Prosecuting the Crime of Bigamy

[Seven]

This thread is for past and present cases of Prosecution
of the Crime of Bigamy in the United States.

Until a year ago, I was completely ignorant of the rampant flaunting of
anti-bigamy laws and, worse, the complicity of "law enforcement" in places
like Hildale, Utah/Colorady City, Arizona--the original home of the FLDS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll start with the case of FLDS member Rodney Holm, to whom FLDS Prophet Rulon Jeffs "gave" 16-year-old Ruth Stubbs as his third "celestial wife."


May 18, 2006

Bigamy Conviction Stands for Former Utah Policeman, Rodney Holm

The Utah Supreme Court upheld the 2003 bigamy conviction of a former Hildale police officer, ruling that a law banning polygamy is not unconstitutional.

Holm was convicted of felony bigamy and two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. He had argued that the state's bigamy statute violated his right to practice his religion.

The court said that religious protections of the U.S. and Utah constitutions "do not shield [Rodney] Holm's polygamous practices from state prosecution."

Holm is a member of the Fundamentalist LDS Church (not the Morman Church, which banned polygamy in 1890).

http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/05/bigamy_convicti.html



(http://websleuths.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2167259)

[Seven]

Just in case Texas law enforcement decides to go this way with the FLDS, here's the Texan law against bigamy:

***"TEXAS

TITLE 6. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY
CHAPTER 25. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY

§ 25.01. BIGAMY.
(a) An individual commits an offense if:

(1) he is legally married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor's prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with a person other than his spouse in this state under the appearance of being married; or

(2) he knows that a married person other than his spouse is married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry that person in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the person's prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with that person in this state under the appearance of being married.

(b) For purposes of this section, "under the appearance of being married" means holding out that the parties are married with cohabitation and an intent to be married by either party.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1) that the actor reasonably believed that his marriage was void or had been dissolved by death, divorce, or annulment.

(d) For the purposes of this section, the lawful wife or husband of the actor may testify both for or against the actor concerning proof of the original marriage.

(e) An offense under this section is a Third Degree Felony."

http://fightbigamy.typepad.com/my_weblog/bigamy_laws_states_rw/index.html

[Floh]

I think bigamy is repressive. IMO.

it may be said how can it be repressive if all adults involved are agreeable to any such arrangement. i say "think of the children" and what values they may bring to society.

[southcitymom]

I think bigamy is repressive. IMO.

it may be said how can it be repressive if all adults involved are agreeable to any such arrangement. i say "think of the children" and what values they may bring to society.

I can see bigamy, with or without children, working for some people and I do not have an inherent problem with it as an institution. I do think the bigamy in the FLDS was repressive to women, but I also believe that some women are okay with being repressed and surpressed. (witness slave/master relationships (not illegal) in the BDSM world - a lifestyle which fully explores these issues).

I do think bigamy could make family law in our country impossibly confusing (ie - were divorce and/or custody issues thrown into the mix with more than two partners).

As far as the values it brings to the society via the children - our definition of family has had to change over the years and it is continuing to evolve and change. Families do not look the same as they did even 40 years ago. I appreciate this diversity and its underlying statement that family is more about love than blood.

I do believe that bigamists feel supported by the Bible (and FLDS even more so by the direct prophesy of plural marriage). Whether that support is a poor interpretation or not, it certainly can be interpreted. If you believe that God's will is to be fruitful and multiply and populate the land with His people, bigamy makes spiritual sense because it allows the faithful to populate more quickly and raise up their progeny in the way of their faith.

The Catholic Church has, I believe, a not dissimilar goal, but uses the dictate of most birth control as sin rather than bigamy with offspring to achieve it (ie - populate the planet with more Catholics).

[Jolynna]

I admit to having watched "The Man with Three Wives" on Lifetime more than once just to see the guy get busted and humiliated.

But, I don't believe the government has a place in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

Southcitymom is right. Families these days don't look like the families of our grandmother's generation.

I don't want my husband with another woman under any circumstances. But, in a plural marriage, at least I'd know. (so I could leave)

[Floh]

I admit to having watched "The Man with Three Wives" on Lifetime more than once just to see the guy get busted and humiliated.

But, I don't believe the government has a place in the bedrooms of consenting adults.

Southcitymom is right. Families these days don't look like the families of our grandmother's generation.

