News Texas Polygamist Raid: Unjustified Persecution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaptainQuasar
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the controversial raid that resulted in the removal of 401 children from a polygamist community in Texas, sparked by a 16-year-old girl's call alleging abuse. Participants express concern over the justification for such a drastic action, questioning whether the authorities provided adequate reasoning beyond the parents' polygamous practices. There are fears of potential religious discrimination and the implications of guilt by association, especially given the historical persecution of Mormons in the U.S. While some acknowledge the need to protect children from abuse, others argue that the broad approach taken by authorities seems excessive and lacks clear evidence of systematic wrongdoing. The conversation highlights the complexities of balancing child protection with the rights of religious communities.
  • #61
russ_watters said:
Has it ever been an accepted practice in the US?
It appears so as it seems in Hawaii it is still 15 with parents' consent and pretty much universally throughout the other states 16 with parents' consent
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
russ_watters said:
Has it ever been an accepted practice in the US?

Depends on whether the girl is pregnant or not. New Hampshire and New York allow marriage as young as 14, but you need parental consent and judicial consent (the usual reason for consent being pregnancy). West Virginia and some other states have similar laws for marriage of kids under 16, even if they don't specify an age.

That's a little different than what's going on with the FLDS folks, though.

The only reason for an exception is for the same reason so many other countries allow exceptions. They don't meddle into the affairs of the different tribal groups that inhabit their borders, escpecially if those groups have little interaction with mainstream society. That's also the only reason something like this has been tolerated for so long.

I think it's more like the situation CaptainQuasar talked about concerning Native American groups, Aboriginal groups, etc than a situation where the state laws for marriage ages are applicable.
 
  • #63
russ_watters said:
Has it ever been an accepted practice in the US?

I was hoping to come up with harder data with examples of extreme difference in age (though remember, the marriage Warren Jeffs is in jail over is a 19 year old groom and a 14 year old bride - not as extreme as what's been said about the anonymous caller, a 14 or 15 year old to a 50 year old man) but I didn't have any luck finding specific studies on it, unfortunately. There are lots of copies of marriage registers online too but that's too much data to pore through. I did find this interesting book from 1889 that gives marriage laws by state:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wQoAAAAAYAAJ

For age of consent I came across lots of 14's, a couple of 13's, and a 12 - Idaho, I think - while browsing through it. I didn't find anything forbidding marriage based upon difference in age, nor difference in age being ground for divorce (though either party being drunk at the time of the marriage is grounds for divorce! :wink:) but an interesting thing was a couple of states required parental consent only if both the bride and groom were under a certain age - presumably that means if one of them is older parental consent wasn't needed?

Some of the archaic-sounding language is amusing by modern standards - marriage is not permitted if one of the parties is "idiotic or moronic".
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Human life used to end quicker. In those days it made sense for girls to marry and bear children as soon as possible. Those days are gone here in the US.
 
  • #65
TVP45 said:
I acknowledge that there is a gray area in there; I did not want to get into an infinite hair-splitting argument over a "sliding scale". And, of course, I forgave Jerry Lee Lewis.
And I wouldn't usually nit pick, but as soon as you sign on to the death penalty it seems to me you lose any slack in the argument; then you very much carry the burden of precision.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
russ_watters said:
It isn't Mormons per se (any more*), its just that this particular sect doesn't have a name we can refer to.
Yes that was my take; I wasn't even clear that these clowns (Jeffs) were really Mormons in the eyes of leaders of the CLDS. Just taking up the name doesn't make it so.
But the fact that the leader of the sect is in jail for crimes that are an integral part of what this sect does makes me incredulous to why they hadn't broken it up already. Yes, it is allowable in the US to break up a religious group that practices illegal activities. Your beliefs are protected, but your religion is not a shield from the law.

*Clearly, there is still a lot of sympathy for these illegal activities within the Mormon Church.
Oh? I've havn't seen evidence of that. CDLS is very open about the repressive roles they assign to women, but I don't see where they sympathize with child marriage.
Today polygamy and child marriage are not officially sanctioned by the church, but they are an integral part of the history.
Polygamy perhaps. Child marriage, real child marriage ala Jeffs - I'm unaware of any collusion with the CDLS there. As for their history, that's guilt by association w/ the past.
 
  • #67
mheslep said:
And I wouldn't usually nit pick, but as soon as you sign on to the death penalty it seems to me you lose any slack in the argument; then you very much carry the burden of precision.

