COMMENTS: 75
Polygamy and Forced Sex in the Name of God
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.
The hoax proved to be the brainchild of John Ordover, a Brooklyn man practicing his viral marketing skills. It was Ordover who hyped this site as an "introduction service assisting those following the biblical tradition of arranging marriages for their daughters."
But before you deep-six your most paranoid fantasy about the arranged marriages of young girls, let us turn to reality. In a courtroom in St. George, Utah, there is a defendant named Warren Jeffs who surely regards himself as a celestial matchmaker.
Jeffs is the autocrat and reigning prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), a polygamous community of about 10,000 that regards itself as the one true Mormon faith. It survives much to the embarrassment of mainstream Mormons, who gave up polygamy in 1890, and much to the horror of the state.
Jeffs is either deeply creepy or downright evil depending on how you label religious leaders who consider themselves the voice of God and marry multiple women, including 30 of their late father's youngest widows. He is infamous, among other things, for kicking hundreds of teenage boys out of his community and matching hundreds of their sisters into plural marriages. For those hooked on "Big Love," Jeffs makes Alby Grant look appealing.
But the man is not on trial for being a polygamist, let alone a creep. As the judge and prosecutor told the jury, this case is not about polygamy. Jeffs is being tried as an accessory to rape. He's charged with intentionally aiding the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl by her husband.
To hear the alleged victim, known only as Jane Doe, describe her marriage is to be as deeply saddened as the jury was. After resisting Jeffs' order to marry her 19-year-old first cousin, she found herself at the altar, head hanging, forcing out the words, "OK, I do." After refusing sex, she went back to Jeffs for counsel and was told to "repent," to "do your duty," and be "obedient." And so the girl who didn't know what sex was or where children came from says she was forced to submit to her husband.
Did this teenager make her own choice? We forget how the rules governing consent have changed. Conflicting state laws now navigate between a girl's sexual maturity and her vulnerability. In many states, including Utah, a girl can marry with her parents' permission at a younger age than she can have sex.
But this case raises a different question about consent. How much power did the religious leader wield over the 14-year-old? If you refused to marry the chosen husband, Doe testified, you would "lose your chance at salvation." How could she refuse to obey the husband who was "my ticket into heaven"?
No, polygamy is not on trial. But its history is interwoven with questions of consent. Opponents to plural marriage in the 19th century included women's rights advocates who equated polygamy with slavery. No mature woman, they believed, would voluntarily enslave herself.
In the late 20th century, the idea arose that consenting adults could make their own sexual arrangements from serial monogamy to, well, polygamy. Indeed, at this trial, FLDS women described themselves as "empowered." But the view of polygamy as just another lifestyle choice has been countered by the growing evidence of communities rife with abuse.
Doe's forced marriage falls easily into the moral category of child abuse. So I sympathize with the desire to get Warren Jeffs. Get Al Capone for tax evasion. Get O.J. for chasing down his memorabilia. But I'm troubled by the charge that Jeffs is an accessory to felony rape. University of Utah law professor Daniel Medwed calls it "an ill-fitting suit draped over this case." I'm afraid he's right.
The argument is that Jeffs told Doe to submit or be damned. It will be hard enough to prove that he was explicit in encouraging rape by her husband. For that matter, how can you convict a man as an accessory to rape when the alleged rapist himself -- the husband -- hasn't been charged? On the stand, he denied forcing her.
This case highlights what it's like to be a girl imprisoned in the FLDS world. Have no tolerance for a community, even a religious one, that so estranges its young from shared values, including liberty.
But this charge doesn't fit Warren Jeffs' moral trespasses. It's too much. And way, way, too little.
(c) 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Julia1977 on Sep 24, 2007 8:57 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both King David and Solomon among many other characters had multiple wives given to them by God. The wisdom of Solomon was his ability to maintain 700 wives and 300 concubines. God says to David that he will give him more wives if he asks for them.
This begs the question of those who such as the anti-sex Christian organization Concerned Women of America who are leading the charge for "Traditional Marriage" and are opposed to Polygamy, Multiple Partners, and abhor Gay marriage, the Gay Lifestyle, Lust, and Pornography.
Do these Christians who claim Bibilcal literacy and adherence even know their Bible?
Biblical purists and scholars who claim to believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible must address polygamy before arguing for "Traditional Marriage".