I don't want my husband with another woman under any circumstances. But, in a plural marriage, at least I'd know. (so I could leave)

Hee! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[mysteriew]

I am less adamant on bigamy. Yes it is against the law and thus should probably be prosecuted. But with the prevelance of serial marriages, open relationships and adultery in our society, it is kind of hypocritical to prosecute. As long as the relationships were entered into as adults, and willingly by the participants, and there is no incestous relationships involved that is. I do think in this situation incest will be a bigger problem than most anticipate.

[KatK]

But what is willing? In an s/M relationship, the sub grew up with their own mind, (male or female) and they are free to be themselves. *THEY* are the ones that actually hold the power, and any Dom worth their salt knows this. The sub makes the Dom, and the Dom knows this, it is the sub who carries the weight, the sub who is stronger. (I had the priveledge to read a "Ask the sub" type topic where this was explained in great detail. Not my cuppa tea, but I see now the Sub does choose.) *BUT* when a girl child is raised, away from outside influences, to think "I will serve my husband, that is just how it is." their whole life, the choice is taken away from them. They don't freely choose, because they were not allowed to grow to have their own mind. Am I making sense? ETA: And a male polygamist would *NEVER* get into s/M. It is competely different. I'll dig up the topic (which got quite heated) for your perusal. ETA2: Here it is (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=460770&highlight=slave).

[southcitymom]

I am less adamant on bigamy. Yes it is against the law and thus should probably be prosecuted. But with the prevelance of serial marriages, open relationships and adultery in our society, it is kind of hypocritical to prosecute. As long as the relationships were entered into as adults, and willingly by the participants, and there is no incestous relationships involved that is. I do think in this situation incest will be a bigger problem than most anticipate.

I agree that this may well be the case. I will not be surprised to see incest in such an insular group.

[Seven]

I am less adamant on bigamy. Yes it is against the law and thus should probably be prosecuted. But with the prevelance of serial marriages, open relationships and adultery in our society, it is kind of hypocritical to prosecute. As long as the relationships were entered into as adults, and willingly by the participants, and there is no incestous relationships involved that is. I do think in this situation incest will be a bigger problem than most anticipate.

I dont understand your use of the word "hypocritical."
I usually think of hypocrisy as "Do as I say, Not as I do."

[Seven]

I took this one from a post by golfmom ....
Probably important in the history of anti bigamy laws:

Reynolds v. United States http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg/100px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg)
Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) Argued November 14 – 15, 1878
Decided May 5, 1879
Full case name: George Reynolds v. United States
Citations: 98 U.S. 145 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=98&page=145); 25 L. Ed. 244; 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1374; 8 Otto 145

Prior history: Defendant convicted, District Court for the 3rd Judicial District of the Territory of Utah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_of_Utah); conviction upheld by Supreme Court of the Utah Territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Utah_Territor y&action=edit&redlink=1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

[adnoid]

...I don't want my husband with another woman under any circumstances. But, in a plural marriage, at least I'd know. (so I could leave)

Don't forget the standard punishment for bigamy - two mothers in law.

[Seven]

Don't forget the standard punishment for bigamy - two mothers in law.
I KNOW! LOL .....
who in their right mind would want 2 spouses, let alone 30! :crazy:

unless only one (if that) has any community property rights! :confused:

hmmmmm .... is Texas a community property state?

[adnoid]

I KNOW! LOL .....
who in their right mind would want 2 spouses, let alone 30!...

That's a lot of purses to hold in the mall.

[Seven]

That's a lot of purses to hold in the mall.

LOL :D

<said in the manner of High Sierra>
Purses? They don't got no stinking purses!

[mollymalone]

I am less adamant on bigamy. Yes it is against the law and thus should probably be prosecuted. But with the prevelance of serial marriages, open relationships and adultery in our society, it is kind of hypocritical to prosecute. As long as the relationships were entered into as adults, and willingly by the participants, and there is no incestous relationships involved that is. I do think in this situation incest will be a bigger problem than most anticipate.There's bigamy as in polygamy, and then there's bigamy as in criminal conduct. Ie.. we've all seen on courttv or other crime news programs where there are men or women who con people out of their savings or property by bigamist marriages.

If the adults come into the relationship of their own free will, I agree, that's their deal. But to have the women or children raised into this without any ability to make an educated and intelligent choice on their own without force, it's absolutely wrong.

I think you're right, from the many articles I've read there's a high prevalence of allegations of incest within the sect.

[LinasK]

But to have the women or children raised into this without any ability to make an educated and intelligent choice on their own without force, it's absolutely wrong.