I agree with you in my head. But in my gut I absolutely loathe "short-eyes" and I suppose I'm irrational about it. If I were ever on a jury in such a case, I would ask to be excused because I don't think I could render a fair verdict.
 
  • #68
russ_watters said:
It isn't Mormons per se (any more*), its just that this particular sect doesn't have a name we can refer to. But the fact that the leader of the sect is in jail for crimes that are an integral part of what this sect does makes me incredulous to why they hadn't broken it up already. Yes, it is allowable in the US to break up a religious group that practices illegal activities. Your beliefs are protected, but your religion is not a shield from the law.

*Clearly, there is still a lot of sympathy for these illegal activities within the Mormon Church. Today polygamy and child marriage are not officially sanctioned by the church, but they are an integral part of the history.

I'm not sure how integral polygamy is with the Mormon church. They practiced it for about 60 years. Supposedly, they only intended to suspend polygamy until Utah became a state, hoping to reinstitute the practice once state laws would pre-empt federal territorial laws, but, since banning polygamy was made a prerequisite for statehood, the idea of reinstituting polygamy became moot to most of the church. So, you might be right that there's a lot of sympathy for the practice (or at least some), even if it hasn't been practiced by mainstream Mormons for over a hundred years.

The arranged marriages of children isn't an integral part of Mormon beliefs since only two or three of the polygamous sects practice arranged marriages and/or allow children to marry. If anything, this particular group has become even more extreme and more separated from mainstream Mormonism since the group split in two around the first Short Creek raid around 1950 (moderates joined one group and extremists joined the other group).
 
  • #69
Art said:
It appears so as it seems in Hawaii it is still 15 with parents' consent and pretty much universally throughout the other states 16 with parents' consent
I'm not going to split hairs over where the line should be. Use an easy example: Warren Jeff's (the founder of the cult in question) is in jail right now for arranging a marriage of a 13 year old girl.
 
  • #70
russ_watters said:
I'm not going to split hairs over where the line should be. Use an easy example: Warren Jeff's (the founder of the cult in question) is in jail right now for arranging a marriage of a 13 year old girl.
lol split hairs! By anyone's definition a 15 year old is a child! And per the info supplied by BoBG under certain circumstances some states allow kids as young as 14 to marry.

In answer to your question
Has it ever been an accepted practice in the US?
The answer is yes and still is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
mheslep said:
Yes that was my take; I wasn't even clear that these clowns (Jeffs) were really Mormons in the eyes of leaders of the CLDS. Just taking up the name doesn't make it so.
Well it kinda does - they are every bit as Mormon as Presbyterians are Christian. They are a break-away group.
As for their history, that's guilt by association w/ the past.
Again, since the group in question is a break-away group, it is clearly relevant. In fact, I could see a good argument for saying the breakaway group is more Mormon than the "official" church, since it is the official church that changed their policy and the breakaway group wanted to keep it the same.
Oh? I've havn't seen evidence of that. CDLS is very open about the repressive roles they assign to women, but I don't see where they sympathize with child marriage.

Polygamy perhaps. Child marriage, real child marriage ala Jeffs - I'm unaware of any collusion with the CDLS there.
One of the articles linked earlier talked about such sympathy. I'll go back later and figure out which one.
 
  • #72
Art said:
lol split hairs! By anyone's definition a 15 year old is a child! And per the info supplied by BoBG under certain circumstances some states allow kids as young as 14 to marry.

In answer to your question The answer is yes and still is.
The other special circumstances about permission are non sequiturs as well (things like the fact that they typically have limits on the difference in age are conveniently ignored here) and the key word is permission. In the case we're discussing here, these kids are being forced.

What this cult is doing is not standard operating procedure in the US and afaik, never has been.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
Regarding sympathy for polygamy in Utah, a google finds lots of articles. Here's one from 2006: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209474,00.html

Here's an interesting site: http://www.pro-polygamy.com/

Note: A line is often drawn between polygamy and child marriage. The pro polygamy website has this as its slogan:
Freely-consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed
POLYGAMY
is the next civil rights battle.
But the fact of the matter is, they need that part in there because polygamy has been historically connected to child marriage. IMO, it is an enabler and it seems to me that Jeffs' fundamentalist cult exists for the purpose of pedophilia*.