BiblicalPolygamy.org
BiblicalPolygamy.com
ChristianPolygamy.com
God's views on marriage are not restricted but expansive. Christians have embraced that view now in part regarding "remarriage" and "interracial marriage" (which used to be a sin and was outlawed in many states). some Christians understand that Gay Marriage is part of God's expansive plan as well to bring people into loving bonded relationships.
It appears that Warren Jeffs can legitimately claim that his polygamous marriages are Christian and that he is the victim of religious persecution because of the abundant biblical evidence to support and legitimize his lifestyle.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Polygamy is sanctioned by God The Father of the OT
Posted by: Julia1977
» RE: Polygamy is sanctioned by God The Father of the OT
Posted by: robflam
» RE: Polygamy is sanctioned by God The Father of the OT
Posted by: robflam
» RE: Polygamy is sanctioned by God The Father of the OT
Posted by: ankhet
» RE: Polygamy is sanctioned by God The Father of the OT
Posted by: drmeow
» Read these two things.....then decide how far this should go
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: Polygamy is sanctioned by God The Father of the OT
Posted by: lepidopteryx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnRG on Sep 24, 2007 9:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Sep 24, 2007 9:52 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a polygamous society, "surplus" males have to be gotten rid of, either by war or just simply driving them out of the community. Women have to marry young to keep them "barefoot and pregnant"-- to keep them in bondage. I wouldn't think that anyone in a polygamous Mormon community is very well suited to live out of the community.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Polygamy is "natural"
Posted by: Suspendedbetween
» Correct, but misses the point
Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: Polygamy is "natural"
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: Polygamy is "natural"
Posted by: Doubtom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Sep 24, 2007 10:56 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» polygamy != polyamory
Posted by: bob921
» RE: What about Muslem cultures and countries? Our 'allies' and 'friends', as
Posted by: morticia
» then why are we abiding those countries which follow the Koran? Why are we even
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: then why are we abiding those countries which follow the Koran? Why are we even
Posted by: pete ess
» RE: then why are we abiding those countries which follow the Koran? Why are we even
Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: then why are we abiding those countries which follow the Koran? Why are we even
Posted by: morticia
» What about our "allies", "friends", and even "citizens" of the Islamic faith in Western countries or
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: What about our "allies", "friends", and even "citizens" of the Islamic faith in Western countrie
Posted by: pete ess
» RE: What about our "allies", "friends", and even "citizens" of the Islamic faith in Western countries or
Posted by: mjglow
» RE: What about Muslem cultures and countries? Our 'allies' and 'friends', as
Posted by: lepidopteryx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aislinnluv on Sep 24, 2007 11:41 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: missing the point
Posted by: ankhet
» RE: missing the point
Posted by: lepidopteryx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MAD on Sep 24, 2007 11:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good thing we're not on the verge of a recession or anything.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» VERY PERTINENT AND TIMELY SUBJECT
Posted by: smart soprano
» RE: We really needed to have a discussion about this SO VERY PERTINENT AND TIMELY SUBJECT
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: stina723 on Sep 24, 2007 12:23 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You sure about that?
Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: hey, I want multiple husbands
Posted by: Marpa
» RE: hey, I want multiple husbands
Posted by: Bambi
» RE: hey, I want multiple husbands
Posted by: smart soprano
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 24, 2007 2:10 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fembotcrystal on Sep 24, 2007 2:11 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Polygamy reproduces gender inequality and reifies the "naturalness" of male supremacy (and in doing so, the dichotomous concept of gender itself). I'm no proponent of polygamy, but I am a proponent of polyamory and other ways of structuring intimate and sexual relationships. Love is a good thing, right? Who can argue against "the more love, the better?" Loving more than one person at the same time, or having more than one intimate sexual partner, is an idea that long precedes the Mormons of the late 1800s or the hippies of the 1960s. Being promiscuous (a good old fashioned slut) is not going to lead to the gates of hell. And neither will adding emotional connection to a mix of multiple partners.
The tirade against polygamy serves to reinforce the "right" way of loving another person: heterosexual pairing, with families. We are rhetorically offered only two choices: dyadic relations or this Other thing; here this Other is a fringe, nascent religion's "embarrassing" leftover. Polygamy as Other- it evokes our sadness and pity and rage- the rape of young girls and mythical domestic and domicile women. Many of today's religions, not just the Church of Latter Day Saints, assert the rightful place of men as the head of the heterosexual family. To pick on Mormons is to ignore the issues rife in all sorts of religious households and dyadic households in this country. The trial, and the media coverage around it, sets up the foil to the righteous path of heterosexual coupling.
