Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

Polygamy and Forced Sex in the Name of God

By Ellen Goodman, Washington Post Writers Group. Posted September 24, 2007.


The view of polygamy as just another lifestyle choice has been countered by the growing evidence of communities rife with abuse.
Advertisement

BOSTON -- I'm glad I didn't fall for the latest Internet hoax. MarryOurDaughter.com? Hello? Did the millions who clicked onto this site actually think there were parents out there putting a bridal price on the head of their 15-year-old Ashley ($37,500) or 16-year-old Kristin ($49,995)?

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

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: religion, rape, utah, mormon, polygamy, forced sex, warren jeffs

Ellen Goodman is a member of the Washington Post Writers Group. Her email address is ellengoodman(at)globe.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Polygamy is sanctioned by God The Father of the OT
Posted by: Julia1977 on Sep 24, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Polygamy is an ancient Biblical practice approved by God of the OT.
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]

John R G
Posted by: JohnRG on Sep 24, 2007 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally agree with your assessment of fundamentalist Christians' views of marriage. If they truly want marriage "as God defines it in the bible" then how do they explain the historical evolution of societal marriage? If marriage has changed as our culture has changed, why draw a line at the "one man and one woman" point that we currently find ourselves?

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

Polygamy is "natural"
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Sep 24, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans are by nature polygamous. They're also territorial. So if we follow "nature", alpha males kill off competitors and take their females as "property". That in the final analysis is what this polygamy crap is all about. Religion has little to do with the reality of it.

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
What about Muslem cultures and countries? Our 'allies' and 'friends', as
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Sep 24, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well as our 'enemies', have legal, and religious, systems in which a man can have multiple wives. They always have 'arranged marriages', frequently at a young age and often in circumstances that might be considered incest in many western countries (at least in modern times) like between 1st cousins. It is very common for 1st cousins to marry in Muslim countries as is having mulitple wives. Yet, oddly, this is considered to be a 'cultural right' and to criticise these practices means you are, at best, showing "western bias" and, at worst, being a "racist". Or are these practices only "wrong" because it is happening to white girls in the western USA??

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

» polygamy != polyamory Posted by: bob921
missing the point
Posted by: aislinnluv on Sep 24, 2007 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the point is not whether or not polygamy is "natural" or "biblically correct". the point in this case is whether or not the girl was raped, and if so, was jeffs an accomplice to this act? in today's society, with the concept of "date rape", it is not unreasonable to accept that a rape has been committed when the female does not agree to the sex act, no matter whether her refusal comes ahead of or as the act is being committed. this child, for child she was, at 14, was not a willing participant in her marriage. she did not wish to engage in sex with this cousin and was told by jeffs that she must submit. anyone who is at all aware of how the teenage mind works, particularly young female teens, knows that a girl is often eager to please and will go along with what she is told to do even when she does not wish to do so. in this case she was coerced, threatened with eternal damnation if she did not comply with the marriage, first, and sex, second. she did not even like the cousin she was forced to marry. when people are denied free will to decide their own futures it is a crime. in this case is is abusive and though it may be an "ill-fitting suit", i believe the charge of accessory to rape is not outrageous.

[« 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
We really needed to have a discussion about this SO VERY PERTINENT AND TIMELY SUBJECT
Posted by: MAD on Sep 24, 2007 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus H. Christ, Alternet. Is this really the biggest fish that needs frying at this time? So, polygamous relationships are abusive. Big f'ing surprise. I'm just stunned. So too are run of the mill hetero, gay and lesbian relationships.

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
hey, I want multiple husbands
Posted by: stina723 on Sep 24, 2007 12:23 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I could really use more than one. It would be nice to have a little variety every night....and I would probably always have a babysitter. Also, then maybe shit would actually get done around the house, and I'm sure one of them would actually do it right. Never put all your eggs in one basket.

[« 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: smart soprano
NO WONDER THIS CRAP CONTINUES TO GO ON
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 24, 2007 2:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Give it what ever name you choose and chalk it up to religion but anyway you cut it, it's RAPE. With or without parents permission. That's more crap. We're talking about children here. We can't continue to be "reasonable" with these people and still protect little girls. The parents are allowing their daughters to be raped. The reasons don't matter.. It's wrong. Thanks, ANNA

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

power and gender
Posted by: fembotcrystal on Sep 24, 2007 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rape, as we are told time and again in Take Back the Night campaigns across college campuses, is about power, not sex. The Jeffs case should reflect that, yet many commentators are taking the time to bash Mormons and bash polygamy, rather than reflecting on the power imbalances inherent in most religions or gender inequality.

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
This is about child abuse
Posted by: janvdb on Sep 24, 2007 7:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forcing a 14-year-old girl into marriage is child abuse.

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
Nonsense
Posted by: YogiBear on Sep 24, 2007 7:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This statement makes no sense to me:

"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]

The Problem is With the Fundamentalist Religion, Not Multiple Spouse Marriages
Posted by: Libertine on Sep 24, 2007 9:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Multi-partner marriages are not inherently abusive. The problem here is the extreme patriarchal fundamentalist religion, not the form the marriages take, per se.