I'd even extend it to say that the Mormon religion itself encourages (or used to, but the text of the book remains even if they no longer follow it) older men to marry much younger women:
The revelation, in part, held that, "If any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another ... then he is justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him."
http://www.childbrides.org/history_sanantonio_polygamy_stirred_anger.html

*[edit] By the strict definition, most of the girls in question were probably "sexually mature" and thus don't fit the definition for pedophilia, but at the very least, as this website puts it:
By today's definitions, when it comes to the pathology of pedophilia, Joseph Smith would probably not be considered a true pedophile. That doesn't mean however, that he wasn't a lecherous scumbag who would stop at nothing to bed any young woman who captured his fancy.
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon253.htm
But note also the age of Joe Smith's wives and the changes in age of menarche over the past 150 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
All I can say is, being married to one woman is difficult enough. Why would one want to double the trouble? :)
 
  • #75
russ_watters said:
The other special circumstances about permission are non sequiturs as well (things like the fact that they typically have limits on the difference in age are conveniently ignored here)
What limits are imposed on age differences in marriage in the US? Do you have a link to support this claim?
russ_watters said:
and the key word is permission. In the case we're discussing here, these kids are being forced.
Allegedly! Or do you have proof??
 
  • #76
drankin said:
All I can say is, being married to one woman is difficult enough. Why would one want to double the trouble? :)
They get 5 to 10 for having several wives. I only have one wife, and I got life.
 
  • #77
Art said:
lol split hairs! By anyone's definition a 15 year old is a child! And per the info supplied by BoBG under certain circumstances some states allow kids as young as 14 to marry.

In answer to your question The answer is yes and still is.

That's taken a little out of context.

I'm sure you can find instances where a 40-year-old man was allowed to marry a teenager. I even know one instance where a high school swim coach married one of the high school girls on his team and her parents were proud of it - at least publically.

That's not the intent of allowing exceptions to the age of consent and someone like that high school coach was at least as likely to face charges of statutory rape as to be the son-in-law of proud parents (as it was, his teaching career was effectively finished even though no criminal charges were filed against him).

The intent is to take into the account the inevitable pregnancies that result from teens having sex with other teens.

There's a big difference between allowing for exceptions to the law and making something the preferred policy.

I have a few doubts as to how this group should be handled, but I don't have any doubts that this group is just plain wacko.
 
  • #78
BobG said:
That's taken a little out of context.

I'm sure you can find instances where a 40-year-old man was allowed to marry a teenager. I even know one instance where a high school swim coach married one of the high school girls on his team and her parents were proud of it - at least publically.

That's not the intent of allowing exceptions to the age of consent and someone like that high school coach was at least as likely to face charges of statutory rape as to be the son-in-law of proud parents (as it was, his teaching career was effectively finished even though no criminal charges were filed against him).

The intent is to take into the account the inevitable pregnancies that result from teens having sex with other teens.

There's a big difference between allowing for exceptions to the law and making something the preferred policy.

I have a few doubts as to how this group should be handled, but I don't have any doubts that this group is just plain wacko.
The point is US law does allow for the marriage of children and as far as I know with no age discrepancy stipulations. In the case of Hawaii there doesn't seem to be any requirement other than the parent's consent for a 15 year old child to get married.

Personally I think even if the marriage of a 14 year old is allowed because the girl made a serious error of judgment and became pregnant allowing her to marry so young simply compounds the error.
 
  • #79
Art, how do you say that the caller was "anonymous"? I thought she called 2 different places (the cops and a local shelter), and identified herself to both places. I have no idea how many of the "inmates" of this compound even have any identification documents. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that most women lacked proper identification.

Also, I believe what forced the police to remove all the children from the location was that they found many underage girls showing signs of pregnancy.
 
  • #80
There's a lot of discussion about "age of consent." The "consent" part of that phrase refers to consent to legal marriage. These aren't legal marriages...the media are using the term "spiritual marriage" when referring to these unions between an older man and numerous young girls.

If the allegations are true, it's simply older men having sex with underaged girls. That's illegal, period.
 
  • #81
lisab said:
There's a lot of discussion about "age of consent." The "consent" part of that phrase refers to consent to legal marriage. These aren't legal marriages...the media are using the term "spiritual marriage" when referring to these unions between an older man and numerous young girls.

If the allegations are true, it's simply older men having sex with underaged girls. That's illegal, period.

They're "spiritual marriages" because the law won't recognize more than one marriage for a person. If they do have more than one 'legal' marriage, then they're charged with bigamy.

Which leads to something that would be considered at least a semi-scam: if the law won't recognize the additional marriages as legal, then the second, third wife, etc are eligible for welfare benefits as unwed mothers.
 