I think you're right, from the many articles I've read there's a high prevalence of allegations of incest within the sect.

This is the bottom line- these females, especially the young girls who've just reached puberty have been violated without any choice or even knowledge on their part that it is wrong!!!!!:furious::furious::furious::furious::fur ious:
I hope all the FLDS men go to prison, and their sect is disbanded!:behindbar:behindbar:behindbar

[golfmom]

You know it's sort of an interesting side-line to the effects on children of adulterous affairs.

I have two girlfriends who were raised by single moms that were the result of affairs with married men. They were the secret children. They knew that their dads had full-on family lives and that there are siblings out there that they'll never know. Both women are adults now, but there is long lasting and permanent scars they carry. Both feel "not good enough" ... not good enough to be acknowledged in their daddy's eyes, not worthy of his love and support. They're resentful that they missed out on what a whole other family received. Both women are in their 40's AND neither of them are willing or able to break the cycle of secrecy. They dream about calling their unknown siblings, but are terrified of being rejected. I know it's not against the law to have an affair and have children outside of your marriage, but the effects can be positively sickening.

And, it's not just men who are guilty of this, I know a woman who had a baby and gave it to family members to raise. Shortly afterwards she had three other children she raised herself. Somehow, along the way the original child, a boy, found his birth certificate. She never would acknowledge him, causing a huge rift between the entire family, even on his death bed ... she still rejected him. Even after her younger children supported their oldest sibling, she still wouldn't accept him. I was talking to his wife and she said ... we could have lived in a mansion except for the lifetime of therapy he needed.

JMO, but it may be legal, but it ain't right.

[southcitymom]

You know it's sort of an interesting side-line to the effects on children of adulterous affairs.

I have two girlfriends who were raised by single moms that were the result of affairs with married men. They were the secret children. They knew that their dads had full-on family lives and that there are siblings out there that they'll never know. Both women are adults now, but there is long lasting and permanent scars they carry. Both feel "not good enough" ... not good enough to be acknowledged in their daddy's eyes, not worthy of his love and support. They're resentful that they missed out on what a whole other family received. Both women are in their 40's AND neither of them are willing or able to break the cycle of secrecy. They dream about calling their unknown siblings, but are terrified of being rejected. I know it's not against the law to have an affair and have children outside of your marriage, but the effects can be positively sickening.

And, it's not just men who are guilty of this, I know a woman who had a baby and gave it to family members to raise. Shortly afterwards she had three other children she raised herself. Somehow, along the way the original child, a boy, found his birth certificate. She never would acknowledge him, causing a huge rift between the entire family, even on his death bed ... she still rejected him. Even after her younger children supported their oldest sibling, she still wouldn't accept him. I was talking to his wife and she said ... we could have lived in a mansion except for the lifetime of therapy he needed.

JMO, but it may be legal, but it ain't right.

Thanks for sharing those stories, GM. You make some great points. It's also nice to hear someone acknowledge that many parents who do things legally screw up royally as well.

[mysteriew]

I dont understand your use of the word "hypocritical."
I usually think of hypocrisy as "Do as I say, Not as I do."

The marriage ideal is one man, one woman- til death do you part.

Yet reality is that adultery often comes into the marriage, divorce and remarriage is rampant and open marriages and triads are not unknown. When is the last time you have seen anyone arrested and convicted for these "crimes" against marriage?

[Seven]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080423/polygamy_bc_080423/20080423?hub=Canada

B.C.'s Attorney General says he will speak to a special prosecutor next week about the possibility of taking polygamy laws to the province's appeals court.

If Wally Oppal follows through with court action, the case could ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I brought this over from another thread because it's about polygamy laws/Supreme Court Canada.

Both Canada and Mexico concern me on this issue because of the fact that the multinational corporations are trying to morph us into one big North American Economic Alliance, one big marketplace where profit is all that counts and "inconvenient" laws are ignored.

The link is to a story about the Canadian FLDS.
At least the kids there have tricycles! :rolleyes:
But that fricken Prophet Winston Blackmore: " . . . wouldn't say how many children he has or how many wives. One of the children on his property said there are 116 Blackmore children.

Blackmore told CTV News that he has "plenty enough" children. When it comes to the number of wives, he said he has "just enough, so I don't chase anybody else's."