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]

» Were you me in a past life? Posted by: hurricane hugo
if you think it can work, you're pretty naive
Posted by: aislinnluv on Sep 25, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the idea of "free love" or polyamory or anything where people are involved in relationships with more than one person at a time may be a fine thing in theory but the reality is that human nature tends more toward jealousy and the desire to have exclusivity. where these non-exclusive lifestyles work is in cultures where there is a great deal of pressure to submit to a particular mindset, often a religious one. submit or be shunned, cast out, in some way punished for not "going along". look at the hippie culture, where in communes it was common to share sex among several partners - jealousy contributed to the disintegration of many of those groups. don't discount the power of human nature, or deny that in every generation there are those who will wield psychological and physical pressure to impose their own vision of a perfect culture on others.

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

Emotional thinking vs rational thinking.
Posted by: Smartcookie on Sep 25, 2007 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Define "abuse" who defines "abuse" btw?

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]

The puppy mill of girls
Posted by: Maxwell House on Sep 25, 2007 2:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There have been some excellent comments on here, and I thank the posters for expanding my brain. My problem with Jeffs, aside from the usual he is a creep in all forms and should be castrated, is that these girls are kept as virtual slaves and raised only to become child brides/sex slaves/breeders for his cult. The girls are kept in his compound and not allowed to associate with the real world (anyone outside the cult). They are kept in fear and ignorance, and told stories about the scary outside world (the you're either polygamous or a terrorist routine, I would assume). The girls are educated only for a short while at their compound schools with their teachers, until they are deemed "old" enough to become a bride, usually as a reward for some dirty old fart that already has a bevy of wives at his beck and call. The girls are raised not to think for themselves but to be slaves for the men, and even with this limited amount of education, the poor girls know that what is going on is wrong, but they are powerless to do anything about it. Male children are often dumped in a nearby city after they get to early teens and could be considered competition.

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
Breaking News!
Posted by: Mr. Terrific on Sep 25, 2007 9:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Polygamist leader convicted in Utah

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
rape or not
Posted by: bluebirdella on Sep 25, 2007 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if it isn't "rape" it is still manipulation and abuse. There should be laws to prevent people who are under 18 from marrying.

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

Don't excuse the main LDS church
Posted by: nomomomos on Sep 26, 2007 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It survives much to the embarrassment of mainstream Mormons..."

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
Prophets and the OT
Posted by: peacelf on Sep 27, 2007 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The polygamist "Kings" of the OT are not a model for living and lifestyle. Indeed, the prophets of the OT were challenging Kingly rule, prophesizing that God's Law (the Torah) were the only rules we should follow and that human Kings were unjust, evil and unGodly, greedy and corrupt. So, if Jeffs thinks himself a King...

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

Human Bondage
Posted by: Urstrly on Sep 27, 2007 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a straight woman who supports gay marriage, I asked myself why I shouldn't support polygamy. The answer: I would--as long as all the participants consented to the arrangement. Regrettably, among Fundamentalist Mormons, women are rarely consulted about whom they will marry, and that's why Warren Jeffs should be prosecuted for the crime of accessory to rape. Without his authoritative insistence, Jane Doe would never married a man she dislikes intensely. I'm not sure why Goodman doesn't see this.

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
"Rife with abuse"? Or exaggeration?
Posted by: Livemike on Sep 28, 2007 12:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But the view of polygamy as just another lifestyle choice has been countered by the growing evidence of communities rife with abuse."


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]

...nuts galore
Posted by: spanskmand on Sep 28, 2007 5:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an older common sense leftist, I now understand why America is comprised politically of two antipodes - a nutty left and a nutty right. The nuts on the right are now controlled by Jewish neo-cons who want to continue using America as Israel's bully boy in destroying the enemies of their tribe. The nuts on the left think homosexual "rights" is a progressive issue and will adopt any position that they think is not "square". These nuts assume that anything contrary to a "Father knows best" lifestyle must be moral and kind. And then there are all the Jewish feminists that gave us millions of broken families and spoiled brats for kids - which in turn creates more and more nuts going around and adopting idiot lifestyles in order to find themselves, a la the wacko Mormons, the wacko rappers, the wacko gang thugs, the wacko hip-hop "artists", the wacko jocks, the wacko teen sluts, and the disgusting wacko homosexual perverts kissing in public.

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]

There are 4 separate issues here.
Posted by: Morgaine Swann on Sep 28, 2007 6:08 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One is religious freedom. The second is whether marriage is a religious or state function. The third, most important issue is child rape and incest. The fourth is the age of legal majority.

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]

Anyone who doubts
Posted by: Shey on Sep 29, 2007 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.... that the polygamous cults still existing totally outside the law in Utah, northern Arizona, western Colorado and a few places in southern Canada are vicious, misogynistic patriarchal hell's on earth for women and girls should read Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven.
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
Polygamy and Forced Sex in the Name of God
Posted by: gasodizuhesi on Oct 6, 2007 9:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I noticed that right before the Salt Lake City Olympics a man who had 3 wife’s was arrested for polygamy in Utah, the reason for the mans arrest, it did not look good to have a polygamist with 3 wife’s running around Utah right before the Olympics. Warren Jeff’s who was arrested recently in Nevada had 50 wife’s. In both cases the wife’s supported their husbands and were upset that their husbands were being arrested. Also Nightline and Dateline have done investigative reporting about polygamy and found nothing wrong with it other than the fact the wife‘s get a little jealous at times. Also Warren Jeff’s may have married the 14 year old girl to her husband because she was pregnant. I don’t know what Warren Jeff’s response would have been if the girl was already pregnant, but other churches etc have married couples because a girl was pregnant out of wedlock.

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