Multiple Wives?

[motoguy128]

The last 2 posts make a good summary of the issues involved.

 

So what FLDS is saying is that women are "adults" when they have reached sexual maturity. Now, by scientific defnitions this is true. We consider most animals to be mature when they have reached sexual maturity.

 

That being said, those same mature animals are also allowed to commit what, in human society would be defined as rape, assault and murder. Perhaps for consistency, instead of kicking young males out of the compound, they should let them fight the older men to the death.. like animals to compete over their territorial claims...the women.

 

If they are going to treat women like animals, then why not have equal rights and treat men the same. Think Mad Max... "Two go in, one comes out"

[Bheckel169]

I don't think I missed the point at all. Many cultures allow older men to wed many women and many of those females are young 12 and 13 year olds. What we perceive here as a pedophile and sexual abuser is not considered anything of the sort in other cultures. To put a fine point on this and amplify my statement, my concern is for the children. Why remove the children? Why not remove the men who performed the illegal activity. I suppose you could also arrest the abettor, the wife, but then what happens to the children? Now, after the dust has settled, we've found that the 16 year has never been found (probably never was a 16 year old and no tape has been released to the public). Now we're hearing tales of extreme mental anguish of the children who have been removed from one culture and thrown into another to which they have no anchors.

So, the point was, the kids.

Bruce

[smiller]

Personally, I find the FLDS to be quite evil, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right live as they choose.

There's precious little real 'choice' involved here, at least among the weak and impressionable. This is simply an example of mind control, the stock in trade of just about every fundamentalist religion.

[UberXY]

Two guys from FLDS in Colorado City bought a nice truck from me on eBay a few months ago. They flew from Colorado to the east coast with two women to pick it up and drive it home - I could have shipped it to them for 1/2 the cost of the airplane tickets. They were exceptionally polite and easy to deal with, but they made me very uneasy.

[DiggerJim]

Now we're hearing tales of extreme mental anguish of the children who have been removed from one culture and thrown into another to which they have no anchors.

So, the point was, the kids.

Doing things for "the kids" has recently been elevated to an art form by politicians and scalawags.

[Huzband]

Well, being from Utah, I've always had to deal with jokes/questions on the matter when traveling (particularly in the south).

 

I knew (east coast) Matt going to Cali was a bad idea.

 

When was the last time that a woman ever forgave a man's sins?

 

Or remembered them no more?

[doc47]

Dunno. At Waco the gov set out to save "the children" and ended up burning them.

 

Interesting book on the subject of the Fundamentalist LDS:

Under The Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer, same fellow who wrote Into Thin Air and Into The Wild .

 

+1 regarding David's comments.

[motoguy128]

Then are we willing to tolerate a male dominated culture that allows girls under 16 to be married to older men. The laws in every states say no, we do not find this practice acceptable.

 

Can religious and cultural practices be allowed to overide existing laws? What if a culture allows human sacrifice? If the person committing "suicide" does it willingly, has a crime been committed?

 

Standard procedures were followed for removing the children from a home where abuse is suspected. I tend to agree that removing the men would be a better solution, but that would require arrest warrants for every male. While removing hte children is allow by law with only reasonable suspiscion on a crime.

[AdventurePoser]

Are these guys in Texas crazy? I can barely handle the one wife I have.

 

Do you think Man was made for multiple Wifes (at one time)?

 

It's prolly 'cause all those DQs down there. Seriously who could AFFORD more than one wife???

 

Steve, happily married in So Cal

[Matts_12GS]

Well, being from Utah, I've always had to deal with jokes/questions on the matter when traveling (particularly in the south).

 

I knew (east coast) Matt going to Cali was a bad idea.

 

When was the last time that a woman ever forgave a man's sins?

 

Or remembered them no more?

 

Thanks Danny, that was the part I missed !

[DiggerJim]

Then are we willing to tolerate a male dominated culture that allows girls under 16 to be married to older men. The laws in every states say no, we do not find this practice acceptable.