For some reason, that makes me feel like :sick:

I can't tell from that story what the polygamy laws currently are there, but I'm going to start researching that, too. Because these guys who run their little fiefdoms via labor from their harems' offspring are acting like they're just happy little clams without a qualm about their shameless use of other human beings for their own profit.

It's just wrong to force any individual to be a pawn in someone else's game, a baby factory or a beast of burden, relentlessly trained from birth that that's their proper place in the universe. I get sick just thinking about it! :furious:

[Seven]

The marriage ideal is one man, one woman- til death do you part.

Yet reality is that adultery often comes into the marriage, divorce and remarriage is rampant and open marriages and tiads are not unknown. When is the last time you have seen anyone arrested and convicted for these "crimes" against marriage?

Thanks for elaborating ..... I have to agree with your sentiment completely.

Except I am getting hung up on the word "crime." I agree it's a moral "crime," especially when deception (very destructive) is involved.

I'm gonna stick with "separation between church and state" on this issue. It's possible that marriage was created by men for the purpose of keeping better track of their children/heirs, even though before DNA they used to be able to deny "illegitimate" children any access to their estates. And I don't know which came first, the church or the state.

But since a lot of societies down through the ages have made actual marriage laws, I'm assuming they've done it because of believing those laws were beneficial to the smoother running of their societies.

I do agree with you that nobody who's ever taken a vow "until death do us part" and then gotten divorced and gone on to say the same vow to a second person, that person is a hypocrite because he/she knows darn well they didnt keep their promise the first time, so giving the same promise to someone else is completely meaningless.

But the legal piece of paper is not meaningless.
It's a social contract, and society enforces it for a reason.
It's enforced by law enforcement ..... usually.
Unfortunately, it's not being enforced by LE that's also polygamous (in places like Colorado City).

That's corruption, plain and simple.
I've even read that they don't allow females to get driver's licenses so that, in case a girl tries to escape in a car, any member of the community can call the police who will, thereby, have ready-made "probable cause" to stop the car when they see it.

The more I find out about the corruption that's a natural outcome of bigamy/polygamy, the more convinced I am that the laws against it need to start being enforced and the penalties increased because of its destructiveness on the lives of the children.

[Leila]

I brought this over from another thread because it's about polygamy laws/Supreme Court Canada.

Both Canada and Mexico concern me on this issue because of the fact that the multinational corporations are trying to morph us into one big North American Economic Alliance, one big marketplace where profit is all that counts and "inconvenient" laws are ignored.

The link is to a story about the Canadian FLDS.
At least the kids there have tricycles! :rolleyes:
But that fricken Prophet Winston Blackmore: " . . . wouldn't say how many children he has or how many wives. One of the children on his property said there are 116 Blackmore children.

Blackmore told CTV News that he has "plenty enough" children. When it comes to the number of wives, he said he has "just enough, so I don't chase anybody else's."

For some reason, that makes me feel like :sick:

I can't tell from that story what the polygamy laws currently are there, but I'm going to start researching that, too. Because these guys who run their little fiefdoms via labor from their harems' offspring are acting like they're just happy little clams without a qualm about their shameless use of other human beings for their own profit.

It's just wrong to force any individual to be a pawn in someone else's game, a baby factory or a beast of burden, relentlessly trained from birth that that's their proper place in the universe. I get sick just thinking about it! :furious:

A couple of weeks ago one of the major networks (CNN?) did an interview with Winston Blackmore at his compound in British Columbia. He was very evasive, not willing to discuss how many wives/children, and instead took the reporter on a horseback tour of his compound. One wife was interviewed and she was totally the opposite of the FLDS women we've seen in Arizona, Utah, and Texas. The wife wore jeans and her hair was shorter, pulled into a pony tail. But in the background you could see FLDS women in the pioneer dresses and typical hairstyles. There were a lot of children running around, but I didn't see any other adult men. It was obviously a propaganda piece for the FLDs.

From what I've read, Warren Jeffs was in control of the British Columbia community, with Winston Blackmore as leader of the community. There was a split between Blackmore and Jeffs, and Blackmore's followers are divided - some loyal to Jeffs, some loyal to him.

With the announcement that some Canadian children were among those removed from the YFZ ranch in Texas, a Canadian official was quoted as saying that they would be watching this closely as it may give cause to look into the Canadian FLDS.

I think the big unknown is Mexico. We've heard there's an FLDS community there, but there's been very little information about it.

[mysteriew]

Thanks for elaborating ..... I have to agree with your sentiment completely.

