Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?

I'm curious to what you guys think about the situation in Texas. Do you support the government stepping in or do you support leaving this fundamentalist sect alone? New York Times

quote:

---

SAN ANGELO, Tex. ” Texas authorities released court documents on Tuesday detailing accusations of a “widespread pattern” of physical and sexual abuse of children by a polygamous sect.

​

The accusations led to a raid that began on Thursday at their compound in a remote area of West Texas and the removal of 416 children.

​

Texas state troopers and child welfare investigators executing a search warrant started the search for a 16-year-old who called to tell of abuse at the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-day Saints, a breakaway sect not recognized by the mainstream Mormon Church, own the ranch.

​

The girl who made the call has not been found, the authorities said.

​

The children and more than 100 adult women who elected to leave the ranch to be their caretakers are being housed at the Fort Concho historic site here.

​

An affidavit released on Tuesday says the 16-year-old repeatedly called a local family violence shelter asking for help to leave the ranch. She said that she had been taken to the ranch three years before by her parents and that when she was 15 she was forced into a marriage with a man who was then about 49, becoming his seventh wife.

​

The girl said the abuse began shortly after she moved to the ranch, the court papers say. She added that the man would force her to have sex with him and beat her when he became angry. The last time he beat her was on Easter, she said in the papers.

​

The girl, whispering into someone else’s cellphone, told the authorities that she thought she was several weeks pregnant, the papers say. She said that she was not allowed to leave the ranch other than to receive medical care, but that the man had left the ranch for a while to go to “the outsider’s world.”

​

A lawyer for the sect declined to comment on Tuesday.

​

The authorities have determined that the suspect, identified in the original search warrant as Dale Barlow, had been indicted in Mohave County, Ariz., on criminal charges of sexual conduct with a minor in connection with a reported marriage.

​

The man struck a plea deal, had the charge dismissed, served 45 days in jail and was given three years’ probation.

​

His probation officer said Monday that Mr. Barlow maintained that he did not know the girl and that he had not been in Texas in 30 years.

​

“YFZ Ranch and church members had told her that if she tried to leave, she will be found and locked up,” the affidavit states.

​

Church members also reportedly told her that outsiders would hurt her, force her to cut her hair and wear makeup and “have sex with lots of men.” The girl also said her parents were preparing to send her 15-year-old sister to the ranch from outside the state.

​

At the end of the call, she began crying and “then stated that she is happy and fine and does not want to get into trouble and that everything she had previously said should be forgotten.”

​

Based on that account, investigators entered the compound and found a number of young teenage mothers who appeared to be minors, some of them pregnant and some already with infant children.

​

“Investigators determined that there is a widespread pattern and practice among the residents of YFZ ranch in which minor female residents are conditioned to expect and accept sexual activity with adult men at the ranch upon being spiritually married to them,” the affidavit states.

​

Because of this “pervasive pattern of indoctrinating and grooming” girls to accept these spiritual marriages and bear their husbands’ children, the authorities found all the girls to be in danger of abuse.

​

Boys also are forced to marry under-age girls, “resulting in them becoming sexually perpetrators,” and are in danger of abuse themselves, the affidavit said. The affidavit was the basis for obtaining a judge’s approval to take custody of the children.

​

Child welfare investigators also found evidence that children had been deprived of nutrition and forced to sit in closets as a punishment, court documents indicate.

​

Carolyn Jessop, author of a book, “Escape,” fled the sect’s historic home base in the twin cities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., in 2003 to escape a polygamous marriage.

​

Ms. Jessop said she believed that her former husband, Merrill Jessop, was leading the Eldorado group after the conviction and jailing of its well-known leader, Warren Jeffs. Mr. Jeffs was convicted last year of being an accomplice to rape for forcing a 14-year-old to marry her cousin.

​

“Those girls are terrified,” said Ms. Jessop, who traveled to Eldorado in an unsuccessful effort to speak with her stepdaughters. “They don’t think these people are there to help them.”

​

The authorities made two arrests in searching the compound, but have not charged any member with a crime relating to the abuse accusations.

​

On Sunday, Levi Barlow Jeffs, 19, was arrested for interfering with the duties of a public servant. Leroy Johnson Steed, 41, was arrested on Monday on a felony charge of tampering with physical evidence.

---

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

So, I'm all for religious freedom and that stuff, but there have been far too many cases of sexual offense against minors associated with the FLDS church. Especially when you get the girl herself calling (normally it's other people accusing them), you've got to do something.Polygamy's actually illegal, but the FLDS church gets around it by having a legal divorce before each new marriage, claiming that God doesn't recognize the divorce.In short, this is just too much. You can't let people get away with this kind of stuff.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

