Fundamentalist Mormons and individual rights

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Fundamentalist Mormons and individual rights

I tried to ignore a recent news campaign that just won't go away, but the more I looked into it, the more I saw it was related to a recent discussion we have been having here on OL concerning individual rights.

To start with, the following news item has caused me a feeling of outrage on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. Look at this crap:

Moms and young children from Texas ranch to be parted

By MICHELLE ROBERTS

Associated Press

Yahoo! News

April 20, 2008

From the article:

Adult mothers who have been allowed to stay with their young children since they were taken from a polygamous sect will be separated from them after DNA sampling is completed next week, a child welfare official said Saturday.

State District Judge Barbara Walther late Friday ordered that parents and children of the Yearning For Zion Ranch submit DNA samples to help sort out family relationships that have confounded authorities since 416 children were taken into state custody two weeks ago.

. . .

Child welfare officials allowed adult mothers with children ages 4 and younger to stay together when the state took custody of the rest of the children from the ranch. Now, only mothers younger than 18 will be allowed to remain with their children once the sampling is complete. The welfare agency will also try to keep siblings together, he said.

"We're going to make these transitions as easy as possible," Azar said. "We want to keep them together as much as possible so they don't feel they're completely isolated from their culture or the people they know."

WAIT A MINUTE!!!

"Make these transitions as easy as possible..."???!!!

Who in hell does this guy think he is or is fooling? The state has used guns to violate the rights of peace-abiding citizens to raise their children as they see fit and confiscated the children from their lawful mothers.

I don't care if this thing is complicated, what the state just did was wrong. Period.

That doesn't make this cult right, though.

For those who have not been following events, here is a brief overview.

The Mormon faith is divided into a fundamentalist branch and a mainstream one. This split occurred at the beginning of last century and was over (among other things) the practice of polygamy. Fundamentalist members started being excommunicated by the mainstream group after the split. For those interested, here is the Wikipedia article on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

It is abbreviated as "FLDS" and this is what the mainstream press calls it. For some reason, the word "Mormon" has been avoided like the plague by the mainstream press in covering the present case. (Another case of mainstream news pulling all meaning from the jaws of truth to cover it's ass.)

This fundamentalist cult has traditionally had two main compounds: in Utah and Arizona. Because of legal difficulties over child abuse in both states, it has been migrating to a compound in Texas. This compound, (here is the Wikipedia article) Yearning for Zion Ranch (YFZ Ranch), was recently raided because of a hoax about a 16 year old girl being raped and beaten by her husband. Although the hoax has been uncovered and admitted, Texas authorities are claiming that the raid was legitimate because it actually did uncover evidence of child abuse.

Under Texas law, blood relationship has stronger bearing on family law than in other states. Also, if a girl is underage and pregnant, the father (if adult) is considered guilty of statutory rape. What Texas is trying to do is test the DNA of the children and mothers and fathers, compare the ages of the children against the ages of their biological mothers and determine which mothers were underage at the time of birth. That way it can go after the fathers on rape and pedophilia charges.

Like I said above, I think the state is being grossly heavy-handed in this affair and is flat-out wrong to pursue this line of intimidation. It is trying to punish good people for doing what they thought was good.

As to the fundamentalist Mormons, I think they are flat-out wrong, too, but for another reason (and despite considering them to be good people seeking to live a virtuous life).

We have been discussing the rights of children here on OL. I am now faced with identifying another right, or category of right, or something. In the present society, there is a concept that keeps coming up in terms of rights that I am wrestling with—more so because of this case than before.

When human society has reached a certain level of technological advancement and generalized wealth, a new kind of situation is created than exists in raw nature. There is no way to get around thinking about what rights arise in this new situation. (Don't worry, I am not going toward welfare in this reasoning. )

To cut to the chase, I think access to information by children and adults has to be considered a right in the present information age. The only way a cult leadership can control and mold people into virtual slaves is to keep them cut off from information coming from the rest of the world, demonize the outside world and threaten cult members from birth with excommunication. To a child trying to learn the difference between good and evil, he learns that his choice for not obeying the cult leaders is to be tossed into the jaws of pure evil. This scares the holy hell right out of him and turns him into a brainwashed person willing to do anything to avoid that.

