I found this to be a very interesting article, and the parallels are certainly there. Putting aside the perhaps improper actions by the State of Texas, I am struck by one particular question that I have not yet heard discussed anywhere.

Everyone seems completely open and unabashed about the practice of polygamy on this ranch, to the point where many of the men seem to be in hiding, and yet there isn't a discussion of prosecuting polygamy.

While I believe the laws against it are rather absurd, from a legal standpoint I am puzzled as to why no one finds this the least bit disturbing. Taking aside the question of marriage to minors, polygamy is nevertheless illegal, so either we strike down the laws against it, or we prosecute, or we come out and say "we don't mind polygamy when it's practiced by people in pioneer dresses whose children don't recognize crayons." After all, I doubt that a woman in suburban Houston would be able to live with two husbands or a man with three wives, so is it tolerated when it's practiced by fringe sects?

kb

That brings up the questions I had. If the 'marriages' are 'spritual' instead of legal, is that different than for a man who is married and having an affair? I know many women who think it should be! But, if underage girls in America have sex, men and women 'date' and have sex, many people marry-divorce-marry-divorce and are polygamist sequentially---it's hard to decide what is technically legal and what is 'frowned on'. I believe this was an over enthusiastic attempt by well meaning people who are suffering under their own 'umbrella of belief' that by working for 'the government' they have the 'rights' to abuse other American's rights. And, if 'the state' doesn't like one religion, whose is next? There are many athiest's who would/could argue than any religious belief, in absense of any facts, is delusional and if parents are delusional, shouldn't their children also be removed from their home? I think removing a person's own child should be the last resort. They certainly could have had HRS monitor the situation and require 'child care classes' if they thought there was neglect or abuse. But, old men wanting sex with young women has a million year history, and is currently normal behavior.

Pro polygamy groups will no doubt use this as the beginning of an effort to get the government out of the business of defining marriage-and gays would do well to hop the bandwagon with them in this mission. The idea that the government can tell you who and how you can marry is wrong and goes against basic personal freedom. What is worse is that all they have to base their definition on is a claim to biblical convention-and even the Bible doesnt back them up on it.

That said, I agree that you should be an adult when you decide to marry (18 or older) thus you benefit from some years of experience and dont go into a marriage as a child. This means that it would be illegal to take teenage girls and force them to marry (in fact being forced to marry isnt right either in my opinion).

I think the last thing the government wants is to persecute responsible polygamists. It would be hard to show it as a criminal thing. If the people in the polygamist family are all there of their own free will and all are adults it seems wrong that the state should be able to call it wrong-consider that a commune isnt all that different and that is legal. No doubt many of the women are happy to have another set of hands to manage the kids and the chores-you can only have sex so much......yet the sex is all most people think about when considering the question of polygamy.

The weak case the state had for this raid (they cant even show proof their tip was a real person) was hardly justification for their response. Sending a few police personnel and a social worker to investigate the claim was much more logical than trying to see how close they could get to a repeat of Waco. And in the end they may well have set the stage for numerous legal battles against both state and federal laws surrounding the definition of marriage-a place our tax dollars really shouldnt be spent on. Imagine the millions this fiasco cost-all taxpayer money-and imagine still the better uses that amount could have been spent on.

"If the 'marriages' are 'spritual' instead of legal, is that different than for a man who is married and having an affair?"

Not if the women the man is having an affair with is of legal age. But if she is, say 14, then that is called statutory rape at a minimum.

"But, if underage girls in America have sex, men and women 'date' and have sex, many people marry-divorce-marry-divorce and are polygamist sequentially---it's hard to decide what is technically legal and what is 'frowned on'."

What is so hard about it? An adult male (or female for that matter) having sex with underage girls (or boys) is illegal. A man possessing more than one wife at the same time is illegal.

"I think removing a person's own child should be the last resort."

I agree with you on that one, as well as the fact that the state was overzealous in removing all the children without cause. However, I don't know all the facts on the decision making process of the agency involved. I would hope they did not enter the compound with intent to remove all children, but rather to investigate the claims alleged in the phone call.

According to the law, as I understand it, "polygamy" only covers cases in which someone has a civil marriage with multiple individuals. A civil marriage means their union is recognized by the state and carries certain legal implications and privileges with it.

That wasn't the situation here. The men in FLDS had one wife (probably) with whom they had a legally recognized civil marriage and multiple "spiritual" wives to whom they were married in church, but not with the authority of the state. That means they are technically, but not legally, practicing polygamy.

Interestingly, because those "spiritual" wives with children are not legally considered married, they're eligible to collect welfare and other benefits, and they do - or, well, their husbands do in the end. The members of FLDS play the system this way for all they're worth. It's reprehensible but not technically illegal.

ExCathedra, its also illegal to cheat on your wife or husband, we don't arrest people for that anymore. That said, the reason its being ignored is because child molestation is much more disturbing, as well as the botched investigation by authorities which relied on a prank phone call, and the assumption that everybody was breaking the law because some were.

Newsweek ran an article a few weeks back talking about how Texas did raid a polygamy compound in the 40s or 50s and arrested the men for polygamy. The state's case fell apart and the men returned to the compound. I think this is the reason that the state raided the compound based on the child abuse allegations. Like the other posters have mentioned, these men had one "legal" wife and other "spiritual" wives, so the polygamy law was not being broken.

While I do not condone girls being coerced/forced into marriages or sex, the agencies have trampled all over the civil rights of these families. The agencies should have done their homework and had hard evidence before putting on the big tank show for all to see. But everything has to be bigger and better in Texas.

The "crime" in plural marriage is bigamy, not polygamy. Bigamy involves LEGAL marriage to more than one person at the same time.

State sanctioned marriage is a relatively new phenomena in history. In most of history, you just decided to live together and you were married. The Lutheran and Catholic churches started pushing state sanctioned marriage in order to control their followers. After to that, state sanctioned marriage evolved into, essentially, a secular method of determining who is who in probate and who could act as next of kin while the individuals are both still alive. The "marriage license" you buy from the county recorded is an entirely secular document.

All states have said that they will not prosecute bigamists, unless someone complained. They have better things to do with their time, (or, at least they claim they do), than chase after what *CONSENTING* adults do in their bedrooms. [Given the facts in Bowers vs. Hardwick, apparently, the government only goes after people who do things in their bedroom that individual agents of the state don't like.]

Subsequently, the State of Texas is prosecuting the people at YFZ because of "child abuse." There is more popular support for this than trying to chase after the adults. In this country, you can do just about *anything* if you claim to do it "for the children."

It would be rather naive to believe that Texas law enforcement didn't learn from the first time they tried to go after polygamists. This is what motivated them to go after the sect's children, rather than the adults...