What is the nature of anti-polygamy laws?

[BrianH]

Under aged pregnant girls seems pretty damning.

You're so certain they aren't brainwashed. Would you feel comfortable sending your daughter for a visit?

The girls at the compound DIDN'T REPORT ANYTHING.

Get it yet? So why can you abduct them because you "think" they may have been coerced, based upon NOTHING BUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE UNDERAGED AND PREGNANT, and still say that nobody needs to investigate the circumstances of underage pregnancies in abortion clinics.

THERE was a report.....fraudulent or not. There was call that sent law enforcement out there. If law enforcement had shown up and found now such reason for the call, they would have left, however, when they found a bed in the temple, several underage girls (married illegally to older men) with children, found records indicating pregnant girls, they had reason to take the kids....Get it? Not to mention the fact that the pregnant underaged girls are married to older men....hmmmm.......think about it.

 

[BrianH]

Again.

You don't break up families and take children away and begin testing them based upon nothing but a single, anonymous call.

If you'd ever worked with horrendous sex abuse cases and child abuse cases, where kids who are OBVIOUSLY being abused are left with their mothers while the state sorts things out, you would know how completely out in left field this seizure is.

Anything illegal can be grounds to take a child away. If you're smoking pot in your house, your child can be taken away. These sect members (knowingly or not) kept these children in an environment to be abused. THe mothers do not know any better because they've been brought up this way from birth....You've also ignored the "breaking" of infants (you know spanking them and torturing them under-water---something they get all mad about when we do to terrorists). I guess that's ok in your book also.

 

[AllieBaba]

Beds and pregnant girls are not the usual litmus for removing children from custody.

Besides which, all this is simply conjecture, but that doesn't stop the zealots from trampling all over human rights.

Mob mentality. Revolting.

 

[Gunny]

No, it's not against the law. Because people in this country have the freedom to live any lifestyle they choose, provided they aren't infringing upon the rights of others in doing so.

I think it IS required to have birth certificates, however. THat's where the FLDS folks will end up getting into trouble, I think. Though it's still not something which would ordinarily result in the removal of children.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2004-10-03-turley_x.htm
The difference between a polygamist and the follower of an "alternative lifestyle" is often religion. In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.

However, in its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people." In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be "a blot on our civilization" and compared it to human sacrifice and "a return to barbarism." Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is "contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World."

Contrary to the court's statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims.....
While the justifications have changed over the years, the most common argument today in favor of a criminal ban is that underage girls have been coerced into polygamist marriages. There are indeed such cases. However, banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse. The country has laws to punish pedophiles and there is no religious exception to those laws...
While the justifications have changed over the years, the most common argument today in favor of a criminal ban is that underage girls have been coerced into polygamist marriages. There are indeed such cases. However, banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse. The country has laws to punish pedophiles and there is no religious exception to those laws.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School.

And how old does a girl have to be to get married with her parents' consent in Texas? I don't think it's very old.

It isn't the marriages that are going to get them in trouble. It's the fact that there are 14-17 years olds that are pregnant or have had children. Legally, a girl can get married at 16, with parental consent.

Since the marriages aren't legal, you want to bet there are also no parental consent documents? No parental consent, the age is 18.

I would say that would necessitate 31 explanations."

 

[AllieBaba]

Anything illegal can be grounds to take a child away. If you're smoking pot in your house, your child can be taken away. These sect members (knowingly or not) kept these children in an environment to be abused. THe mothers do not know any better because they've been brought up this way from birth....You've also ignored the "breaking" of infants (you know spanking them and torturing them under-water---something they get all mad about when we do to terrorists). I guess that's ok in your book also.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and all this has already been addressed.

The guy who was allegedly performing "water torture" is in jail. So the kids were certainly in no danger from him.

The rest of your information comes from a "source" who left the compound YEARS AGO and is promoting a book about it.

The standard for removing kids, particularly in such a violent, frightening and sudden manner, is that there is good evidence that they are in IMMEDIATE DANGER. Do you get it? IMMEDIATE.

So tell me. Who in the home at the time of the raid was in immediate danger, and what were they in danger of?

 

[BrianH]

Beds and pregnant girls are not the usual litmus for removing children from custody.

Besides which, all this is simply conjecture, but that doesn't stop the zealots from trampling all over human rights.

Mob mentality. Revolting.

Let's start over and I'll make this easy for you.

1. Polygamy-Bigamy is Illegal in Texas.
2. Sex with a minor is Illegal in most places in the U.S.
3. Marrying of an underage girl (period) without consent of the state court is Illegal.
4. Beating an infant and torturing it under water to "break" it in is Illegal.

Shall I go on....

There numerous grounds here for taking these children. If an anonymous phone call reported that your husband was marrying off several of his underaged daughters to 50 year old men, the police and CPS would come, if they found it to be true, you would lose your children.
Simple as that, why should these people be spared this because they hide it under a cloak of righteousness??