I think it is a violation of children's rights to prohibit them from learning the truth about the world according to their rational faculties. It is an impairment of their mental abilities, especially volition. I don't have anything against practicing faith and even teaching it (although I think it is foolish), but I do have something against prohibiting a child to develop his reason by restricting access to information.

If the state wants to prosecute this cult for violating the rights of children for impairing their mental development, I have no qualms against it. I would base this right on access to information.

But to prosecute these people for pedophilia??? Keerrisst! These fundamentalist Mormons honestly believe they are serving their God by doing this. They think this is virtue! If the state wants to go this route, justice demands that it first provide an educational policy with warnings, deadlines, etc.

There have been a few women who escaped the cult and I saw their interviews on TV. Although they made their choices (and heroic ones, I might add), I have no reason to believe that the men or women in this sect they left behind think they are practicing evil.

From everything I have seen about this affair so far, I haven't seen anyone do what I would call "right." Everybody is doing everything all wrong for all the wrong reasons.

What a mess!

Michael

[Backlighting]

Michael,

Couldn't agree with you more.

Additionally, the BS spewing from the mouths of the candidates and the Pope, during his visit, is enough to make me vomit.

It's getting to the point, for me, where I don't even want to watch the news anymore.

It's difficult to be optimistic regarding the status quo.

Where's Galt's Gulch when you need it?

[Barbara Branden]

Michael:"The state has used guns to violate the rights of peace-abiding citizens to raise their children as they see fit and confiscated the children from their lawful mothers."

And: "It [the state] is trying to punish good people for doing what they thought was good."

And: "But to prosecute these people for pedophilia??? Keerrisst! These fundamentalist Mormons honestly believe they are serving their God by doing this. They think this is virtue! If the state wants to go this route, justice demands that it first provide an educational policy with warnings, deadlines, etc."

Michael, I don't understand your reasoning. Clear evidence of children forced into "marriages" -- that is, forced into having sex with middle-aged men and often being made pregnant-- at the ages of ten and up has been been gathered. How can this be allowed to continue? And what does it matter that the parents might have thought this was a good thing to do, or that they were serving their God by so doing? Pedophilia is against the law, as it should be,. The law is clear, and a further educatiomal policy is not required -- and certainly not required when more children would be victimized while such a policy was being put into effect. Surely you would not say that if mothers thought that beating their children senseless and starving them almost to death was good, and was service uo their God, it should be permitted on the theory that "they think this is virtue." Nor do I think you would say that further education is required before the law should be enforced. Why should pedophila be allowed to continue under any circumstances? It should be stopped the split second it is discovered to exist. Parents do not have the right "to raise their children as they see fit" if they see fit to deliver them up to pedophiliacs.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

They used the girls sexually while forcing the excess teenage boys to leave. The boys ended up selling their bodies on the streets of Las Vegas.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

As I understand it, the way this cult defines womanhood is with the onset of menstruation, which to them is God's signal that the body is ready for procreation.

I don't think the issue of pedophilia in the sense of sex with pre-menstrual girls is at stake. On the contrary, I imagine this cult would harshly condemn that practice as morally reprehensible in the strongest terms possible. (Incidentally, I need to look to see about evidence of sex with 10 year olds, i.e., pre-menstrual girls. Before saying more on that, I want to see what is being presented by and to the authorities.)

There is a huge difference between a young post-menstrual girl getting married and having sex and something like beating children senseless. I happen to agree with modern psychology that pregnancy is damaging to young girls, even though the body says that it is time. But I do not see how a cult like this can be criminally held to such a modern standard (and even call it pedophilia) without some kind of education. These people don't know any better. They think this is the way God wanted them to be. Modern psychology is modern and these people are still living according to intellectual standards of centuries gone by.

I think allowing all members access to modern information (i.e., prohibiting those in charge from sealing off the community from modern communications like radio, TV, Internet, etc.), maybe with some kind of enforced visits from educators during a while, would automatically cause so much strife within that culture that these practices would gradually end on their own.