Except I am getting hung up on the word "crime." I agree it's a moral "crime," especially when deception (very destructive) is involved.

I'm gonna stick with "separation between church and state" on this issue. It's possible that marriage was created by men for the purpose of keeping better track of their children/heirs, even though before DNA they used to be able to deny "illegitimate" children any access to their estates. And I don't know which came first, the church or the state.

But since a lot of societies down through the ages have made actual marriage laws, I'm assuming they've done it because of believing those laws were beneficial to the smoother running of their societies.

I do agree with you that nobody who's ever taken a vow "until death do us part" and then gotten divorced and gone on to say the same vow to a second person, that person is a hypocrite because he/she knows darn well they didnt keep their promise the first time, so giving the same promise to someone else is completely meaningless.

But the legal piece of paper is not meaningless.
It's a social contract, and society enforces it for a reason.
It's enforced by law enforcement ..... usually.
Unfortunately, it's not being enforced by LE that's also polygamous (in places like Colorado City).

That's corruption, plain and simple.
I've even read that they don't allow females to get driver's licenses so that, in case a girl tries to escape in a car, any member of the community can call the police who will, thereby, have ready-made "probable cause" to stop the car when they see it.
The more I find out about the corruption that's a natural outcome of bigamy/polygamy, the more convinced I am that the laws against it need to start being enforced and the penalties increased because of its destructiveness on the lives of the children.

That may be the truth in some cases. But I think it was yesterday that I posted on Thread 5, the story of a woman who was driving and got distracted and had an accident. She had three 3 year olds in the car with her. There was no mention of her not having a license. So it seems that some can drive.

[FlowerChild]

From what i have read, there are TWO FLDS properties in Mexico. both VERY REMOTE and miles from even a rough road. And from being in TX I know that you don't need a passport to get INTO Mexico, just if you want to get BACK OUT into the USA. Wanna bet the FLDS people will disappear into the desert and we may never see them again ...OR THEIR KIDS??? If the kids don't have a BIRTH CERTIFICATE they can't GET A PASSPORT - they will be TRAPPED...just the way the FLDS wants them. And if Mom doesn't have a passport, it's pretty certain she isn't going to RUN...where would she run to? She is trapped in a foreign country with no Spanish, 100 miles from civilization and no money and no way to get away. And I know for a fact that Mexican LE CAN BE BOUGHT for a few pesos. If the FLDS can get their assets and their leadership into Mexico, it will be WORSE than Hilldale and Colorado City could have been on their worst day.

Canada isn't going to take our garbage - they WILL shut the FLDS down there - but Mexico is a whole different story.

My Opinion

[Seven]

That may be the truth in some cases. But I think it was yesterday that I posted on Thread 5, the story of a woman who was driving and got distracted and had an accident. She had three 3 year olds in the car with her. There was no mention of her not having a license. So it seems that some can drive.

yes, I believe that's true. In fact it's to their benefit, since their communities are usually so far from the town/Welfare/WIC payments, for the females to be able to drive, but without licenses they don't drive legally.

And that's where the corruption comes in. They're not stopped by the police for driving, but not having a license subjects them to the possibility of being stopped for cause if it's discovered they're trying to escape.

Also, as Carolyn Jessop found out, the gas tanks are kept purposefully low. If her brother hadn't agreed to meet her on the road, she would have been SOL when she ran out of gas as she tried to escape with her 8 children.

[Seven]

From what i have read, there are TWO FLDS properties in Mexico. both VERY REMOTE and miles from even a rough road. And from being in TX I know that you don't need a passport to get INTO Mexico, just if you want to get BACK OUT into the USA. Wanna bet the FLDS people will disappear into the desert and we may never see them again ...OR THEIR KIDS??? If the kids don't have a BIRTH CERTIFICATE they can't GET A PASSPORT - they will be TRAPPED...just the way the FLDS wants them. And if Mom doesn't have a passport, it's pretty certain she isn't going to RUN...where would she run to? She is trapped in a foreign country with no Spanish, 100 miles from civilization and no money and no way to get away. And I know for a fact that Mexican LE CAN BE BOUGHT for a few pesos. If the FLDS can get their assets and their leadership into Mexico, it will be WORSE than Hilldale and Colorado City could have been on their worst day.

Canada isn't going to take our garbage - they WILL shut the FLDS down there - but Mexico is a whole different story.

My Opinion

I've had all those same thoughts myself, and it's very scary. ..... I'm kinda wondering whether Canada's going to enforce their own anti-bigamy laws any better than some of the states in the U.S.

