What Did The FLDS Kids Do To Deserve This?
CBS News | Ben Stein
May I ask a question? What the heck is going on in Texas with the kids caught up in the polygamy ranch disaster?
Look, I am not a fan of polygamy. For one thing, it's all any man can do keeping up with one wife. For another, it's against the law in this country.
But the polygamists that have been in the news have been operating for decades. The authorities knew about it, and them. They didn't do a thing about it for all those years!
Then, on a totally unsubstantiated telephone call about sex abuse - which apparently did not come from anyone even connected to the polygamist compound - the state closed down the compound, and (what is totally incomprehensible) took the small children of the settlement away from their mothers and fathers.
Why? What crime had the kids committed? Why are they being dealt the most drastic punishment imaginable - separation from their mothers and fathers - for no known reason?
The state of Texas has not found one single crime against these children yet. Even if they do find one or two, how can that be a reason for taking dozens, maybe hundreds of children away from their mothers?
The kids are the victims here - not of the parents, but of the incredible, unbelievable cruelty of the state of Texas authorities. If there is evidence of cruelty by the families to these kids, where is it?
Look, I am a huge fan of Texas. I have many friends there and love being there. But what is the attorney general of Texas doing? This is an Orwellian nightmare. For no reason except what looks like a crank call, the lives of these children have been turned upside down and into a screaming horror movie.
Can't someone say the obvious here? That in this case, it's not the Mormons who are the criminals, it's the government of Texas.
Governor Perry, wake up and give those kids back to their mothers until you have some compelling, proven reason to do otherwise. What your state is doing here is Gestapo tactics pure and simple.
Quote:Can't someone say the obvious here? That in this case, it's not the Mormons who are the criminals, it's the government of Texas.
from what i understand , the MORMON CHURCH has distanced itself quite clearly from the sect .
using the term MORMON in this context is not appropriate imo .
why can't stein use the name this group has given itself ?
is he deliberately trying to link the mormon church with this group and confuse readers not fully familar with the sect and its aims ?
that seems a lazy way of writing an opinion - i'm surprised that CBS allowed it to be published in that way - perhaps they think it might boost their ratings .
hbg
I agree, but tecnically they are still Mormons, even if they aren't part of the main LDS group.
I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with Stein, just posting another opinion. I do think removing children from families should be the last thing you'd want to do unless there was clear abuse.
Fair and balanced!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90B2K480&show_article=1
SAN ANTONIO (AP) - Texas child welfare officials say more than half the teen girls swept into state custody from a polygamist sect's ranch have been pregnant.
Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar says 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 were living on the ranch in Eldorado. Of that group, 31 already have children or are pregnant.
State officials took custody of all 463 children at the Yearning For Zion Ranch more than three weeks ago after a raid prompted by calls to a domestic violence hotline.
Child welfare officials say there was a pattern of underage girls forced into "spiritual marriages" with much older men at the ranch.
cjhsa wrote:Fair and balanced!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90B2K480&show_article=1
SAN ANTONIO (AP) - Texas child welfare officials say more than half the teen girls swept into state custody from a polygamist sect's ranch have been pregnant.
Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar says 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 were living on the ranch in Eldorado. Of that group, 31 already have children or are pregnant.
State officials took custody of all 463 children at the Yearning For Zion Ranch more than three weeks ago after a raid prompted by calls to a domestic violence hotline.
Child welfare officials say there was a pattern of underage girls forced into "spiritual marriages" with much older men at the ranch.
The law was that 14 year olds could marry, the law is now that 16 years olds can. Unless the state can produce kids younger, or ones that believe they were forced into marriage, the state has no argument. Arranged marriage is not an unusual practice, it has been done by a lot of cultures for a very long time, but America can outlaw it. Did we??? If the sect is currently arranging marriage at 16 years I think that a good argument can be made that no abuse has taken place. Certainly they should need to do the paperwork though, and I don't think that they have.
Texas law provides for a parental consent for 16 year olds to be married.
