TheForce.net Jedi Council
The Supreme Chancellor would like to graciously thank Gay-LenKenobi for her contributions to this great Empi... er, Republic.
Author Topic: Polygamy
Lowbacca_1977 
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered: Jun '06
Date Posted: 4/9 2:02am Subject: RE: Polygamy
Well, are the gang members all in one building or complex so that when you get probable cause to go in you can take of the whole matter?
If so, I'd say its the same, also, I don't see possible laws neccessarily being violated against children just because one's parents are in a gang. The bigger issue, again, is not, I think the teen pregnancies, but that they're coming from forced marriages to adults.

Now, the one thing I'll grant is that I don't see why the Catholic Church has gotten as much of a pass as it has when it comes to how its been systematically sheltering child molestors within the priesthood, although I think thats more just that the Catholic Church has the money to fight those claims off.

Overall, these girls aren't being lured, they are being FORCED. It has nothing to do with Mormonism, it has nothing to do with polygamy, it has everything to do with child abuse and statutory rape by adults in a very systematic nature.

 

Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Lord_NoONE 
Registered: Dec '01
41725_Naboo
Date Posted: 4/9 6:28am Subject: RE: Polygamy
Are you sure it's statutory rape or is it just flat-out rape?

 

Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
king_alvarez 
Registered: May '07
23980_Luke
Date Posted: 4/9 6:35am Subject: RE: Polygamy - Date Edited: 4/9 6:35am (1 edits total) Edited By: king_alvarez
Espaldapalabras posted:
Fair enough, but what if it was all known gang members or those affiliated with a gang?
If a gang was forcing its children into prostitution or drug use or something that was causing the children harm, then I would absolutely want the government to respond in the same way.


Lowbacca_1977 posted:
Overall, these girls aren't being lured, they are being FORCED. It has nothing to do with Mormonism, it has nothing to do with polygamy, it has everything to do with child abuse and statutory rape by adults in a very systematic nature.
Well said.

 

-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
KnightWriter 
Title:
Administrator Emeritus

Registered: Nov '01
39907_Obi-Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: 4/9 7:01am Subject: RE: Polygamy - Date Edited: 4/9 7:05am (1 edits total) Edited By: KnightWriter
Lord_NoONE posted:
Are you sure it's statutory rape or is it just flat-out rape?


It's rape. Period.

ELDORADO, Texas - A polygamist compound with hundreds of children was rife with sexual abuse, child welfare officials allege in court documents, with girls spiritually married to much older men as soon as they reached puberty and boys groomed to perpetuate the cycle.

The documents released Tuesday also gave details about the hushed phone calls that broke open the case, by a 16-year-old girl at the West Texas ranch who said her 50-year-old husband beat and raped her. Days after raiding the compound, officials still aren't sure where the girl is.

Officials have completed removing all 416 children from the ranch and have won custody of all of them, Child Protective Services spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner told reporters in San Angelo, about 40 miles from the compound in Eldorado.

Court documents said a number of teen girls at the 1,700-acre compound were pregnant, and that all the children were removed on the grounds that they were in danger of "emotional, physical, and-or sexual abuse." Another 136 women left on their own.

"Investigators determined that there is a widespread pattern and practice of the (Yearn for Zion) Ranch in which young, minor female residents are conditioned to expect and accept sexual activity with adult men at the ranch upon being spiritually married to them," read the affidavit signed by Lynn McFadden, a Department of Family and Protective Services investigative supervisor.

McFadden said the girls were spiritually married to the men as soon as they reached puberty and were required to produce children.

An unknown number of men were being held at the ranch while authorities completed the search of the gleaming 80-foot-high temple, a cheese-making plant, a cement plant, a school, a doctor's office and housing units.

Church lawyer Patrick Peranteau did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment Tuesday.

A call for help
The compound was raided Thursday after the 16-year-old girl called a local family violence shelter March 29 and 30, using someone else's cell phone and speaking in hushed tones to avoid being overheard, McFadden's affidavit said.

The girl said she was not allowed to leave the compound unless she was ill. She told the shelter that her husband would "beat and hurt" her when he got angry, including hitting her in the chest and choking her while another woman in the house held her baby.

The girl also said that her husband sexually assaulted her and that she was several weeks pregnant. The girl told the shelter her husband went to "the outsiders' world" but didn't know where.

Authorities have issued an arrest warrant for church member Dale Barlow, who is believed to be in Arizona, but the girls' husband is not identified in the court documents released Tuesday.