"In Canada, the Criminal Code (2007) at ¶290 (extract only): "Every one commits bigamy who in Canada, being married, goes through a form of marriage with another person....

"No person commits bigamy by going through a form of marriage (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Marriage.aspx) if that person in good faith and on reasonable grounds believes that his spouse is dead; the spouse of that person has been continuously absent from him for seven years immediately preceding the time when he goes through the form of marriage, unless he knew that his spouse was alive at any time during those seven years; that person has been divorced from the bond of the first marriage; or the former marriage has been declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction."


http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/B/Bigamy.aspx

So I'm going to be watching to see what happens in Bountiful, because that community seems unconcerned, despite this:

"B.C. Attorney General Wally Oppal says the government has been in contact with U.S. officials over Bountiful. He also says the B.C. government is considering its next legal move when it comes to dealing with the community.

Oppal says he needs someone to come forward with evidence of sexual abuse before charges can be laid. Their other option is a legal case against polygamy based on bigamy laws."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/04/24/5379581-cp.html

In other words, he's talking a good game,
but I'll look forward to seeing any "legal case" actually happen! :)

[FlowerChild]

That may be the truth in some cases. But I think it was yesterday that I posted on Thread 5, the story of a woman who was driving and got distracted and had an accident. She had three 3 year olds in the car with her. There was no mention of her not having a license. So it seems that some can drive.
Some "Senior Wives" get to drive - somebody has to take the children to the dentist and run "female" errands when the men are working. I can assure you that new wives, wives without children or unmarried girls are NOT allowed to have a Drivers License.

The FLDS women in Utah and AZ do need to drive MORE, (the hi-way runs thru town, it isn't a fenced off compound like YFZ) - although again, the older/Senior women/wives are the ones that drive MOST.

At the YFZ ranch one of the people who speaks to insiders said clearly that only married "senior" women with children drive outside the property. And even the women that are trusted, must get the permission of AT LEAST their husband AND the Bishop running the property to leave. These women don't just go grab the car keys and run to the store when they feel like it - it must be an approved trip....and every other woman there would KNOW if you were permitted to go or not. I am sure they FIGHT for the chance to drive - it elevates you in status over the other wives.

They don't let the BOYS get licenses either --- again - married, with children, trusted, over 18 ONLY. Otherwise you must depend on the FLDS for transportation - it's just another way to control the members.

There is more than ONE reason the FLDS has bought up all those remote properties in SD and CO and TX....aside from privacy from the outside world, they want to be sure there is NO WAY someone running away can get to civilization in a day of walking.

My Opinion

[Peculiar Petunia]

Clueless about quoting here:
Some "Senior Wives" get to drive - somebody has to take the children to the dentist and run "female" errands when the men are working. I can assure you that new wives, wives without children or unmarried girls are NOT allowed to have a Drivers License.

Can you get a Driver's License in Texas without a birth certificate in hand? You sure can't in many of the northern states.

[FlowerChild]

Clueless about quoting here:
Some "Senior Wives" get to drive - somebody has to take the children to the dentist and run "female" errands when the men are working. I can assure you that new wives, wives without children or unmarried girls are NOT allowed to have a Drivers License.

Can you get a Driver's License in Texas without a birth certificate in hand? You sure can't in many of the northern states.
You can if you already HAVE a valid license from ANOTHER STATE - like one they got in Hilldale or Colorado City where the FLDS runs all the offices. And the older FLDS-ers HAVE birth certificates and SS#'s - I guess you get to get a SS# and a BC after you are 18 and have the required number of children? MANY of the Mothers DO collect WIC and Food Stamps and I think you have to have a SS# to be eligible for THOSE so the adults and SOME of the kids MUST have a BC/SS# on file somewhere. I think they probably hold off getting the BC and the SS# for the kids until they HAVE to get them - in the case of the GIRLS, I betcha they don't get EITHER until their 18th birthday - till then they I think many of the girls are pretty much "off the grid".

Did you read about the 16 year old saying she was 18 and had 2 kids and her stepsister ratted her out and said she was 16 and had 4 kids? These girls won't even tell how old they are or how many (or which) of the kids are theirs. No WONDER CPS won't release any info to these parents - they have no IDEA who's kids are who's. The parents DENY THEIR OWN CHILDREN to protect the FLDS --maybe the two kids the girl didn't claim were just "boys"?

My Opinion