The article says: "In the end, most of the 400-plus children were grabbed merely because they shared a 'pervasive belief system,' and in the eyes of the appeals court, that simply doesn't rise to any kind of imminent physical danger."

The appeals court here is wrong. There is, in fact, inherent danger in a theology that says that girls must be married and pregnant as soon as possible. It cannot be anything BUT dangerous for a community to hold such ideas.

If an individual held such an idea and acted on it within his/her own family, s/he'd be likely be charged with crimes and dubbed a "pervert" at the very least, if not "pedophile." But if a religious community holds such ideas ... that's somehow not dangerous? Huh?

Who else but a lawyer (or worse, a judge) could possibly conjure up any rationale that stupid?

Somehow I see the outcome of this being some sort of "religious exception" to laws on child abuse and age of consent. Please tell me that someone in the legal system sees that this would be wrong ... if not, then there's no hope for the law at all.

"Somehow I see the outcome of this being some sort of "religious exception" to laws on child abuse and age of consent"

This concept is frightening. But I agree with you that things seem to be heading this way.

An example in my state is the law that requires public school students to be immunized...now ofcourse there are religious 'exceptions'. You don't have to prove that you are even a member of a religion that takes exception, you just sign a waiver.

That sounds oh so enlightened until measles, rubella and polio make a comeback.

Now that you bring up the possibility of a "religious exception," I'm worried too.

It's not just the girls in that cult who are in danger - a lot of the boys are too. You know how they're able to let men have so many wives at once, when male and female babies are born in roughly equal numbers? The answer is that they "excommunicate" and banish something like two out of three boys for offenses like watching TV or playing basketball. Then these teenage or even tweenage kids have to go out and fend for themselves, with an inadequate education and basically no experience of the outside world.

I'm not saying the girls don't have it just as bad, what with most of them only having the prospect of being the "spiritual" wife of a much older man and bearing his children in their teens. They're also expected to "submit" to the whims of their husbands who, according to FLDS, are perfectly within their rights to physically, sexually and psychologically abuse their wives.

Leaving aside whether or not there's "imminent danger" to the kids in that compound, there's certainly a long-term danger for most of them. Of course, you can't prosecute for that.

You are correct to point out the sect's mistreatment of boys too. It is of a different nature, but it's certainly not any more moral.

So should any 'child' (person under 18) be allowed to get married?

To me the simple law change is this; One can ONLY get married is they are 18 or older. PERIOD.

Then the existing laws of statutory rape could be used if these girls were 'married' (in a religious only ceremony) and then had sex with their 'husband' (willingly or not).

But note this law change would prevent an 17 teen year old girl from marrying an 18 year old boy (regardless of their religion).

It's called the establishment clause. Whatever you think of their beliefs - it isn't a crime to have them. It isn't a crime for someone else to believe that young girls should be married at an age you think is too young. It only becomes a crime when a marriage occurs that violates the law. Allowing the state to deprive people of their rights and families due to "inherent danger" is by far a greater danger than some group of religious yahoos.

The state should have specific probable cause, not just guilt by association, or assumed because of ones faith (or whatever that snowballs too.)

A religious exemption hasn't been created - just the need for actual evidence of a crime. You're position essentially is that our rights are less important that witch hunts. "Won't someone please think of the children!"

I'm not sure you are correct when you say it is only a crime when a marriage occurs, since you don't define 'marriage'.

I would say it is only a crime (to have sex with young girls) if a legal marriage has NOT occured.

Sex with someone under age is statutory rape.

So all the state has to do to protect these girls is to ensure they are legally married before men have sex with them. If people are concerned about young girls getting married than the state can raise the age of consent for marriarge (to 17 or 18, or 25 if they like).

PsiCop, would you then say that every Muslim in the US could be arrested, on the basis that the religion tells them that killing infidels is allowed. ( or in the case of Christians slavery of non-Christians is allowed) The argument is not Religious exception, but due process. You cannot assume that everybody has committed a crime, because some people have committed a crime. Furthermore, the police searched the entire compound, and obviously were not looking for the specific 15 year old, if they were looking for a specific 15 year old they would not have been checking out younger and older girls, and claiming that women over the age of 21 were minors. I want the child rapist and the women who let them do it to be punished, but just because I want them to be punished does not mean I believe the Gov't has the right to search without probable cause, and then just assume that everybody was guilty.

That's a fair point - I was following the OP structure about the belief of getting married and pregnant young is inherently dangerous.