In the March 30 call, the girl told the shelter she was being held against her will. If she left, church members told her, "outsiders will hurt her, force her to cut her hair, to wear makeup and (modern) clothes and to have sex with lots of men."

At the end of the call, she began to cry.

Trying to find her
Meisner said the agency still didn't know whether the 16-year-old was among the children removed from the ranch. Child welfare officials have been interviewing the children in search of the girl and to investigate allegations of abuse.

Investigators said some of the children were unwilling or unable to provide the names of their biological parents or identified multiple mothers.

The boys were groomed to be ready to marry underage girls upon adulthood and engage in sexual activity, "resulting in them becoming sexual perpetrators," the affidavit said.

Children in the sect were deprived of food and forced to sit in closed closets as a form of discipline, the affidavit said.

Former members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints predicted an uneasy adjustment to foster care. They are likely the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of those taken by Arizona authorities 54 years ago in a similar raid.

That raid a half-century ago and the one this week pulled children of polygamist families from the only community and culture they'd ever known — an event that decades later a former community member recalls as traumatizing.

"It was total misery for them," said Ben Bistline, now 72. He was 18 when authorities raided the remote community of Short Creek — now known as the twin towns of Colorado City, Ariz., and Hildale, Utah. Authorities took 200 children into custody as part of an effort to wipe out a "nest of polygamy."

Bistline was not rounded up in the 1953 raid, but the woman he married later in life was 15 when she and her seven siblings were shipped to Phoenix, pulled from the friends and family who constituted their whole world. Nearly two years passed before they were allowed to return, he said.

Most of the current sect members are descended from families from the Arizona-Utah community.

The 1953 Short Creek raid also changed the community, said Carolyn Jessop, the former wife of the man believed to be running the Eldorado compound.

The distinct pioneer-style dresses, worn over long underwear year-round and sewn by the women, became part of the dress code after the 1953 raid as each generation added more restrictions, said Jessop, who left the community five years ago.

Despite the new hardships for the children and women in Texas, Bistline said the raid is appropriate if children are being forced into marriages.

"This situation in Texas is a justifiable raid," he said.

But another FLDS member now living in the Texas Panhandle, Samuel Fischer, had a different view.

"It's religious persecution," said Fischer, who moved to a ranch near Lockney with his two wives and 12 of his children from Hildale, Utah, last year.

The Texas investigation is the state's first with FLDS, but prosecutors in Utah and Arizona have pursued several church members in recent years, including sect leader Warren Jeffs, who is serving two consecutive sentences of five years to life for being an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year-old wed to her cousin in Utah. He awaits trial on other charges in Arizona.

Authorities investigating the Eldorado compound have described FLDS members as cooperative, but the house-by-house search of the temple, factories and living quarters has triggered some trouble.

On Monday, 41-year-old Leroy Johnson Steed was arrested on charges of felony tampering with evidence — a day after 19-year-old Levi Barlow Jeffs was arrested on misdemeanor charges of interfering with the duties of a public servant, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger.

He declined to give details on the arrests or how Levi Barlow Jeffs might be related to the FLDS leader.

Attorneys for the church and church leaders have filed motions asking a judge to quash the search on constitutional grounds, saying state authorities didn't have enough evidence and that the warrants were too broad. A hearing on their motion was scheduled for Wednesday in San Angelo.


Worth reading, via MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24014376/

 

-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"The Obama Car will be fueled by FISA amendments and emit civil liberties for exhaust." A-B
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
dizfactor 
Registered: Aug '02
6896_Obi-Wan<br>LEGO
Date Posted: 4/9 7:10am Subject: RE: Polygamy
Espaldapalabras posted:
And I was also referring to the fact it was better for the baby, not better for the 14 year old girl.



You're presuming that there is a baby, but IIRC in the sizeable majority of teenage pregnancies, the father is at least ten years older than the mother. 14-year-olds don't actually knock each other up very often.

 

-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Espaldapalabras 
Registered: Aug '05
46370_2008 Olympics
Date Posted: 4/9 5:36pm Subject: RE: Polygamy
Then why is a 44 year old doing it so much worse than a 24 year old? Just because it is hidden behind the guise of religion? Both are grown men who are able to manipulate children.

