So for openers put a stop to it. Polygamy is against the law. Crazy people handing over their young daughters to older men for their pleasure and enjoyment and to produce babies is also criminal. Stop legitimizing it with religious definitions. There are no gray areas here. They should not be given warning because then they'll just move on. Move in, get the children to safety and throw everyone else in jail. Stop all welfare payments. Thanks, ANNA

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

The state should not be in the business of deciding who gets to marry who, how many whos or what gender the whos are; so long as they are adults.

Marrying off children is another story altogether, but it can happen in monogamous groups just as easily.

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

I played chess every day at lunch with a Mormon Bishop where we worked together, during which time he relentlessly challenged me to join. It was because of the reasonably civil debates we had that got me researching their foundations, doctrines and organization. Dr.-"***" failed to convince me of even the validity of their theology, much less beliefs and practices, however I did come to understand the theological-framework of polygamy, that it was in fact based on ancient Jewish practice and law. A man would be held to the same standards of providing for two wives as him providing for one, and all other sanctimonious commitments for life applied just the same.

Over half of Americans practice "Serial Monogamy", or a sort of spaced-out or scattered polygamy. As is the case with gay marriage, I don't see what Constitutional basis exists for States to decide what two or more people consent to. The principle of Liberty for each and every Individual is intended to be "unalienable" and will never be tamed by State law or force. I really believe marriage should be left to those choosing it and any religious practices/doctrines/organizations should be entirely up to those people.

That said, there is an important distinction that must be made in determining where the State should get involved. Ceremonies and religious doctrines, no, but violence and coercion and fraud, yes, because these infringe on the unalienable Rights of the victims. When it comes to sexual relations with "children" even the American public could probably pass a Constitutional Amendment banning it, but then you have to define "children".

In the old days, 10 or 12 years was the age of accountability, and on a psychological and fertility basis, that argument can be made. Any parent would recognize this as the time when you have to get down and reason and even out-smart your own children to head them out of trouble, psychologically and sexually, but absolutely no one has guarantees in this department because it's pure 2 million year old genetic nature to rebel against your parents and bear children when you can. So the first battle in establishing a Constitutional Amendment protecting children is going to be fought not on "if" it is illegal, but "at what age".

My personal take here is that each and every individual is different. I've met "4 year old roofers" and "70 year old infants", and I've seen no physical age which determines anything. Every category of skill and practice in life is the same, as are the interactions between them. Age of accountability?

1. Can you provide for yourself?
2. Can you read and understand the Constitution?
3. Can you make decisions for yourself without help?

There are many adults that cannot fulfill these simple life-tasks, there are some "underage" people who can. It's not age, it's accountability and self-sufficiency.

The same regards multiple spouses (and here I make no distinction as to which sex has x number partners):

1. Can the partner provide for themselves?
2. Can the partner read and understand the Constitution?
3. Can the partner decide for themselves?

Settling these issues in any given case would be something the State could do by taking a slightly more sophisticated approach to all "crime". These sex and marital issues are not Police-State issues unless someone's unalienable Rights are infringed, just like drugs and prostitution.

If the State really wants to do some good in these areas, it would get a Court Order and send an "evaluation team" (not Swat Team) armed with solid "psychological techniques" (not weapons) in preparation for a case before a Jury of Peers. Just because people naturally form "communes", which is actually what cities are, doesn't make them evil, wrong or abusive, and the State should likewise Presume Innocence.

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

These "closed communities" can't survive without it. Saves a lot of heavy-handed police raids and subsequent ugly publicity as crying children are hauled away by social workers. Seriously, no family can afford to have these mega-sized broods without state support. We're talking about 20+ kids per husband.

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

The recent attention to polygamous cults is all well and good, but it just brushes the surface of the huge problem of systematic abuse of children and adults by "religious" groups.

Anyone who has ever listened to a fundamentalist preacher evoking images of eternal hellfire as children look on wide-eyed and fearful knows what I mean. The psychological abuse inflicted by many so-called mainstream churches is rampant and very evident, not to mention the social damage caused by allowing authority figures to promote ignorance and intolerance. We not only allow this, we SUBSIDIZE it with our tax dollars!