If I were a judge in this case, I would set some kind of reasonable time period for educating the cult members in matters like psychological maturity needs for a gap between first menstruation and actual reproduction, the law, other cultures and systems of ethics, etc. Only after that time would I apply criminal standards like the modern definition of pedophilia to them.

That's only speculation, but I think it is reasonable. I don't see how to tell, say, a wild Indian that he is responsible for being a savage, that he is personally and legally accountable for being a savage, and he is to be condemned because he is a savage. Not without first giving him a chance to understand what that means. He couldn't help what he was. He was born into that and grew up that way. I think the same thing applies here with these fundamentalist Mormons.

This isn't the same kind of problem like growing up in a city ghetto. In ghettos, information can get in. With these people, there is no information.

I have no problem with an intervention to stop a serious problem. God knows I am in favor of protecting the rights of children and despise cults with every ounce of my being. I do have a problem with punishing these people as criminals as if they knew better. After they become educated, I would have no problem with punishing them as criminals if they persisted. That is especially applicable to the cult leaders, if not in double.

Actually, I think the cult leaders need special attention because they seem to have some limited notion of right and wrong in a modern non-Mormon sense (and even in a Mormon one). At least, it is easy to see that they promote the wrong on purpose at times. A good case is their frequent practice of excommunicating young boys and men, presumably to assure that there will be enough women for them to marry at will within the community. Trumping up charges against an innocent person is wrong and they know it. They call it bearing false witness.

Michael

[william.scherk]

The state has used guns to violate the rights of peace-abiding citizens to raise their children as they see fit and confiscated the children from their lawful mothers.

The folks of Yearning for Zion ranch may be peace-abiding, but chances are they are not at all law-abiding.

The reports of rape and forced marriage are compelling -- the leader of this creepy sect is in jail for one instance of such force.

So what if the might of Texas comes down hard and that women and children are separated while child-abuse allegations are investigated? What else would we call for and accept if the ranch held only one or two families? The FLDS obstructs investigation to the point where the state has to establish relationships by DNA test. "Who's your daddy?" and "Who's your momma" and "who's your old lady" will be answered, but at a much slower pace than if the sect had been honest. Deception and obstruction has been the response of the men and women of the ranch to inquiry.

The FLDS has had no problem in breaking up families itself, excommunicating men and divvying up the remaining brides and children. It has no problem banishing young men with no wife, who otherwise compete with the elders for the fixed pool of breeding females. It has a history, a long, ugly history of subjugating its members to the edicts of the prophet.

Mind you, the state of Texas will ultimately not keep care of the vast majority of these kids. So the FLDS wins this one, too, as it won in the aftermath of the 1950s raids.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Heh.

I, too, am "not at all law-abiding." That, by itself, is no sin in my book.

It depends on which laws and why.

In this case, I am trying to keep the principles separate from my distaste of cults, which is huge. I fully agree with you about this sect breaking up marriages, etc., so payback feels right. On a visceral level, I am glad they got it back in the snoot. But the reality is that they did not use guns to do their dirty deads. Probably the intimidation of fear of excommunication is tantamount to force. It's an interesting question. But still, they did not invade houses and remove people under the immediate threat of lethal force.

Also, the USA was founded by religious sects trying to get away from those who made laws against their beliefs. I can't help but see a parallel here. It's painful to see such history being repeated with the USA government being the heavy, and it's equally painful, if not more so, feeling the repugnance that I do for hermetic cults that brainwash members while knowing that their rights need to be protected.

I personally would love to see the FLDS disbanded. But I would love to see it as a triumph of ideas, not guns. Or, to be exact, I do not mind using guns for interference to protect the children. I would not like to see those guns used to disband the FLDS, for as much as I would like to see it disbanded.

Incidentally, I have vastly more sympathy for the mothers and children than I do for the leaders. I see no reason whatsoever to keep the children separate from the mothers. I see even less reason to do this with guns. The law can be enforced while still allowing mother and child to be with each other.

This is abuse by the state.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have done a little reading on this and my suspicions have been correct. There is no pedophilia in the FLDS in the same sense as what we normally think about pedophiles. A pedophile normally has sex with young kids and moves on searching for other young kids. He does not continue the sexual relationship into the child's adulthood. This is a different animal than what is going on with FLDS.