I am not a fan of LDS, nor am I a fan of any organized religion because they are hotbeds of conservative (as in, conserving the status quo) sexuality and gender inequalities. I am definitely not a fan of polygamy, either, because polygamy in today's sexist, heteronormative, youth obsessed society is reproducing everything that is wrong with the world instead of standing against it. If Big Love were about a polyamorous lot, we would be offended because it would threaten the het dyad hegemony.
There's a reason Big Love is popular: people are titillated by these variations in sexual partners. People also like to watch others balance relationships (hence soaps or the softcore porn of Nip/Tuck) and sometimes fail measerably, with some sex and violence thrown in for good measure. We're voyeurs. Now if we'd just stop being so cerebral about it all and actually take some action, maybe we could loosen the chains of gender a bit and have some better sex.
Next stop- the library to check out Pat Califia's Public Sex just to prove to myself I'm right.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: power and gender
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janvdb on Sep 24, 2007 7:06 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever they charge him with, he should be removed from control of that community and whoever replaces him, if they continue these practices, should also be charge and jailed, repeatedly, until the sect dissolves under the pressure.
I think each leader who emerges, as well as most of the adults in the community, should be charged with child abuse. I think all children in the community should be removed and placed in protective custody. Parental rights to all children in the sect should be severed and the children should be made available for adoption to parents who will not arrange for their rape, or allow them to be driven from their homes, penniless and destitute, at age 15 for watching TV, as happens to the boys.
It's child abuse. It should be treated as a massive, systematized child abuse and a child sexual abuse situation.
Jan VanDenBerg
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This is about child abuse
Posted by: sweet_byrd
» RE: This is about child abuse
Posted by: mdruss42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YogiBear on Sep 24, 2007 7:27 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The view of polygamy as just another lifestyle choice has been countered by the growing evidence of communities rife with abuse."
Polygamy is illegal. How can an illegal activity be held up to any decency standard? It's like saying drugs shouldn't be legalized because sometimes drug users die from taking an impure product. It's nonsensical.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Libertine on Sep 24, 2007 9:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And, to be perfectly technical, what these fundamentalists practice isn't precisely polyGAMY, but, rather, polyGYNY. That is, they practice a form of multiple partner marriage where only the men may have multiple spouses, where the women are monogamous. Strictly defined, polygamy means that either spouse may have multiple spouses. Polyandry, where one woman has multiple husbands, also exists, though it is much rarer that the polygynous form of polygamy.
And there is the modern form of polyAMORY, in which both men and woman may have multiple spouses. It is not based on patriarchal religion, but acknowledges the fact that many people are capable of loving more than one person at a time, and it's for consenting adults only. Polyamorous relationships are also egalitarian, unlike fundamentalist polygyny, and exists in both hetero and homosexual combinations.
To point to fundamentalist polygyny and assert that the abuses that occur in such relationships are inherent in all types of multiple partner marriages is the same as pointing to the dysfunctional monogamous marriages of battered women and saying such abuse is inherent to monogamy. In both cases, such assertions would be wrong.
It's not the form a relationship takes, but how people treat one another within the relationships they have.
The problem here is clearly the low position that women hold in all aspects of patriarchal religious life, not just in marriage. I'm guessing that women in monogamous marriages in this and other patriarchal repressive sects are hardly treated any better than their polygynous sisters.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Problem is With the Fundamentalist Religion, Not Multiple Spouse Marriages
Posted by: berkana
» Were you me in a past life?
Posted by: hurricane hugo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aislinnluv on Sep 25, 2007 4:40 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: if you think it can work, you're pretty naive
Posted by: Livemike
» RE: if you think it can work, you're pretty naive
Posted by: lepidopteryx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Smartcookie on Sep 25, 2007 6:34 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're are slaved to our enculturation. What if we could press the reset button? Seriously. Modern people are just as prejudice as their religious contemporaries.
In fact we might even argue that the desire for excessive compassion and equality if not checked with reason and sanity of how human beings nature really is, is not healthy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: motional thinking vs rational thinking.
Posted by: mdruss42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Maxwell House on Sep 25, 2007 2:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is also the fact that many of the non-legal wives (only the first one is legal) are collecting a small fortune in welfare and food stamps for their herds of children, and we the taxpayers are footing the bill. Funny, since Jeffs and others like him claim to have nothing to do with our world and our government, but they will gladly work the system when it comes to handouts.
Must be Republicans.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The puppy mill of girls
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: Wow!
Posted by: Maxwell House
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mr. Terrific on Sep 25, 2007 9:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any thoughts?