Well, certain members here have argued that by allowing the government to step in and interfere with what would otherwise be an internal family affair is a slippery slope to something far worse. Obviously, I'm referencing this thread about faith healing.It's my position, and many others', that we as a society do have the right to step and interfere with family private affairs especially when the rights of a child have been violated and that the child's rights and welfare supercede the parents' right to religious indoctrination of their kids. Some others (ahem) have been arguing that it's actually a slippery slope to assimilating everyone into the borg collective.I must admit that I'm having trouble understanding how otherwise rational people could argue that the parents' "right" to abusing their kids with their religious beliefs can supercede the kids' overall welfare and even right to the best chances at life.Where I want this thread to go? I don't actually know. I guess this thread is just a toss up to let people take it whereever they want. Hopefully, I'll be able to understand the mindset of the other side a little better.Added by edit.Do you happen to know how they get away with legally marrying and divorcing underaged girls?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

I find it fascinating that this cult compound is within the service area of my college employer yet I have heard little on the issue from the locals. It is interesting to see someone you have met and worked with interviewed by the national news media.I find it disturbing that in the face of violence against women that the so-called Christians around these parts are either silent or, in one instance, supportive of such abuse.Hopefully such silence is not an indication of support but rather my lack of being 'in the loop.'Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I tried to keep up with that thread, but it it was going to fast, so I gave up: I don't have the time to read twenty posts in a single sitting. Right. You'd think the ones arguing for a divine origin of humanity would be the ones demanding every human be treated well. But, ironically, it's the natural-selectionists (survival-of-the-fittest and all that) who seem to be arguing for human rights. And Ben Stein is accusing evolution for social injustice. That's a laugh. I did a quick Google search, and this website turned up. I don't know how reliable it is as a source, but, if we're to believe it, most states have laws saying minors can get married, as long as the parents give consent in some fashion. And, since it's the FLDS parents who are coercing the marriages...Yeah. It's pretty sick. But, it's perfectly legal. Technically.Was it molbiogirl who found the site that said 44/50 states have faith-healing laws? Given that data, I wouldn't be surprised if the above website about marriage age is also true. Note that Texas, Utah and Arizona (the major FLDS states) all allow minors to get married. In Texas and Arizona, < 16 years minor have to have a court order (which was probably meant to protect girls that get pregnant young--you know how it is in Texas). In Utah, it's 15.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

I think there are two issues here, and it would be a shame to have them mingled.Polygamy (regardless of child-abuse issues) -> I think should be legalized. I have no idea how to work out government benefits and that side of things (and don't really care, either). But from a moral "people should be able to make their own decisions" stand point, I support the legalization of polygamy.Child Abuse (regardless of polygamy issues) -> I think the government certainly does have the right (and moral obligation) to step in and stop this. For the same reasons as I was advocating against the child-abuse in the previous thread.

1. All people have the equal right to make their own decisions on how to live their life.
2. In the case of minors, the parents make these decisions for them since it is their responsibility to care for their children. However, if the parents choose to use unvalidated methods to "care" for their children, and those methods end up with the child harmed or dead, then those parents should be punished.

"Valid" methods are those methods which can be shown to be a part of reality and have been shown to be successful in caring for children until they are no longer minors.

While I agree that in principle, polygamy should be legal, there are other issues to consider in the real World. First, keep in mind that what we are talking about is almost exclusively (maybe even completely) polygyny and we're ignoring the other option...namely polyandry. And I think that that speaks volumes. The primary reason I'm against polygyny is I am doubtful that the consent of the "other" female(s) is/are taken into consideration. If we're going to allow polygamous marriages, then we have to assured that ALL parties involved are in agreement...and I just don't think the practicalities of that can be realistically worked out.Now, as far as the situation in Texas, it is my opinion that the Government should step in any remove minors and/or any women that are in polygamous relationships against their will. Heck, I even agree that it's their (the Government) obligation to put a halt to this sort of thing.
And also like you, my reasons behind this can be seen in the "Madeline" thread, so I will not waste time and space rewriting them here.

Why not?Even if we simply allow divorce (is that the correct term in this context?) from a polygamous relationship. Is divorce somehow implied as 'not an option' in a polygamous marriage? Why would that be?Or we could go one-stop further and have a pro-active solution:If any member of any marrige wants to include another member into that marriage, they need the agreement of everyone already within that marriage first.
And, if someone wants to marry someone else yet a partner in their present marriage refuses, they are free to divorce from the present marriage and move onto the new one. I don't see why this has to be a problem. All they have to do (under my ideas, anyway) is say "I don't consent to this" and it doesn't happen. Either they divorce from the marriage, or a member of their marriage divorces out of it, or the marriage continues as it did previously.

Stile writes

quote:

---

I don't see why this has to be a problem. All they have to do (under my ideas, anyway) is say "I don't consent to this" and it doesn't happen. Either they divorce from the marriage, or a member of their marriage divorces out of it, or the marriage continues as it did previously.

---

And technically... legally speaking, the girl that made the fone call could have left the compound for help anytime she wanted. But reality doesn't always turn out to be the way we would like to define it.

quote:

---

If any member of any marrige wants to include another member into that marriage, they need the agreement of everyone already within that marriage first.
And, if someone wants to marry someone else yet a partner in their present marriage refuses, they are free to divorce from the present marriage and move onto the new one.