 

[BrianH]

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and all this has already been addressed.

The guy who was allegedly performing "water torture" is in jail. So the kids were certainly in no danger from him.

The rest of your information comes from a "source" who left the compound YEARS AGO and is promoting a book about it.

The standard for removing kids, particularly in such a violent, frightening and sudden manner, is that there is good evidence that they are in IMMEDIATE DANGER. Do you get it? IMMEDIATE.

So tell me. Who in the home at the time of the raid was in immediate danger, and what were they in danger of?

First off, the "guy" performing water torture was the compound leader genius...if he's the leader, that means the others FOLLOW.

Second- what better source than someone who lived it...because you know the "brainwashed" people are not going to admit anything.

The immediate danger is the little 13 year old possibly getting raped that night by their 40 year old husband. Any infant was in immediate danger for being beaten.

You are so full of shit I can smell your breath from here. There are 31 out of 53 girls between the ages of 14-17 who are pregnant or have been pregnant before. According to their religious beliefs, they probably had to have been married also....Two illegal acts in two sentences.....You, my friend, are the one who does not get it. And other posters on this board will second my motion...except RGS, cause he lives in Neverland....literally.

 

[AllieBaba]

Let's start over and I'll make this easy for you.
1. The guy who allegedly "broke" infants hasn't been in the house for ages, and isn't going to be back any time soon.
2. Underage pregnancy is NOT a reason to take children from a home, and has never been considered so or every underage girl who gets an abortion would be loaded onto a bus at the abortion clinic and bussed to a foster home while her parents are interrogated.
3. Underage girls can and do get married all the time, and live with men who are older than they are, and get welfare, and nobody marches into their homes to take their children.

You're basing your whole argument on premises which have absolutely nothing to do with what is actually going on. You're basing it on old allegations which have been addressed, and you're basing it on a presumption that if a girl is pregnant or has children while underaged, the state is justified in taking her children based on that alone.

The state is not justified. There is no precedent for it. If you can find a case which does NOT involve a religious group where a home was raided and children were taken based upon nothing but the fact that underaged girls were possibly pregnant, please provide that information.

 

[Dogger]

blah, blah, blah, . . .

3. Underage girls can and do get married all the time, and live with men who are older than they are, and get welfare, and nobody marches into their homes to take their children.

yap, yap, yap, . . .

Except most of these young girls are not legally married.

A middle aged or older polygamous man rarely, if ever, has an underaged girl as his first wife. The first wife is usually taken when the husband is much younger, and she is much closer to the husband's age. That means that most, if not all, of the underaged girls are not legal wives, because their bigamous marriage is legally void

A valid marriage is a defense to a charge of illegal sexual intercourse with a minor. Because the older men had other wives first, the subsequent bigamous marriage to the underaged girl is legally void. Thus, the so-called husband cannot claim marriage as a defense to criminal sexual intercourse with a minor.

 

[BrianH]

Let's start over and I'll make this easy for you.

1. Polygamy-Bigamy is Illegal in Texas.
2. Sex with a minor is Illegal in most places in the U.S.
3. Marrying of an underage girl (period) without consent of the state court is Illegal.
4. Beating an infant and torturing it under water to "break" it in is Illegal.

Shall I go on....

There numerous grounds here for taking these children. If an anonymous phone call reported that your husband was marrying off several of his underaged daughters to 50 year old men, the police and CPS would come, if they found it to be true, you would lose your children.
Simple as that, why should these people be spared this because they hide it under a cloak of righteousness??

I'll post it again for the slow one.

 

[BrianH]

Except most of these young girls are not legally married.

A middle aged or older polygamous man rarely, if ever, has an underaged girl as his first wife. The first wife is usually taken when the husband is much younger, and she is much closer to the husband's age. That means that most, if not all, of the underaged girls are not legal wives, because their bigamous marriage is legally void

A valid marriage is a defense to a charge of illegal sexual intercourse with a minor. Because the older men had other wives first, the subsequent bigamous marriage to the underaged girl is legally void. Thus, the so-called husband cannot claim marriage as a defense to criminal sexual intercourse with a minor.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

No, it's not against the law. Because people in this country have the freedom to live any lifestyle they choose, provided they aren't infringing upon the rights of others in doing so.

I think it IS required to have birth certificates, however. THat's where the FLDS folks will end up getting into trouble, I think. Though it's still not something which would ordinarily result in the removal of children.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2004-10-03-turley_x.htm

...

And how old does a girl have to be to get married with her parents' consent in Texas? I don't think it's very old.

Texas law, sixteen with parental consent, for a marriage that is Texas legal, that is, with a marriage license and all recognised by the state.

so a plural wife, not legally married as per the state, comes under the age of consent law, which is seventeen, that is, sixteen plus one day, as opposed to fifteen plus one day, both requiring a legit birth certificate...

So, any deviation from this, the state is right, the non-compliant with the law are wrong.