Terrific
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Breaking News!
Posted by: nomomomos
» it's obscene
Posted by: bluebirdella
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bluebirdella on Sep 25, 2007 9:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nomomomos on Sep 26, 2007 10:11 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think Ms. Goodman has spent much time in Salt Lake City if she thinks that Mormons are embarassed by the actions of the fundamentalist wing of their church.
"Mainstream" LDSers admire polygamists. The party line is: "The church outlawed that years ago. But I know some [polygamists] and they're good people."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» ...the chic left versus the old
Posted by: spanskmand
» RE: ...the chic left versus the old
Posted by: lepidopteryx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 27, 2007 5:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urstrly on Sep 27, 2007 5:34 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless he is restrained, Jeffs will next propose adding another female to the marriage, then another, while, as has been reported lately, competitive teenage men are forced out of the community, away from their families with no way to fend for themselves. It's amazing that 10,000 people would agree to live in such a community. In fact, I wonder how many do live there voluntarily. People who held by Fundamentalist Mormons against their will are victims of involuntary servitude and should be freed and repatriated as they should be any where else in this land of ours.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Human Bondage
Posted by: Livemike
» RE: Human Bondage
Posted by: lepidopteryx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Livemike on Sep 28, 2007 12:35 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pardon me but where exactly is the evidence that abuse is more common in these communities than it is anywhere else, let alone that it is "rife"? This case has one accusser claiming abuse, with as I understand it, no physical evidence, no eyewitness testimony, nothing other than her word that she was abused.
Can you imagine if the black community was described as "rife with abuse" on the same evidence? Well you don't have to, just read up on some history it's not pretty.
Of course abuse may be quite common in communities that dare not report anything to the police. Abuse of people's property rights and right bodily integrity are common amoung drug dealers for instance because the police will arrest them if they tell them what happened. So the ban on polygamy might just be causing horrendous abuse, but of course the so-called "liberals" won't seek it's repeal.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Rife with abuse"? Or exaggeration?
Posted by: nomomomos
Comments are closed-
Posted by: spanskmand on Sep 28, 2007 5:53 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it wasn't for its lack of total freedom of speech, Iran would sound like a might sane country at this point in time.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Morgaine Swann on Sep 28, 2007 6:08 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should people be allowed to marry whomever they want, in whatever configuration they choose? As long as everyone is 18, yes.
In America, marriage is a legal status. Churches do what they want, but the government has to provide equal treatment under the law. The government cannot decide that it will sanction some families and not others. It may be time to stop calling it marriage, and simply let people sign a Statement of Familial Intent that designates whom they consider to be their spouse(s) and whom they will treat as their child if there are step-kids or adoptive children involved. Until then, adults have the right to marry whomever they choose. Deal with it.
The problem in the Jeffs case is that 1) there was a child involved 2) she was forced to marry a family member and 3) she didn't WANT to marry him. In other cases, young girls have been forced to marry their mother's husbands.
If a person under 18 is too young to drink, or to sign a contract for any reason, then they most certainly shouldn't be able to enter into a religious or legal contract that is supposed to last for the rest of their lives. Children shouldn't be marrying anyone, for any reason. A marriage contract is just that - a contract - and it should only be sanctioned by the government for adults. If you can't legally rent a DVD player, you shouldn't be allowed to choose a life partner.
Finally, there are legal parameters about marrying family members. This is theoretically a health issue. No state sanctions marriage between first cousins, nor should it. On that basis alone, no legal marriage was possible.
The problem with polygamous cults is they tend to have no boundaries at all. That has to stop, but if there are no issues of majority, statutory rape, familial relationship or anything else that concerns the state, it should be legal. It isn't fair to force Mormons to be monogamous, any more than it's fair to force a child into a marriage she doesn't want.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There are 4 separate issues here.
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Shey on Sep 29, 2007 6:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women and girls are literally enslaved, and younger men who pose a potential threat to the all-powerful patriarchs are thrown out on the rural highway's on a regular basis.
The patriarchs and male elders of these compounds literally wield the power of life and death over their clans. And a shocking majority of "mainstream" Mormons turn a blind eye.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Anyone who doubts
Posted by: luzmejor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gasodizuhesi on Oct 6, 2007 9:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Polygamy and Forced Sex in the Name of God
Posted by: lepidopteryx
McCain and Lieberman's "Enemy Belligerent" Act Could Set U.S. on Path to Military Dictatorship
The FBI Could Be Watching You on Facebook
Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?