Free speech is fine, but there must be limits. It's ludicrous that Americans are forbidden by law to use hate speech in many situations, but we subsidize and encourage the widespread abuse of the public by a motley army of charlatans, Bible-thumpers, spellbinders and other manipulators.

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

Children should be protected from every sort of abuse. This includes enforcing laws against the forced marriages of underage girls to much older men. The last time I checked, such laws included young girls being forced into monogamous marriages with much older men, as well as the polygynous form of polygamy practiced by the FLDS.

In other words, the crime is the forced marriage and subsequent statutory rape of an underage child, not the form the marriage takes, which should be irrelevant.

If the FLDS practiced polygyny between fully consenting adults, I'd say to leave them alone, as I don't think it's the government's place to mandate what form a marriage should take, but only to assure that whatever form a marriage takes, that it's between fully consenting adults.

The welfare of children and the forms a marriage takes are two separate issues. Strictly enforce the former and disregard the latter.

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

Polygamy is organized around sexuality -- specifically, around slaking slaking male needs at the expense of female ones.

The central idea is to replace 'wives' as their shelf lives expire. The females theoretically receive room and board -- but this has never happened equitably in any polygamous society because it's impossible to manage and administer such things through a organizational structures that are based on sex -- the practical norm is squalid disfunction that produces people like Osama bin Laden.

Polygamy requires a society where females have no power or means of self-support, like a desert climate; or females insecure enough to hand over total control to males. Such females tend to become 'unattractive' early on, and in a system geared around male sexual nature, 'attractiveness' is the core organizing factor.

And because male sexual nature (selfish, shallow, etc.) grows particularly more desperate and egregious as he ages, this guarantees polygamy will always lead to pedophilia.

As it has and does in fundamentalist Morman cultures, as it has and does in Moslem cultures.

In a 'state of nature,' of course, the younger males would topple the old farts and take over sexual dominance -- with the enthusiastic support of mature women.

But with the Mormons, state welfare and force of law allow an artificial situation to perpetuate itself, absent outside intervention (in Moslem areas, used-up women and their children are simply turned out to starve).

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

It probably only obscures the true concerns of the non-FLDS general public to continue to make reference to polygamy or to refer to the FLDS as a polygamous sect. Most grown-ups & grads of previous "sexual revolutions" don't care what adults do in private with other adults. Or how many other adults of what variety.

But the legal age of adulthood and consent has been established for good reasons: who can deny that the mental and emotional processes of a 15-year-old are a world apart from those of an 18-year-old of either gender? There's a physiological basis for this - hormones! Puberty, etc. It takes a while for people to mature and begin to understand the impact of their decisions.

That's what statutory rape is about: even if she says 'yes', if she's not at least 18, the answer is still 'no', because it's likely she doesn't fully understand what she is consenting to.

There are tons of other issues, but I believe this would be a 'trigger' for action (like calling the cops) to anyone who ever had a daughter, or ever was a daughter.

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

BULLSHIT!!! MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!

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

Religion has first become an massive industry- it's time to add them to the Taxable list of Corporations.
Second since our country was founded PARTLY on religious freedoms, as long as they are not breaking any fundmental laws (child abuse/neglect), Pose a national security issue (Hagee) or gain power in the political arena (Buchanan, Bush,Mac, Liebermann and apparently Hillary) to inflict their belief on the rest of the citizens of this Free Democratic Society and the World- I could careless what they think or do. In fact I'm a firm beleiver in encouraging compound living- "Keep 'em separated"! If the 'end of Day'ers want to drink the posioned Koolaid let them- just don't Give it to the kids - The 'Rapture' is a Delusion of meglomaniacs and Heretics.

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

SCOTUS has held that marriage is a fundamental right (Loving vs. Virginia). And laws that burden fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny i.e. upheld only if government can prove that it has a compelling interest and the law is the least burdensome way to achieve this compelling interest.

So what is the state's compelling interest in denying consenting adults (who are in alternative lifestyle) the fundamental right to marry, be it a transgender, homosexual, or polygamous relationship?

State cannot arbitrarily declare that marriage is between 2 individuals, just as it cannot arbitrarily declare that marriage means the union of 1 man and 1 woman.