The sexual problems of this cult are polygamy and underage marriage. It is not a cult of orgies, rampant child abuse or anything like what is normally portrayed. Extramarital, premarital and homosexual sex and masturbation are grounds for excommunication within that cult. Underage girls are only forced into sex if the man marries them, and then it is considered as part of the marriage vows.

I am not in favor of underage marriage nor polygamy. I am also not in favor of condemning these people for things they do not practice.

Underage marriage and polygamy... isn't that bad enough? I am not against polygamy too much. Frankly I am more indifferent about that than anything else. But I am strongly against underage marriage.

And once again, I am strongly against cults.

As far as the police raiding the place based on a hoax is concerned and later the court separating mothers from children, I think the state of Texas is running a serious risk of getting its legal ass kicked to Mexico and back with this one. But the talking heads on TV get to preach their brand of moralism and the judges and lawyers for a small while can run the bill of rights over once again with a bulldozer. Unfortunately, in all the noise and posturing, hardly anyone notices that the real problem is not being solved (penetration of outside information into the cult and serious intellectual challenge to the leadership—as the saying goes, cut the head off the beast and the rest of the body dies).

And I predict that it will not be solved. It will simply move elsewhere and continue, strengthened by having overcome one more legal test.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

While forcing young adolescent girls into marriage is not pedophilia, it is simply wrong. If they were left alone in their youth to think, grow, experiment and choose that would be a world of difference. Girls being bred for marriage with men who need Viagra, sex and more babies is all it boils down to.

--Brant

[ginny]

Michael, I don't post here often, but this case has really gotten me confused, and I've tried to sort it out. I've bought and read Carolyn Jessop's book on her escape from this cult. First of all, these children were certainly abused by fathers and sister-wives. Also, since Warren Jeffs leadership, all media (newspapers, TV, radio) has been forbidden. Michael, as much as I believe in free will, I just can't see acting thereunder when one's mind has been forcibly slammed shut. A few heroic women have managed espace, but they are rare, and I'm having trouble blaming the rest. According to Carolyn Jessop, these people are brainwashed from birth that they'll go to hell if they don't obey. That just strikes me as force. While the situation is enormously complicated, I just believe that the Texas law enforcement had a right to try to intervene. Of course, now the comes the really hard part. How do you justify separating 416 children from their mothers? Do you leave them in a cult? Do you subject them to a world they know nothing about? It's one hell of a legal issue, and I'm curious how Texas will handle it. Ginny

[Selene]

Folks:

Michael. I am also outraged by the manner and "justification" that was offered by the State actors in this situation.

However, some of the other posters raise valid issues about "protecting children" which I believe you raised powerfully in regards to drug dealers and children.

Moreover, we have a history of anti-Mormon sentiment in this country that was so insane that it was legal to kill a Mormon in Missouri in the 1850's.

Additionally, we had the horror of Elian Rodriguez in Florida, taken at the point of an assault rifle out of his home and deported to Cuba.

We had Ruby Ridge wherein a mother with her child in her arms was killed by an FBI, Harvard educated sniper. His son was also shot in the back by the same team.

Finally, we had the famous Janet Reno Waco incident wherein she saved the children from "abuse" by killing them.

No one knows, at this point in time whether these children were abused. In fact, it appears that the originating phone calls were not made from the "compound", which is labeled that way to imply that the residents are kept in by force rather than choice, and that the phone calls were a hoax perpetrated by a 30 year old woman who is allegedly under arrest at this moment.

It is easy for the critics of your position to represent that there is testimonial evidence from women and the lost boys who have fled that life style.

This is a difficult issue and it will be hotly discussed here as it should be.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, as much as I believe in free will, I just can't see acting thereunder when one's mind has been forcibly slammed shut. A few heroic women have managed espace, but they are rare, and I'm having trouble blaming the rest. According to Carolyn Jessop, these people are brainwashed from birth that they'll go to hell if they don't obey. That just strikes me as force. While the situation is enormously complicated, I just believe that the Texas law enforcement had a right to try to intervene. Of course, now the comes the really hard part. How do you justify separating 416 children from their mothers? Do you leave them in a cult? Do you subject them to a world they know nothing about? It's one hell of a legal issue, and I'm curious how Texas will handle it. Ginny

Ginny,

You hit on the issues that are troubling me. I see the main problem, hands down, as being cult mind-control. The effects—underage marriage, family discipline by corporal punishment, power jockeying by demonizing this or that person, trading sex for power, etc.—are simply effects. And all the scare headlines about pedophilia, etc., do nothing but draw attention away from the real solution.