 

-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Lowbacca_1977 
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered: Jun '06
Date Posted: 4/9 11:00pm Subject: RE: Polygamy
Espaldapalabras posted:
Then why is a 44 year old doing it so much worse than a 24 year old? Just because it is hidden behind the guise of religion? Both are grown men who are able to manipulate children.

Equally bad. Diz's point wasn't comparing 44 year olds to 24 year olds fathering kids with 14 year old girls, but adults significantly older than them compared to those within a few years of them. So in other words, the more common situation IS adults taking advantage of 14 year olds.

 

Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
LemmingLord 
Title: PT Manager & CLUE Host
Registered: Apr '05
42237_Obi-Wan Clone Armor
Date Posted: 4/10 4:58am Subject: RE: Polygamy
I don't necessarily disbelieve you on this, but could anyone get us a link to some good data to back up this claim? I would not necessary be surprised to see other teens being the ones "taking advantage of them."

Of course the real problem is defining adulthood.. In a legal sense an 18 year old is an adult, subject to adult scrutiny. I'll bet there are 14 year olds and 18 year old having sex all the time and I'm while I would agree the 18 year old probably is taking advantage I would hesitate to call them an "adult." While some 18 year old are quite mature, I believe that the average 18 year old having sex with a 14 year old is a story of imature person taking advantage of an imature person.. By 44, maturity levels very so much... but I hope we are agreed that the 44 year old is much more likely to be taking advantage of another in a premeditated fashion, considering life experience and choosing to do wrong...

This is very important in the redefinition of marriage the US is going through. IF the state is going to stamp approvals on relationships, it should do so with the intent of protecting liberty and fairness. Relationships do not have to be equal in the sense that each partner plays the same role, however, unequal relationships should put burdens on those with more power. For example, a person of average IQ marrying a mentally handicapped person should have a heavier burden then the mentally handicapped...

 

-----signature-----
LemmingLord
Take a Leap of Faith and Follow Me
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
CmdrMitthrawnuruodo 
Registered: Jul '00
44424_Roan Fel
Date Posted: 4/17 2:19pm Subject: RE: Polygamy
First of all, should polygamy be legal or illegal, and if either its history of being practiced historically or any adjustment to current marriage laws to include gay marriages would play any part in that?

It should be made legal, not because of gay marriages or history or anything like that but because it is part of a religion. RELIGION! Is not the United States suppose to be big on the right to practice a religion without fear of persecution? What happened when we banned that religious practice?

Second, why is there such a negative view of polygamy, when so many other things involved in people's sexuality and marriage practices considered much more acceptable, including abortion (40%), Homosexual relations (47%), Children outside of wedlock (54%), unmarried sex (59%), and divorce (66%)?

From ignorance and propaganda by other religious sects that frown upon it I bet.

 

-----signature-----
"Dyin' be the day worth livin' for!"
--Captain Hector Barbossa
PotC: Amuletum Angiti
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/3635826/1/
http://s12.gladiatus.com/game/c.php?uid=48046
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
king_alvarez 
Registered: May '07
23980_Luke
Date Posted: 4/17 2:26pm Subject: RE: Polygamy
CmdrMitthrawnuruodo posted:
It should be made legal, not because of gay marriages or history or anything like that but because it is part of a religion.
If polygamy is ever legalized, I hope that religion is very much not the reason.

 

-----signature-----
Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?"
Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
CmdrMitthrawnuruodo 
Registered: Jul '00
44424_Roan Fel
Date Posted: 4/17 3:19pm Subject: RE: Polygamy
king_alvarez posted:
CmdrMitthrawnuruodo posted:
It should be made legal, not because of gay marriages or history or anything like that but because it is part of a religion.
If polygamy is ever legalized, I hope that religion is very much not the reason.


It is unconstitutional to make it illegal in the first place then?

 

-----signature-----
"Dyin' be the day worth livin' for!"
--Captain Hector Barbossa
PotC: Amuletum Angiti
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/3635826/1/
http://s12.gladiatus.com/game/c.php?uid=48046
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Lowbacca_1977 
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered: Jun '06
Date Posted: 4/18 3:52am Subject: RE: Polygamy
CmdrMitthrawnuruodo posted:
It should be made legal, not because of gay marriages or history or anything like that but because it is part of a religion. RELIGION! Is not the United States suppose to be big on the right to practice a religion without fear of persecution? What happened when we banned that religious practice?