Morality is not a compelling interest or deeply rooted traditions and customs, as SCOTUS declared in Lawrence v. Texas, holding that sexual intimacy between consenting adults is a fundamental right.

Can prevention of domestic violence/abuse be a compelling interest? Given that on average 1400 women are killed in what is described as a traditional one man and one woman relationship, and government has not done much to prevent such violence, prevention of abuse must not be a compelling interest.

Bottom line is that, state has no business dictating what kind of relationships consenting adults can practice.

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

I will be the first to admit that the majority of life isn't all black and white but how in the name of all that is holy does anyone find gray areas when we are talking about underage girls being forced into marriages with men old enough to be their fathers and grandfathers? Doing so under the guise of religious freedom does not change the fact that sex with minors is considered statutory rape. IMHO using religion as an excuse for such atrocious acts makes it even more disgusting!!

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

My main question for the law enforcement officials in all of this is this "If this is really just being done to protect children then when are we going to see the raids on Baptist churches than allow "snake-handlers" as a routine part of a church service" ?

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

This is not really about constitutional rights. Everyone should read this book, "Under the Banner of Heaven", to get a picture about what these groups are about. It was written by the guy who also wrote " Into Thin Air" and " Into The Wild". I think those are the correct titles. The latter was made into a movie by Sean Penn about the young guy that went to live in the wilderness in Alaska. Anyway, these sects are really very disturbing. Don't take them lightly.

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

how much debate about government interfence there would be if this were a religion that 'married' 15 year old boys to 50 and 90 year old women.

or if this were a religion that advocated homosexual relations with 15 year old boys.

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

well, to start... people who have been arrested... shouldn't be DNA catalogued...

its not like the US gov't or police **remove that data**

... exactly what CRIME are the offspring or future generations to have committed that warrants putting someone into a biometric or DNA database?

Privacy, DNA & Human Rights & Community Safety?

Naked Truth: Civil Rights & CNN coverage of "F.B.I.'s Server in the Sky" programme

~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

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

but there are way more serious things to worry about in this world than this subject...

And it might be that come future times these ways of life will be thought of as normal once all us old farts are gone and the under 20 crowd are gliding about in computer suits and taking virual sex pills...

In reality, this is just another diverison for the sheeple to argue about while your own freaking government corporation takes away every right you ever had and you all stand by and applaud them...

CLAP,CLAP,CLAP Here! Here!

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

Let's say they make homosexuality illegal. That's the law right? It sure is in Iran and I'm fairly sure it's also "the law" to kill them.

Just because something is on the books as a law does not make it unquestionably correct. You're a bunch of sheep, more than happy to use the argument of "IT'S THE LAW, THEY'RE CRIMINALS" when it suits you. Hypocrites all of you.

The FLDS have committed the ultimate sin in America's corporate run culture - daring to live off the grid in large numbers. Being disconnected from the system frightens the hell out of those in control of it. They cannot allow any group to demonstrate that it is possible to live outside of the government/debt/finance system because if enough people started to do so, they would lose everything that is dear to them - control.

There is absolutely no harm in one adult male being married to more than one adult female. The truth is they aren't even "married" in the eyes of the law anyway since it does not recognize such unions. They are effectively men with lots of mistresses. Last I checked that isn't illegal ANYWHERE.

As for the accusations against the compound in Texas - where is the 16 year old girl that started all of this with her phone call?

SHE DOESN'T EXIST. Some random 16 year old girl phoned in a false complaint (possibly at the urging of her law enforcement/politician parent) and destroyed this peaceful group of religious people that have done NOTHING WRONG.

Maybe the government will change the laws to destroy you and everything you hold dear. What will you do then? Looks like homosexuality, feminism, environmentalism, and atheism just got outlawed. That would put you people in quite the quandary wouldn't it?

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

...of you cloaking under Religious Freedom, this is Amendment.1. in the BILL OF RIGHTS, choice of or no choice at all. Simple, there is what Freedom Of Religion meant in the Constitution of the United States.
My goodness have you ever read the Constitution, BILL OF RIGHTS and all Amendments, EVER?????