You are correct - statuatory rape would also be a crime. The age of consent in Texas is 16 (with parental consent for marriage.)

That said - being part of a religious sect that believes in marrying younger than the law allows is not and should not be a criminal act in and of itself. Nor should it be considered probable cause for rounding up an entire town. The state will probably able to prove that crimes did occur, however, that state should not violate the law as a means of enforcing it.

PsiCop:

...The article says: "In the end, most of the 400-plus children were grabbed merely because they shared a 'pervasive belief system,' and in the eyes of the appeals court, that simply doesn't rise to any kind of imminent physical danger."

The appeals court here is wrong. There is, in fact, inherent danger in a theology that says that girls must be married and pregnant as soon as possible. It cannot be anything BUT dangerous for a community to hold such ideas...

Let me start off saying that I have nothing but contempt for these people, the way they lead their lives, and the way they raise their children (and I feel the same about ALL religions).

But...it's over reaching to say this is "dangerous," in fact, it's more or less how people have lived their lives for thousands of years (no doubt....more or less). Arranged marriages with girls say, 15 or older, have been and are standard procedure in many third world countries/cultures.

There's no way to have "freedom" unless people are free to be complete morons and raise their children to be complete morons. It IS a kind of child abuse to raise ANY child into ANY religion: to raise a child to believe there's some kind of invisible MONSTER who has rules about how they must behave--with the punishment being disease, death, hell, etc.

But, about the only thing I could think of that's WORSE is having the government assigned to "thought control" and having a heavy hand in family life.

It's enough that it's a crime to have sex with underage kids. Those breaking that law should be prosecuted. With sufficient and relentless prosecution in INDIVIDUAL CASES only, the practice will stop--and they'll start banging their brain-washed children only after they're 18.

Your last paragraph has this; being part of a religious sect that believes in marrying younger than the law allows is not and should not be a criminal act in and of itself.

*******

Now I'm not sure I really agree with this statement. If this sect 'pushes' (encourages) underage girls into ILLEGAL marriage arangements (i.e. makes them phoney wifes) and these phoney wifes perform sexual acts than the sect is pushing these girls to perform sexual acts and that is clearly a crime (as well as the phoney husband's crime of statuatory rape).

A parent can lose their child if they encourages their child to commit a crime (e.g. a gang member dad that tells his son to commit a crime).

The legal problem here is how wide of a net one throws over this sect. My gut says that the state cannot just harass an entire sect but they have to have a specific complaint on a specifc family.

BUT since what is a 'family' in these sects is difficult to determine I can understand why the state of TX did what they did (understand yes, but not sure if it was OK as related to the bill of rights).

The actions are not the same as the beliefs though. If the actions are illegal - get probable cause and prosecute. Don't round them all up and say - they all belong to the sect - so we should assume that they are all not entitled to the protections from unwarrented searchs and seizures.

(If a pastor did "encourage" one specific girl to "marry" some older church member - that is possibly a crime, depending on local laws. That doesn't mean that the government can/should assume that every girl in the town should be removed.)

The initial police action was incorrect. The court intervened, properly, in my opinion. That doesn't mean I think that the girls should stay - just that the state should prove that each girl they remove should be based on something more than the religious beliefs of the town.

I believe we are looking at this the same way but there are still open questions related to the use of terms like 'town'.

Now in your example of a pastor and a 'town' it is implied that this is a town of people from various backgrounds, religious, races,,,,

But are these 'ranches' where many different families ALL from the same sect can be viewed as NOT being 'towns'.

So I agree that in a 'normal town' the state should NOT be able to cast such a wide net but in these 'sect towns' MAYBE they should have a right.

In this case we have evidence that this commune broke the law by "marrying" off young girls ... not of age in Texas to be married ... and getting them pregnant, before the age of consent.

That they have a belief that this is necessary, is coupled with the fact that they have been doing precisely what they believe to be right.

So no, this is not a case of them being arrested for having beliefs. They were rounded up because they had beliefs that inspired them to break the law.

And yes ... I do really think that a belief that one is above the law, is an inherently-dangerous belief. That goes for anyone who views him/herself as being excepted from obeying the law. History is rife with people who believed the law does not apply to them, such as Richard Nixon who felt the president could not commit a crime just by virtue of being president. Beliefs such as this are dangerous, whether they're religious in origin or not. When they're acted upon, as the FLDS in Texas obviously did (the evidence is in 14- and 15-year-olds who are pregnant, which is fairly objective in nature), there's a problem.

If you can't see that, then the country is doomed.