Not exactly. Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland and Oklahoma allow pregnant teens or teens who have already had a child to get married without parental consent. Maryland requires that the couple be at least 16. Florida also allows the marriage without external consent if the minors have been previously married.

 

These others require some sort of court permission or order to marry under 16: AL (14), AZ, CO, CT, HI (15), ID, IN (15), LA, ME, MD, MN (15-18 parental consent, <15 court order), MO requires court permission for under 15, NV, NJ (<16 if pregnant), NM (15), NY (14), NC (14), PA, TX, TN, UT (15), WY

 

South Carolina's parental consent ages are 14 for females and 16 for males.

 

New Hampshire permits a female 13-17 years and a male 14 -17 years with the permission of their parent and a waiver.

 

Mississippi allows females to 15-21 or males 17-21 with parental consent. No court order provision for under 15 (females) or 17 for males.

 

Michigan is a bit odd. 16 year olds need parental consent and under 15 require both parental and court consent. Looks like 15 is a magic age in Michigan.

 

So, 32 of 50 states have some sort of provision for marriage under 16 (most nebulously defined - the ones above with ages in parenthesis are the ones with a defined minimum age). There is certainly not a general social or legal agreement that it's "wrong" to marry under 16 - perhaps it requires some additional oversight, but there simply isn't a blanket rejection of the concept.

 

It is interesting that where a distinction is drawn, it's the male who has to be older than the female.

[velomoto]

Digger that's all good info on states which want to protect the children but one question... If the parents of a young teen girl have been raised in the FLDS and firmly believe in polygamy and have arranged the spiritual marriage of their young teen daughter to a friend or one of the church elders - exactly how will the consent laws protect this child?

[DiggerJim]

If the parents of a young teen girl have been raised in the FLDS and firmly believe in polygamy and have arranged the spiritual marriage of their young teen daughter to a friend or one of the church elders - exactly how will the consent laws protect this child?

You're still looking at it thru your personal value lens. Why do you presume they need to be "protected"? If Elder Jeffs got himself elected Judge of Probate (doable without a law license or previous judicial experience in many parts of the country) and granted permission would they be be protected then? If not, then is there some additional evaluative measure of the court's competency that needs to be met too? Where do you draw the line?

 

This reminds me of the whole "don't marry your cousin" prohibitions where scary birth defects are likely...not (worst case it's about a 2% increase vs. unrelated pairings and other factors are much more likely to cause problems - like 30+ yr old mothers, smokers, etc. etc.).

 

I don't know what the right answer for the FLDS issue is, but I'm not sure it's to rip 400+ kids from their families and drop them into a culture they are completely unprepared for. No more than saving 80 of them from David Koresh necessitated their untimely demise. This is an extremely slippery slope and requires far more thoughtful discourse than most politicians are likely to give.

 

I'm not expecting a good outcome from this at all

[smiller]

Why do you presume they need to be "protected"?

When children are having babies fathered by middle-aged men I believe those children need to be protected. How presumptuous of me.

[velomoto]

If the parents of a young teen girl have been raised in the FLDS and firmly believe in polygamy and have arranged the spiritual marriage of their young teen daughter to a friend or one of the church elders - exactly how will the consent laws protect this child?

You're still looking at it thru your personal value lens. Why do you presume they need to be "protected"? If Elder Jeffs got himself elected Judge of Probate (doable without a law license or previous judicial experience in many parts of the country) and granted permission would they be be protected then? If not, then is there some additional evaluative measure of the court's competency that needs to be met too? Where do you draw the line?

Put aside the "personal values" argument for a moment - the intent of the consent laws is to protect the children. My point is that if we as a culture believe that people under some age need to be protected from adults, then the existing consent laws do not work with groups like the FLDS. I truly wish this were a case of "consenting adults", but my personal belief is that girls in their early teens are ready to make that decision and that their parents should not be making that decision for them - especially when they are deciding to give them up to be a "spiritual wife" to a man 3 to 5 times their age.