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

..........going all the way back to ol' Joe Smith, like to fuck teens. That's all there is to it. All else is an excuse. Their "theology" is bullshit. They use religious lies (redundancy #2) and terror to coerce the kids. Best choice: get the state out of the business of private contracts, including marriage, but provide for children. Next choice: no marriage allowed for anyone under 21.

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

Focus on the crimes that were committed, if any were. Not what we just don't like (polygamy), not what appears to be (underage by guess?), not some anonymous phone call (yeah, right...).

Underage sex and marriage are illegal. Forced sex and marriage are illegal. What other allegations of illegality are there? Prove the crimes, and prosecute them. All else, hands off no matter how distasteful to you, and this coming from a pro-traditional-family conservative!

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

In schools these days, they teach the theory of evolution, and the theory of creation. Which one of these theories, are we to be forced to live by??? If we are just animals, as the creationist teach??? than sex and families, come with puberty??? Does it not??? It does with every other animal species on earth??? Or is that animalistic law, just for the other animals??? If we are to be forced to live by the theory of creation, then why are all of the tribes, on earth, seeking shelter, from the moral majority??? According to the constitution: congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion!!! To me that means that the government, has to remain neutral, and not retain a religion of it's own!!! If our government is allowed to have a religion, and the right to force they're religious morals on us??? what religion should we all be??? Do you "NOT-SEE" That Hitlers, "MORAL MAJORITY" also outlawed the minorities!!! Just like today's "MORAL MAJORITYS" wars against the Hippies, druggies, obese, poor, drunks, deadbeats, families, humans...The moral majority, is the church of England, that divides to conquer!!! The revolution, put a stop to them once!!! We have given our nation to the beast of separation!!! All we have to do is RE-UNITE, as the united states, that we are suppose to be!!! And we can slay this beast that preys on us all!!!

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

most of the responders to this just don't. Try this on for size. From what I could see, these fundamentalist Mormon homes had two way doors and two way floors. If anyone was being held against their will they could walk out.

Will Rogers once commented that we sould have a lot less trouble, if we would not try to mind everybody else's business. I, for one, have never participated in polygamy and at my age am most unlikely to start. But, having said that polygamy is part and parcel of many cultures. In our culture it is only a taboo.

For those of you that are interested in learning, let me suggest a nearly rare book to you. It is entitled "Lions of the Lord".

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

I have my own beliefs about marriage and family. As a Christian I am one who thinks the family is the best place for children, and that marriage is by definition monogamous.

Having said that, there is one thing worse than all the "immorality" and "nuttiness" in the world about these sects, and that is a government that shoves the mainstream lifestyle down their throats.

I have a large number of issues with the way the state of Texas is treating the FLDS. For one thing, the "children," many of whom are young adults really, have had no voice in this. What are their thoughts? Some of the FLDS parents who have been allowed to visit them say that the kids are imploring to go home. Siblings are separated all over the state, and they are being forced against their and their parents' wills to take vaccines.

They are being treated as property. They are *not* property; they are PEOPLE!!!

Ironically, and this really saddens me, these cults are often easy to wipe out because in many cases the cultists teach followers to respect "authority." So there was no fighting back. I personally believe they had every right to treat the agents who came on their property as the trespassers they are, and to do whatever they had to to keep them out.

Government is micromanaging all our lives, and non-conformists are being whipped into line. The Branch Davidians and the FLDS are canaries in the coalmine.

This isn't a free country any more. Ron Paul is right: Separate marriage and state.

See my new blog essay at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com

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

How should the states deal with men who have two girlfriends and sleep with both of them individually or simultaneously?

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

I definitely have mixed feelings because i think religious freedom and see separation church and state is a core value of American democracy. I also am wary of the heavy hand of the state. but there is validity to the protection of children by enforcing the law against underage and abusive relationships. Those who play the welfare system for benefits is bothersome. Also the patriarchal abusers eliminate competition by expelling boys at age 14 leading to homelessness. Perhaps a solution would be removing all girls in 7th grade from such groups to be sent to foster homes, perhaps the 'mainstream' Mormons, until age 18.

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

they killed them. This is a great improvement. If there is a Mormon(not necessarily fundamentalist) within the sound of this voice fill us all in on something. In the history of the Mormon church how many people have been killed just because they were Mormons?

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