forced to marry, have sex with, and bear children for older men, or the number of people here who insist on defending that lifestyle? Truly, truly sick.

The government isn't to blame in this case. The pedophiles who continue these fundamentalist sects deserve all of the blame. If not for their actions, the state wouldn't have any cause or reason to remove those children from their homes. They wouldn't be faced with trying to find the lesser evil--letting the children go back to that lifestyle, or placing them in foster care. There is no happy ending here. There's no perfect solution. People were raping children. Those of you who are ranting about "freedom for alternative lifestyles" should keep in mind that this "lifestyle" amounts to nothing more than abuse and rape. Would you have these children left in such an environment in the name of freedom? Isn't it impending on your neighbor's freedom to deny him the right to carry on his chosen lifestyle of raping your child? Come on! Those poor kids (and the women too, most likely) have had their lives ruined. Not by the state, but by the cult. Now the state has to try to find the best scenario, knowing that no matter what decision they make, those kids have still been raped. Any known FLDS compound in this country should be throroughly investigated and shut down immediately if ANY evidence of polygamy, underage marriage, or rape is found. The adults found practicing these things should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Maybe if these pedophiles can be stamped out now, the next generation of children born to raped teenagers might have a chance of growing up in an environment that won't perpetuate the cycle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Appalling; Mob Rules, Civil Rights Need Not Apply
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gazooks on Apr 19, 2008 7:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've come to expect a reasonably thoughtful and relatively intelligent forum of comments on Alternet, lacking to a measurable degree a Springeresque vitriol, venomous abusiveness, irrational and mindless bias and the unrestrained emotional regurgitation of moral self righteousness. It's a stunning pity and a shame for anyone with supposedly broad views and progressive sensibilities to witness the hysteria of mob mentality revealed in this issue.

I find the numerous expressions of willingness to abandon the sense of need to holding governmental authority to account for this grotesque transgression of civil liberties and constitutional protections of due process.

In Procedural Due Process the government is required to follow fair procedures in both criminal and civil cases in order to safeguard the individual against the power of the state. It's primary to the law despite evidence to the contrary in this administration's Justice Department.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause requires the government to comply with certain standards in criminal cases BEYOND the rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, which includes the right to a presumption of innocence.

The Court also ruled in the case of In re Gault (1967) that juveniles were entitled to some of the same procedural rights as adults.

The fourth Amendment states;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the PERSONS or things to be seized.

Therefore, the Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures must be reasonable, and that warrants for searches and arrests must be SPECIFIC.

The Fourteenth Amendment states;

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws.

This would include, by the way, the Colorado Springs woman, a 33 year old, who's been arrested for the bogus complaint call that precipitated this egregious abuse of law enforcement.

There have been many comments deriding "defenders of polygamy" and accusing others of not caring for the plight of the children involved. But the advocacy of abandoning the protections designed specifically to prevent this exact type of hysterical legal reaction to a situation, without constitutional considerations to all does a disservice not only to these children, but to all American children and every American citizen past, present and future.

The name calling and accusations are appalling, the disregard for the Bill of Rights is frightening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

POLYGAMIST CHILDREN ARE SAFER INSIDE THE COLONY
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Malcus Garvey on Apr 20, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Her story on polygamist colonies needing severe prosecution is very contradictory. She claims to have the lives of children and women in mind, but on the polygamist sites no children are being killed and buried; no women stalked and murdered; on the other hand, what is happening in the (so-called) safer world of the govt.?

I think possible pedophilia should outweigh the risks that await these children in the sex-trade, prostitution, and murderous capitals of the outside world. All these children will do is end-up worse off than they were inside the colony.


Manger Borne

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If this happened to the gay or lesbian community there would be marches
[Report this comment]
Posted by: onlyme on Apr 21, 2008 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you really want to address the problem we should repeal the anti-polygamy statutes. This will allow these societies to come out of the closet and into the open. Integration is the best approach.

Once polygamy is legal again, these families will feel safer to come out in the open. Polygamous families will be recorded with marriage certificates. The same standards that apply to marriage (blood test, blood relationships, age of consent) will used in polygamous marriages.

Parenthood will be known and tracable via county birth records.

So will their divorces and separations.

Repealing the anti-polygamy laws will allow everyone to have a better view of those who leave their faith and lifestyle, along with those who successfully practice polygamy.

In addition, those who desire to leave the faith or not participate in plural marriage will find it easier to do so - when they are free of the contempt and condemnation of others. I believe that the successes, trials, and failures of their marriages will be more widely known and documented once the anti-polygamy statutes are repealed.

And when it comes to abuse of minors - action can be taken quickly against real offenders without destroying the lives and families of innocents as collateral damage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Distinctions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dgleason on Apr 22, 2008 1:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grow tired of a populace where whatever side you are on of an issue your 'rationalizations' are justified, while the other guy's rationalizations are heresy.

Liberals and conservatives alike will wake up some morning and find that the government owns their children.

The rallying cry that infers that someone in the government knows how to solve these complex issues of how people choose to raise families is to me very problematic.

The same people that rail about gays being cast as pedifiles are willing to characterize all those who would pursue complex families as the same.

Why is it that criminals that are of our particular mainstream are criminals because of the individual's choices but criminals of a lifestyle we have chosen to judge are all criminal and debased as a group.

I long for a time where we approach issues rationally understanding that many family structures have been successful over the course of human events and it is as likely that it is the american stripe of culture that is impacting these expressions.

traditional marriage is not the cause of incest, even though that is where it shows up a lot.

Danielle

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]