The legal age to marry is 18 years. If the father of a child is 20 and older, and the mother is under 17, the father is likely to be charged with statutory rape, which is "Sexual Assault of Child" in the state of Texas.
CalamityJane wrote:Texas law provides for a parental consent for 16 year olds to be married.
The legal age to marry is 18 years. If the father of a child is 20 and older, and the mother is under 17, the father is likely to be charged with statutory rape, which is "Sexual Assault of Child" in the state of Texas.
That is a legal gray area, yet to be clarified by the Supremes. This being the case it should not be considered grounds for Texas inflicting trauma on the individuals of this cult. You don't bust up ways of life and families with law that is not solid. Doing so is abuse of the law.
hawkeye10 wrote:That is a legal gray area, yet to be clarified by the Supremes.
I'm sorry, but on this point I'm with Jane. How is it a "legal grey area" that no man can sleep with girls below 14, and that only partners no more than 3 years older can sleep with young women between 14 and 17? How do you suggest this violates the constitution?
Thomas wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:That is a legal gray area, yet to be clarified by the Supremes.
I'm sorry, but on this point I'm with Jane. How is it a "legal grey area" that no man can sleep with girls below 14, and that only partners no more than 3 years older can sleep with young women between 14 and 17? How do you suggest this violates the constitution?
The gray area is that one set of laws says that an adult can not have sex with child, another says that a child can marry (with out saying that the child can not marry an adult), and marriage presumes sex. The laws are at adds with each other, and the supremes have not clarified, because till now states have had the good sense not to prosecute these cases. We have not had a test of the law.
In any case the cult members were in violation of the Texas law that says that marriage licenses must be obtained, but i suspect that this law as well is open to legal challenge. I think that so long as a child claims to be church married to an adult that the state can not successfully go after the adult for crimes. The law is too weak. Texas very well might try, but I doubt it. They are going to very quickly run up against the conservatives, who will see such laws as an over reaching by the state into the sanctity of marriage, which they view as a religious institution. There will in short order be a polical price to play for using such laws against the cult, because those on the right know that any law used against the cult members are laws that can be used by the state against others.
Religions are protected in the practice of their beliefs under the first amendment. However, the USSC has upheld some limits such as state laws prohibiting polygamy. Also, courts have ruled against parents who claimed religious freedom in withholding life-saving health care from their children.
Does anyone know of a case where someone claimed religious freedom to get around an age of consent law?
wandeljw wrote:Religions are protected in the practice of their beliefs under the first amendment. However, the USSC has upheld some limits such as state laws prohibiting polygamy. Also, courts have ruled against parents who claimed religious freedom in withholding life-saving health care from their children.
Does anyone know of a case where someone claimed religious freedom to get around an age of consent law?
Religious freedom is not the central issue, it is what is marriage and who gets to determine if two people are married. I assure you that the state wants no part of this hornet's nest, it is highly unlikely that they will criminally charge anyone. IF the state is dumb enough to do it this cult, with the backing of the religious right, will ride this case all the way to the Supremes.
Quote:SAN ANGELO, Tex. - More than 40 children removed from a polygamist colony in Texas might have suffered broken bones in the recent past, which could prove the existence of abuse at the ranch.
Officials with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services said on Wednesday that their investigation has turned up some information about the children that is "cause for concern."
The department said it is also looking into the possibility that some of the young boys taken from the ranch earlier this month were sexually abused. Those indications are reportedly based on interviews with children and journal entries found at the ranch.
Officials did not give detailed information about the 41 children that are believed to have suffered broken bones, but apparently the suspicions are not based on medical evidence such as x-rays.
An attorney for the FLDS church responded to the allegations Wednesday, saying that there is no proof to support claims that any of the children were abused.
"They put that out as a bare statement, but they know in doing that... that the news media and public will jump to the conclusion that it's some sort of evidence of abuse," said Rod Parker, a spokesperson for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS).
"They don't have any evidence that there's abuse, and neither do I," Parker added. "I think what's happening here is that Child Protective Services is doing what they have consistently done in this case... which is trying to grab headlines. They know it will be taken out of context."
