4
   

polygamy a "minor" offense?

 
 
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 11:19 am
"At the age of 15, Lu Ann Kingston was ready for marriage, or so her family elders decreed. They arranged for her to wed a 23 year old distant relative, and she became his fourth wife, quickly bearing him two children." Now 23, she said in an interview that teenage brides of polygamists from fundamentalist Mormon home are told "This is what the heavenly father wants, and their at an age wherethey can't run away because there is nowhere to go." Now Utah, after years of ambivalence, is taking a tough new look at polygamists who marry teenage brides. a bill passed by the Utah House and now with the Senate is expected to pass. Govenor Michael O. Leavitt, a Republican and a descendant pf polygamists, has "not yet weighed in on the bill" his spokesman said. Officals say some girls are believed to be married as young as 11.
Rocky Mountain News 2/28/03
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 4,161 • Replies: 24

 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 11:23 am
I think I'm more in favor of an age restriction on marriage than a limit on quantity.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 11:29 am
Right. It's one thing if a grown woman decided on her own to marry a man with other wives but marrying off young girls who have no say in the matter is pretty barbaric.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 11:38 am
roger, i totally agree, with consenting adults i dont care a whit (but hard to imagine coping with multiple wives-yikes)
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 11:41 am
Ah, but it's their tradition and religion. If we are so sensitive of Muslim feelings, traditions and religion, why not this small break-away sect of Mormons?

Of course, I'm being facetious. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 11:44 am
asherman, i would assume its because we have pretty strong attitudes about sexual exploitation of children.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 11:55 am
Dys,

Of course, we have strong attitudes and objections to the sexual exploitation of children.

Child abuse is one of my hot buttons. Years ago, in a legal ethics class we were taught that every defendant is entitled to the best defense possible and that we had an obligation as lawyers to defend even the most despicable examples of humanity. As human beings there are some crimes so repugnent to us as individuals that we could not provided the best defense, and so were not obligated to take every case presented to us. We were asked to ponder which sort of cases we could not defend properly due to our personal biasis. I could not then, nor could I now, give a child abuse defendant the best defense they are entitled to.

My above is a very small one, hardly enough to prompt a posting. We Americans go to great lengths to avoid offending some groups, yet have no compunction against condemnin another out of hand.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 12:13 pm
It's those damned politically correct Liberals, again, eh?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 04:06 pm
Asherman wrote:
Ah, but it's their tradition and religion. If we are so sensitive of Muslim feelings, traditions and religion, why not this small break-away sect of Mormons?


There are two separate issues here. You should be sensitive of any groups feelings, traditions and religeon, be they Mormon, Muslim or French.

There is no contradiction between this and society's responsibility to set and legislate a standard of moral behavior based on the values of our culture. Forbiding the marriage of minors, multiple wives, cannibalism or overly fattening sauces does not clash with our ideals of building a just multicultural society.

We can give a culture or subculture the rights due them even while we proscribe one of their practices.

[quote="Asherman]Of course, I'm being facetious. Very Happy[/quote]

But we knew that.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  3  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 04:10 pm
Glad to see we can have morals with out religious beliefs. And I'm not being facetious.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 05:38 pm
Asherman
Quote:
Ah, but it's their tradition and religion. If we are so sensitive of Muslim feelings, traditions and religion, why not this small break-away sect of Mormons?


Can't understand your reference to Muslim sensitivity. I am sure that polygamy by Muslims would also be illegal.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 06:18 pm
The Koran permits three wives to the faithful.
0 Replies
 
pueo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 06:25 pm
triple agitation, yikes!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 06:29 pm
Asherman
Yes I understand that but regardless what their law says would we allow it here in the states?
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 07:18 pm
Au,

I think we should be less concerned with PC, and more concerned with vital issues. The law of the land should apply to all citizens equally. The laws are not passed to promote any religious grouping. Nor should any law be passed that expressly undermines any religion that does not have as it's goal the destruction of the Constitution.

This thread condemns, rightly I might add, the practice of arranged marriages of very young women within a relatively small break-away sect of Mormons. That group claims the practice is traditional and commanded by God. A Muslim woman refuses to wear a hat stipulated as uniform for her job as a bus driver, and people seriously say she shouldn't be forced to wear it. The woman whose Driver's License photo can not show her face because it's against her religion has supporters. We are told that Muslim children are provided special areas for prayer during the school day, but Christian activities are prohibited. "Under God" may be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance to satisfy the athesist parents of school children. Personally, I'm in favor of modifying the Pledge and forbidding any religious activities in the schools.

The bottom line here, I think is that all of this amounts to a tempest in a tea cup at a time when people are seriously trying to destroy our country. Let's get our priorities straight here.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 07:31 pm
Asherman
I Agree with what you have said. However, I was under the impression that the post was about polygamy and the practices of the Mormans.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 07:33 pm
What is good for the gander, is good for the goose.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 08:01 pm
Asherman,

Please drop the drivers license bit. We determined in another discussion that this there is no truth to this story (see www.snopes.com).

This clearly is a matter of balancing religeous practices with public values. It sounded like there is a consensus building that we should be tolerant of every religeon and treat all religeons equally.

Of course if members of a religion do something that is clearly against the laws or values of our culture we can and should stop that *practice*.

I understand we we would not allow someone to marry an 11 year old girl. I don't understand we can't tolerate someone whose belief won't let them wear a hat.

I guess there is a line to be drawn. It seem that the reasonable line should be between the offenses of child-marriage and hat-refusal.

Your comment about religeons who's goal is "the destruction of the Constitution" seems reactionary. There is no religion with this goal.

There are sects of Christians and Muslims with this goal. But attacking an entire religion for the beliefs of small sects in their numbers is unjust.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 08:18 pm
Quote:
Brown
Please drop the drivers license bit. We determined in another discussion that this there is no truth to this story


The story about the drivers license in Florida is true. I remember reading about it when it occurred. However, I have no idea what the final outcome was. Again it did happen. The Muslim women refused to have her face uncovered for the license picture.
IMO it should have been no picture no license. She could make believe she was in Saudi Arabia where women are among other things I believe not allowed to drive.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Feb, 2003 08:30 pm
OK I just did some checking and I retract my assertion with apologies to Mr. Asherman.

I agree with Au. "No picture no license" is reasonable because the state has an compelling interest to insure that a license holder is readily identifiable.

To me there is a clear difference between this and the hat...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » polygamy a "minor" offense?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/29/2024 at 07:46:50