  • #82
Court docs say there was a bed in the temple used for underage sex. Also information that there was a cult informant inside for 4 years!
 
  • #83
BobG said:
The arranged marriages of children isn't an integral part of Mormon beliefs since only two or three of the polygamous sects practice arranged marriages and/or allow children to marry.

This is an important distinction. I'm not that bothered by it if a crowd of consenting adults want to call themselves "married" and have a family. But these sects are quite obviously motivated by some kind of freaky sex and power trips, hence the total control of children and females, and the forcing them into marriage as soon as they hit puberty. The idea obviously being to lock them into a marriage and children before they become mature enough to question the influences of the middle-aged males controlling their lives or, worse yet, form romantic attachments to boys ther own age.

The other problem is that such male-dominated polygamist societies (i.e., where each man takes multiple wives) inevitably produce an excess of males that can't find a wife, who are then ostracized from the society once they reach adolescence. The fact that these people will abandon their own male children in order to prevent them from competing with middle-aged (and older) men for the sexual attentions of young girls has me convinced that they're child abusers, rather than simply leading a misunderstood-but-basically-decent lifestyle.
 
  • #84
Authorities find bed in compound temple

When authorities finally gained entrance to the three-story building, no one was inside.

But on the top they found beds allegedly used by husbands after they married underage girls on the top floor of the temple.,snip>

The discovery of the marriage beds in the temple was revealed Wednesday as troopers completed their search of the grounds of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat_127
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85
it all sounds like the Taliban
 
  • #86
Sect's Moms Separated From Older Children
Denver Post Wire Report
Article Last Updated: 04/15/2008 01:25:04 AM MDT

SAN ANGELO, Texas — Texas officials who took 416 children from a polygamist retreat into state custody sent many of their mothers away Monday.

Of the 139 women who left the compound with their children, only those with children age 4 or younger were allowed to continue staying with them, said Marissa Gonzales of Children's Protective Services.

"It is not the normal practice to allow parents to accompany the child when an abuse allegation is made," she said.
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_8925775

The state wants to put ALL of the 416 children either in foster homes or up for adoption.

And Gokul if you can find a link identifying the 'girl who called in the complaint' please provide it.
 
  • #87
No, you have either misread or distorted the newspaper story (Which hardly qualifies as a primary, or even secondary, source to begin with). MANY of the children are being separated from their mothers; the state will attempt (there is a long and detailed legal process) to place SOME of the children (those who will have been found to have been abused) in foster homes or place them for adoption. You should know that the alleged abuse victims are older children and that there is little likelihood of quickly placing ANY of these. Nationwide, there are up to 100,000 (the number is fuzzy since there is a mixture of public and private agencies) older children already approved for adoption or placement and many of these will simply age out of the system without ever being placed. The demand for placement far outstrips the supply of suitable homes, so little happens quickly. Everybody wants cute infants; few people want teenagers with baggage.
 
  • #88
TVP45 said:
No, you have either misread or distorted the newspaper story (Which hardly qualifies as a primary, or even secondary, source to begin with). MANY of the children are being separated from their mothers; the state will attempt (there is a long and detailed legal process) to place SOME of the children (those who will have been found to have been abused) in foster homes or place them for adoption. You should know that the alleged abuse victims are older children and that there is little likelihood of quickly placing ANY of these. Nationwide, there are up to 100,000 (the number is fuzzy since there is a mixture of public and private agencies) older children already approved for adoption or placement and many of these will simply age out of the system without ever being placed. The demand for placement far outstrips the supply of suitable homes, so little happens quickly. Everybody wants cute infants; few people want teenagers with baggage.
Please substantiate your assertion I misread or misrepresented the article. Having attacked me you then attacked the source so how about the BBC? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7348079.stm
 
  • #89
Art said:
And Gokul if you can find a link identifying the 'girl who called in the complaint' please provide it.

I've heard that the call was to Child Protective Services from one source and to 911 in another source. Do you think a recording of the call exists? I haven't heard of any recordings in this case. It sure would clear things up if the recording were played on the news, eh?
 
  • #90
Art said:
Please substantiate your assertion I misread or misrepresented the article. Having attacked me you then attacked the source so how about the BBC? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7348079.stm

I did not attack you. I disputed your claim that ALL the children were to placed in foster homes or placed for adoption. The story, which is badly written, carries no byline, and has no independent substantiation, does not support your assertion of ALL.

I seldom listen to the BBC; I'm not sure why I would attack it.

I am quite willing to be found wrong in this matter, but I do ask that it be done with facts.