Parker emphasized during a news conference on Wednesday afternoon that officials have even admitted that the suspicions of abuse are not supported by medical proof.
"There isn't a single medical report of suspected child abuse. The fact that no reports at all are filed is strong evidence that what is happening... is they are trying to grab headlines without any factual basis whatsoever," Parker said.
"I guess what I'm here to do is point the finger back at [child welfare officials]... and say, 'stop doing this,'" he added. "Stop grabbing headlines and start treating these families with some degree of respect."
Earlier this month, authorities raided the FLDS "Yearning For Zion" ranch in Eldorado, Tex. after receiving reports that a young teenage girl was being physically and sexually abused by her older husband. However, those allegations have yet to be corroborated and the girl who made the complaints to police has not been located.
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=81cc0b0e-dc66-44f8-9323-ecc73a9f37a8&rss=991
Any kid I meet on the street "might" have had a broken bone during his/her life, it is rather common. My son broke his leg last year, so does this mean I can be accused of abuse if I am unfortunate enough to live in Texas??
hawkeye10 wrote:The gray area is that one set of laws says that an adult can not have sex with child, another says that a child can marry (with out saying that the child can not marry an adult), and marriage presumes sex.
That may well be so, but how is that relevant to this case? Were any of the 14-17 year old girls legally married to their children's fathers? Is a "spiritual marriage" enough to void charges of statutory rape?
Thomas wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:The gray area is that one set of laws says that an adult can not have sex with child, another says that a child can marry (with out saying that the child can not marry an adult), and marriage presumes sex.
That may well be so, but how is that relevant to this case? Were any of the 14-17 year old girls legally married to their children's fathers? Is a "spiritual marriage" enough to void charges of statutory rape?
I think that the state will not be able to prosecute if a 16 year old claims to be married to the man she is having sex with, and has a church document to that effect. A court might convict, but it will be a certain appeal. I think that the supremes would have to take the case.
So far the state has not produced any under 16, except to say that before the law was changed it did happen. If I say that 50% of those 14-17 have had sex, it does not mean that there are any under 16...it might be that every one 16 and older has been married off and is having sex. If the parents approve I don't see what the state can do that will stick.
None of the marriages has a license from the government, but as I said before I doubt that the state will get much head way on that angle either. There will be a political cost to making that argument that common law mariage does not apply to minors, one that Texas politicians will not want to deal with.
Quote:Any kid I meet on the street "might" have had a broken bone during his/her life, it is rather common. My son broke his leg last year, so does this mean I can be accused of abuse if I am unfortunate enough to live in Texas??
i'm sure the doctor/hospital attending to the child with broken bones at the time of the accident will gladly verify that it was simply caused by an accident or while playing sports .
i am assuming that it is the usual practice to have a child looked after by a medical professional for any broken bones .
i can't see anyone being accused of child abuse for bones broken while the child was playing a game in such circumstances .
hbg
(shaking head)
Do we really have THAT far ro go before we start treating 14 - 16 year olds as humans?
That their parents give consent does NOT mean it was what the child would have wanted for themselves, especially had they not been so indoctrinated.
hawkeye10 wrote:
I think that the state will not be able to prosecute if a 16 year old claims to be married to the man she is having sex with, and has a church document to that effect. A court might convict, but it will be a certain appeal. I think that the supremes would have to take the case.
Baloney! If they cannot provide a legitimate marriage license - and they
can't - the alleged "husband" will be charged with statutory rape. No need
to appeal or bother the supreme court. Texas law states it very clearly.
Even a common law marriage between an adult and a minors is illegal.
Reminds me of the recent case in Washington or Oregon, in which a quite smart 14 year old (?) child of a Jehovah's Witness family came down with acute leukemia and refused a transfusion, and - would have to verify - the courts ok'd his refusal because of his knowledge and competence.
To me, there's a level of, if not brainwash, inculcation, going on, and I think I would have been for intervention based on age in that particular case.
It also reminds me that children of 13 or older are allowed in some states to participate in the decision of what parent to live with. Not sure they are the deciders in any state, but they get a voice.