If the state exists to protect rights, then it has to get to the core problem. Otherwise it will protect the rights of Person A, but allow the rights of Person B and those who follow to be violated in the same manner.

I don't see any other way out except for intervention by authorities into a cult when gross misalignment with our laws and rights is at stake. I hope I do not shock too much by the following suggestion. China had infamous reeducation camps. I think the mechanism is a good one, albeit it has gotten a bad name because the Chinese government used it for indoctrination and not deprogramming. I see something like this being used as a reasonable measure (at least this is my suggestion). I would not like the idea of being confined for 2 years or anything like that, but something like a month-long separation from family once a year for, say, five years, with obligatory attendance of classes showing other religious beliefs and concepts of heaven and hell, the moral and legal foundations of our country, group dynamics and mind control, etc., would go far to weakening the power of the people in control of the cults.

Also, if social workers are already part of the system (but I am not in favor of how they are part of the system), they could be used for periodic visits.

For those interested in Carolyn Jessop's story, here are some links:

Carolyn Jessop (Wikipedia)

Escape (Amazon sales page of Carolyn Jessop's book coauthored with Laura Palmer)

Polygamy Survivor Carolyn Jessop (Time CNN article)

Carolyn Jessop (her page and list of newspaper article teasers/links on Childbrides.org)

(YouTube - 8 min - from Dec 5, 007 speech at Tattered Cover Bookstore in Denver, CO, on Fora TV

Michael

[Aggrad02]

Michael:"The state has used guns to violate the rights of peace-abiding citizens to raise their children as they see fit and confiscated the children from their lawful mothers."

And: "It [the state] is trying to punish good people for doing what they thought was good."

And: "But to prosecute these people for pedophilia??? Keerrisst! These fundamentalist Mormons honestly believe they are serving their God by doing this. They think this is virtue! If the state wants to go this route, justice demands that it first provide an educational policy with warnings, deadlines, etc."

Michael, I don't understand your reasoning. Clear evidence of children forced into "marriages" -- that is, forced into having sex with middle-aged men and often being made pregnant-- at the ages of ten and up has been been gathered. How can this be allowed to continue? And what does it matter that the parents might have thought this was a good thing to do, or that they were serving their God by so doing? Pedophilia is against the law, as it should be,. The law is clear, and a further educatiomal policy is not required -- and certainly not required when more children would be victimized while such a policy was being put into effect. Surely you would not say that if mothers thought that beating their children senseless and starving them almost to death was good, and was service uo their God, it should be permitted on the theory that "they think this is virtue." Nor do I think you would say that further education is required before the law should be enforced. Why should pedophila be allowed to continue under any circumstances? It should be stopped the split second it is discovered to exist. Parents do not have the right "to raise their children as they see fit" if they see fit to deliver them up to pedophiliacs.

Barbara

Great Response Barbara, Right On.

-Dustan

[Alfonso Jones]

Michael, I don't understand your reasoning. Clear evidence of children forced into "marriages" -- that is, forced into having sex with middle-aged men and often being made pregnant-- at the ages of ten and up has been been gathered. How can this be allowed to continue? And what does it matter that the parents might have thought this was a good thing to do, or that they were serving their God by so doing? Pedophilia is against the law, as it should be,. The law is clear, and a further educatiomal policy is not required -- and certainly not required when more children would be victimized while such a policy was being put into effect. Surely you would not say that if mothers thought that beating their children senseless and starving them almost to death was good, and was service uo their God, it should be permitted on the theory that "they think this is virtue." Nor do I think you would say that further education is required before the law should be enforced. Why should pedophila be allowed to continue under any circumstances? It should be stopped the split second it is discovered to exist. Parents do not have the right "to raise their children as they see fit" if they see fit to deliver them up to pedophiliacs.