---

We haven't even gotten to that point yet and we already have enough problem with abusive monogamous relationships. In fact, I know this girl that is in an abusive relationship right now, and she's not even married to him yet. She has this mentality that she needs to learn to love him more in order for him to treat her better.I'm not saying I'm against polygamy and polyandry. I'm saying we should approach this very carefully and be full aware of reality. Simply define the legal terms and leave it at that is the worst thing we could do.

I think I agree with FliesOnly: there isn't a good reason to refuse polygamy for those who are responsible enough to handle it, but there are just too many ways for a pervert to abuse it. Laws generally are (and, in most cases, should be) written for the lowest common denominator of the populace: otherwise, you'd have to set up some sort of meritocratic system to determine who has certain freedoms. For this reason, it would be a legal and political pain in the butt to weed out all the perverts, sex offenders and bums from the polygamy system.Now that I think about it, though: alimony and property ownership battles would likely keep this system fairly well in check. Who's going to go get married again if the last marriage left him/her penniless and living in a treehouse? (Did you hear about Squirrelman in Seattle?) And, who's going to marry a second wife when he can barely afford the first (unless the second wife is a lawyer, or something and didn't want children--that would be a two-income family with a stay-at-home mom!) Edited by Thylacosmilus, : Rewording

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

Thylacosmilus writes

quote:

---

unless the second wife is a lawyer, or something--that would be a two-income family with a stay-at-home mom!)

---

I vaguely remember from a couple months ago or so (or may be from an old post I read somewhere) someone here claimed to be in such a relationship. His legal wife and him are both working while they have a third person in the relationship at home taking care of the kids. According to him, all three of them want to be legally married. Anyone know who I'm talking about?

Well, I think others have addressed this issue, and in the same way(s) I pretty much had in mind. It can be difficult to ascertain whether or not someone is in a relationship against their will. If the male considers himself the "dominant" member...what he says, goes...he's in charge and it's not a democracy...then I can see problems arising with polygyny.To be honest, I have not been following the Texas case all that closely, but the impression I have gotten is that even in this example, there are cases where women are leaving and are happy to be out of there...out of the polygamous relationships. And I doubt if that would have happened, had the Government not gotten involved. And remember that this started as a case of potential abuse. The Government didn't step in to stop the polygyny, they stepped in to rescue the girl that made the phone call. The women leaving is just sort of a side bonus...something that otherwise would not have happened.So my problem with polygyny is not, per say, the concept. To each his own. My problem is that in the real World, I have a strong suspicion that many many women would be in the relationship without really wanting it to be polygynous. That their "husband" would be forcing the system onto her (or them). And that she dare not speak out for fear of some sort of extremely negative repercussion.

This is exactly why I wanted to try and seperate the two issues. You're talking abuse, here. The "consent" I was talking about above was the consent to be in a polygamous relationship. That has nothing to do with abuse. Yes, I fully agree that abuse is a problem in all sorts of relationships (not even marriage).That's why I'm against abuse.But I'm for polygamy.If you're only negative point against polygamy is that you find it's easy to hide abuse within, then you don't have a problem with polygamy, you have a problem with abuse. If you don't start finding a way to take care of abuse, that problem is only going to grow. Polygamy is not the only refuge for abuse to occur.Increase police presence. Increase education (especially education of personal rights and freedoms). Increase social care systems.None of these focus on polygamy. All of these focus on abuse. If abuse is your problem, focus on the solution of that problem. No one's offered that as an option. However, I still don't see how the current structure doesn't handle these cases as well as it handles our current cases of abuse. Current "handling" of abuse is not really up to par, in my opinion.

To kind of underpin this, here is a quote from FOX News' article about this:

quote:

---

The girl had looked for opportunities to escape before, but she was warned that outside the double-gates blocking entry to the Yearning For Zion Ranch, in a world completely foreign to her, she would be forced to cut her hair and wear makeup, and to have sex with many men ” all damning transgressions in a faith where modesty calls for women to wear long underwear year-round under pioneer-style dresses.

---

Essentially, this girl had been indoctrinated/brainwashed by negative propaganda into staying on that ranch: we "outsiders" would have made her do things that would keep her out of heaven. She probably didn't even know what we were like outside that walled-in compound.There's been too many complaints like this concerning the FLDS church to not take it seriously. I think the government's actions were completely appropriate, and that, until we have the intelligence (as a nation) to know how to work through this kind of problem effectively, we should be very conservative about what sorts of things we allow to go on. Right now, the fundies haven't shown the world that they're responsible enough to be allowed this kind of freedom, and any intelligent God would know that too, and adjust His commandments and teaching strategies to that. That means I don't believe that this religion is sanctioned by any God who deserves to have followers.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

So... since polygamy may be a place where abuse can happen. Your option is to not allow polygamy?Why not choose the option of trying to stop abuse?If abuse is your problem, what about all the abuse in all the regular marriages that are going on today? You don't seem so concerned about that abuse.If abuse is your issue, focus on stopping the abuse.
Stopping polygamy has nothing to do with stopping abuse. If you think it does, you're going to have to show the connection for me.