You have the right to freedom of religion as far as beliefs and expression go, but it doesn't cover acts. To use a quote from Reynolds v. United States in 1879 which addressed this with polygamy, the Supreme Court ruled: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."
If one says that a practice can not be regulated by the government simply because it can be tied to religion, then we find ourselves on an EXTREMELY slippery slope.

 

Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison 
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 4/18 4:27am Subject: RE: Polygamy
Honestly, the one thing about the whole polygamy debate that boggles my mind is this:

There are people who see no moral problem with someone having multiple sexual partners at the same time, even having kids with several partners at the same time. However, the moment that one person wants to marry two or more of those sexual partners, they have a moral problem with it. Some of these people are the same ones who in the past have argued that marriage is "just a piece of paper".

Personally, I see no problem with polygamy being legal, even though I doubt I would ever follow that pattern myself. Having been married before, and knowing how hard it can be to make one marriage succeed, I don't see any way that I would be able to handle two (or more) at once. I'd have to be insane.

Incidentally, back when my parents got married, my mom told my father that he could have all the wives he could handle, and she intended to be more than enough. Today, when they tell that story, my dad will often add that he might have one more than he can handle as it is.

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
CmdrMitthrawnuruodo 
Registered: Jul '00
44424_Roan Fel
Date Posted: 4/18 5:55am Subject: RE: Polygamy - Date Edited: 4/18 6:00am (2 edits total) Edited By: CmdrMitthrawnuruodo
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
CmdrMitthrawnuruodo posted:
It should be made legal, not because of gay marriages or history or anything like that but because it is part of a religion. RELIGION! Is not the United States suppose to be big on the right to practice a religion without fear of persecution? What happened when we banned that religious practice?

You have the right to freedom of religion as far as beliefs and expression go, but it doesn't cover acts. To use a quote from Reynolds v. United States in 1879 which addressed this with polygamy, the Supreme Court ruled: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."
If one says that a practice can not be regulated by the government simply because it can be tied to religion, then we find ourselves on an EXTREMELY slippery slope.


And what if that "act" is an essential part of the "beliefs and expressions"? The government then is undermining the person's right to freedom of religion. Its still an extremely slippery slope mainly because how does the government determine when an act is not essential or is essential to a religion?

You see practices and "beliefs and expressions" are one and the same when the founding fathers wrote that Bill of Rights. Do Protestants practice every same practice as Catholics? No. Do Mormons? No. How about this: do Islamists practice the same practices as Christians? No. Practices and beliefs is what defines the religion otherwise its the same thing with a different name. If it was that simple then why did our ancestors flee the Old World for the New World in the hopes to practice their religion w/o fear of persecution if "practices" were unimportant to the religion?

By giving the government the right to say what you can practice and what you cant practice is a violation of our constitutional rights. Now I can understand if that practice commits a crime, but honestly does having more than one spouse really be called a crime?

 

-----signature-----
"Dyin' be the day worth livin' for!"
--Captain Hector Barbossa
PotC: Amuletum Angiti
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/3635826/1/
http://s12.gladiatus.com/game/c.php?uid=48046
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Kimball_Kinnison 
Registered: Oct '01
6249_Veers
Date Posted: 4/18 6:19am Subject: RE: Polygamy
CmdrMitthrawnuruodo posted:
By giving the government the right to say what you can practice and what you cant practice is a violation of our constitutional rights. Now I can understand if that practice commits a crime, but honestly does having more than one spouse really be called a crime?
Strictly speaking, having more than one spouse is a crime, because what is or is not a crime is defined by the criminal code in the relevant jurisdiction.

However, you set the wrong standard for whether or not a religious practice should be prohibited by law. That standard should not be based on whether or not it is an essential part of a religion. It should be based solely on whether or not that act infringes upon the rights of another person.

For example, you could argue that human sacrifice is an essential part of your new religion, but that doesn't mean that the government should sanction it. Human sacrifice would be a violation of another person's rights. On the other hand, polygamy isn't an essential part of Islam (although it is allowed under it, and is practiced in some Islamic countries), but it does not violate the rights of others.

And please note that polygamy itself doesn't violate anyone's rights. It is only the other actions that are often associated with polygamy (such as the brainwashing of young children or the statutory rapes or the allegations of spousal abuse) that commit those violations. Nothing about the concept of polygamy (in and of itself) violates anyone's rights any more than a monogamous marriage violates anyone's rights. You can find the exact same violations of others' rights in monogamous marriages, even if they seem more common in polygamous ones.

Kimball Kinnison

 

-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
Post Reply | Quote Reply | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History