Barbara

Clearly, the details matter. Michael - are you arguing that coercion of a 10 year old girl into marriage with a 40 - 50 year old man should be legal? I don't think you are, but I find it hard to understand your point given that assumption. Are you questioning the stories coming out of the coerced underage marriages?

Certainly, any on this forum should be very wary of quickly allowing intrusion of the state when there is not clear initiation of force. I think that coercion of a 10 year old girl into marriage with a 40 - 50 year old man qualifies. The FLDS bizarre belief system does not.

Alfonso

[Kat]

This is a very sad story indeed. It seems like these women are born into slavery. They are exploited, treated like property and breeding animals and have no individual rights in their bizarre subculture. The misogynist cult needs to be disbanded, if for nothing else, child endangerment and statutory rape. Some major deprogramming needs to happen before these people can function on the outside or the kids placed in foster care. If the mothers are capable of taking care of the children, let them stay together, but I think that would be unlikely. It seems that they would be too brainwashed as to be considered mentally incompetent. This is the only life these people knew and they need transitional support. The men, if born into this little society, don't understand the damage they have inflicted on their families and should be monitored and deprogrammed. Lots of orders of protection to keep the women and children safe. These people are all sick. Some are criminals and some are victims. Let the courts sort it out. IMHO anyone who is a religious fundamentalist of any type has abandoned their rational faculty and is potentially dangerous to themselves or others. All the marriages in the cult should be invalidated and the cult leaders prosecuted... but to what extent, I am not sure. Castration seems reasonable.

Kat

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alfonso,

I am unaware of any 10 year old girl who was forced into marriage in that sect. I just did an overview of the women listed on Childbrides and came up with the following arranged marriages:

Carolyn Jessop was married at 18.

Sara Hammon was engaged to be married at 14, but managed to get out before being married.

Flora Jessop was married at 14.

Fawn Holm was promised in marriage at 16.

Fawn Broadbent was placed on an availability list for marriage at 17 (called a "Joy Book" by the church).

Elissa Wall was married at 14.

Tamara Phelps was married at 17.

Pam Black was married at 17.

Nichole Holm was ordered to be married at 16, but her mother Lenore did not allow it.

Caroline Cooke ran away at 15 fearing that she was going to be forced to be married.

Laura Chapman was married at 18.

Kaziah Hancock was married at 15.

Margaret Cook was married at 16.

For the record, I certainly am not in favor of arranged marriages of 10 year olds, or any other arranged marriages for that matter. This entire list makes me sick at heart.

I am in favor of judging facts and correctly identifying them, regardless of what they are.

Also, I despise lynch mobs. I think the mainstream press has turned into a lynch mob in this case and objectivity has gone the way of the wild geese.

I made a similar mistake once in joining an intellectual lynch mob against Jim Peron. After I examined the evidence up close (actually it was a while after examining it up close—my conscious did not allow me to ignore what I read, but still there was a gap of time before it fully sank in), I saw that his accusers easily manipulated the facts because of public hysteria against child abuse and he was railroaded in grand style.

In the present case, here is an example of manipulated facts: turning the number 14 into 10. Why on earth do that? (Not you, the people who habitually do.) Making a 14 year old girl get married is a horrible truth. That is documented. Making a 10 year old girl get married is a pathetic falsehood. That is alleged by tabloids without proof. What is gained by this? The horrible truth does not justify the pathetic falsehood.

I only take the horrible truth seriously. I think the pathetic falsehood is... er... false...

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Alfonso,

I am unaware of any 10 year old girl who was forced into marriage in that sect. I just did an overview of the women listed on Childbrides and came up with the following arranged marriages:

Carolyn Jessop was married at 18.

Sara Hammon was engaged to be married at 14, but managed to get out before being married.

Flora Jessop was married at 14.

Fawn Holm was promised in marriage at 16.

Fawn Broadbent was placed on an availability list for marriage at 17 (called a "Joy Book" by the church).

Elissa Wall was married at 14.

Tamara Phelps was married at 17.

Pam Black was married at 17.

Nichole Holm was ordered to be married at 16, but her mother Lenore did not allow it.

Caroline Cooke ran away at 15 fearing that she was going to be forced to be married.

Laura Chapman was married at 18.

Kaziah Hancock was married at 15.

Margaret Cook was married at 16.

For the record, I certainly am not in favor of arranged marriages of 10 year olds, or any other arranged marriages for that matter. This entire list makes me sick at heart.

I am in favor of judging facts and correctly identifying them, regardless of what they are.

Also, I despise lynch mobs. I think the mainstream press has turned into a lynch mob in this case and objectivity has gone the way of the wild geese.

I made a similar mistake once in joining an intellectual lynch mob against Jim Peron. After I examined the evidence up close (actually it was a while after examining it up close—my conscious did not allow me to ignore what I read, but still there was a gap of time before it fully sank in), I saw that his accusers easily manipulated the facts because of public hysteria against child abuse and he was railroaded in grand style.

In the present case, here is an example of manipulated facts: turning the number 14 into 10. Why on earth do that? (Not you, the people who habitually do.) Making a 14 year old girl get married is a horrible truth. That is documented. Making a 10 year old girl get married is a pathetic falsehood. That is alleged by tabloids without proof. What is gained by this? The horrible truth does not justify the pathetic falsehood.

I only take the horrible truth seriously. I think the pathetic falsehood is... er... false...

Michael

Michael -

Thanks for your response. I haven't researched the ages myself, so I can't speak to that. I imagine the facts should become very clear soon, as investigation continues (if rumors and allegations don't become substitutes for truth by dint of frequent repetition).

But I am still aghast (as you are) at the high incidence of very young arranged marriage which appears to be the case from your list - perhaps 14 being the age deemed "minimum." We'll see as details come out.

Alfonso

[Selene]

Food for thought. Testimony that disputes the representations of the State.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/21/...in4029811.shtml

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Selene,

This is a perferct example of what I have been talking about. Here is an excerpt from the CBS article you linked:

In the wide-ranging interview, Rodriguez asked, "After all this, can you see why society looks upon you and says, 'A girl who's younger than 18 shouldn't be married and having sex?' Has this forced you to reconsider?"

One of the men, who identified himself as Rulon (none of the three offered a last name) responded, "Yes, many of us perhaps were not even aware of such a law, but yes, we have been made very aware in the last two weeks and we do reconsider -- yes."

I do not consider such a man to be a criminal for having lived the life he lived. I would consider it to be a outrage for him to go to jail for having married underaged girls.

Now that he knows, I judge his acts differently. If he repeats what he did and marries another underaged girl, then jail is more than appropriate.

Education has taken place. Context has been taken into account.

These are predominantly good people at heart (most of them—and I truly believe that). They lived secluded lives trying to be good people, virtuous people. I have no doubt at all that when they come in contact with other good people with different ideas (on a scale like we are now seeing), ones who point to something reasonable (like underage marriage being illegal and psychologically damaging) and say this is wrong for such-and-such reasons, they will examine the issues with goodwill. This CBS interview is one indication, although we still need to see what these guys will do and if their later acts will align with their present words.

I have a lot of faith in the goodness of people. Punishment is for the bad guys, not good people in ignorance. They need education, not punishment. Once they understand, then a modern standard is applicable. I am sure there are some bad guys among them (and I have no problem with punishing them, especially the power-mongers, if evidence is found), but I hate the demonizing of the entire group of people I have seen on TV programs and read in the press.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

How old is Rulon? The judge can consider mitigating factors at sentencing.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is another issue I did not mention, since I think it is obvious.

If polygamy is illegal, of course these marriages must be formally dissolved.

Incidentally, I just saw Glenn Beck on CNN. It was refreshing to see he agrees with me about the abuse of authority going on and the fact that the state of Texas is probably in for a very nasty legal time, although he demonizes the cult and I do not. Well... it is a bit creepy... but I still see more victims than bad guys.

Michael

[ginny]

Yes, Michael, this case is laden with victims. Except for one group. The men. They think they are god. I'd like to see the court concentrate on them. The way these women are kept isolated, surely a good attorney could even make a case for unlawful imprisonment (might be stretching a bit). The sad thing is, on last night's Nancy Grace Show, they indicated that most of the men had long hightailed their cowardly butts out and are now all over the US and Canada. They'll probably never get prosecuted. Still, just a few of them joining Warren Jeffs in jail would warm my heart.

[Selene]

Michael:

"These are predominantly good people at heart (most of them—and I truly believe that). They lived secluded lives trying to be good people, virtuous people."

Exactly. The Amish and Orthodox Jewish folks that I know personally also have a different view of "marriage", granted, not polygamy, but different.

Furthermore, you are spot on in terms of the middle gentleman who said that he was not aware of that law. Had I not known people who have lived in isolated religious communities, I would have thought he was not speaking truthfully.

My lady was a missionary midwife in Bolivia for five years and lived in a very tight community.

Home Schoolers that I know well are constantly in fear of the State. Tyranny running under the banner of an alphabet agency is still tyranny. In my line of work,

I have seen ACS - Florida's "child protectors", CPS - New York's "child protectors, Missiouri, Texas, Ohio, Alabama...I could go on, literally destroy children and families in the name of the "best interests of the child" standard.

I do not trust the government as it exists today.

I think this issue cuts to core principles and it is not easy to discuss and argue about, but I believe it can be quite fruitful for all of us, even if it does get edgy.

By the way does anyone know what the legal age for marriage is in the State of Texas?

Adam

[Selene]

See the highlighted sections, because now the question is where was the "crime"? If the originating call came, as alleged by the State, from a sixteen (16) year old and, which is unknown at this point, that sixteen (16) year old had her parent's present......where is the crime?

Common Law Marriage or Informal Marriage:

Yes. Texas also refers to common law marriage as an informal marriage.

For a marriage to be declared an informal marriage in Texas, a couple has two options.

1. Sign a declaration of their marriage under oath. The form is available at County Clerk's office.

The Declaration and Registration of Informal Marriage asks for full names, woman's maiden surname, addresses, dates of birth, places of birth, social security numbers, and relationship information.

The Declaration states: "I solemnly swear (or affirm) that we, the undersigned, are married to each other by virtue of the following facts: On or about (Date) we agreed to be married, and after that date we lived together as husband and wife and in this state we represented to others that we were married. Since the date of marriage to the other party I have not been married to any other person. This declaration is true and the information in it which I have given is correct."

2. Live together as husband and wife in Texas

Represent to others that they are married.

Agree with one another that they are married.

Individuals under the age of 18 may not enter into an informal marriage.

Child Support Statement:

A child support statement is generally included on the marriage license application and states, "I AM NOT PRESENTLY DELINQUENT IN THE PAYMENT OF COURT-ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT. TRUE FALSE." This has been the law in Texas since September, 1995.

Under 18:

If you are between 16 and 17 years old, you may apply for a marriage license in Texas only if you have written parental consent on an official form in the presence of the county clerk or if you have received an order from the Texas district court authorizing your marriage.

Renewal of Vows or Secret Marriage Remarriage:

According to the Texas state laws, a county clerk must issue a marriage license to a couple who is already married to each other.

Proxy Marriages:

Yes. In Texas, any adult person can apply on behalf of an applicant who is unable to appear personally before the county clerk. An affidavit of absence form must be provided. If you are incarcerated and are unable to be present for your wedding ceremony, you can also request a Prison Proxy form.

Cousin Marriages:

No. S.B. No. 6

Same Sex Marriages:

No.

Officiants:

Persons authorized to perform weddings in Texas include licensed or ordained Christian ministers, priests, Jewish rabbis, officers authorized by religious organizations, justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of criminal appeals, justices of the courts of appeals, judges of the district, county, and probate courts, judges of the county courts at law, judges of the courts of domestic relations, judges of the juvenile courts, retired justices or judges, justices of the peace, retired justices of the peace, and judges or magistrates of a federal court of Texas.

[pbmaltzman]

Sorry to nitpick, but I believe the boy's name is Elian Gonzalez.

Folks:

[snip]

Additionally, we had the horror of Elian Rodriguez in Florida, taken at the point of an assault rifle out of his home and deported to Cuba.

[snip]

Adam