Decriminalizing Polygamy

[golfmom]

You know what Dude? Murder isn't going away, drug abuse isn't going away, rape isn't going away ... I could go on for days, etc. etc. etc.

Just because polygamy "isn't going away" doesn't make it o.k. The only thing not o.k., IMO, is that Utah and Arizona haven't been enforcing the law.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

http://www.kutv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=c04353fc-9fce-4d6f-872d-3678285a5bd1

......
“The polygamy statute needs to be revised. Thoroughly revised,” said Don Timpson who lives in a polygamous community. “The state has to realize that polygamy is not going away.”

Attorney general Mark Shurtleff is said to be open to discussion of turning polygamy from a felony crime into a misdemeanor. This could mean that a man convicted of polygamy may spend a year or less in jail instead of several years in prison. :snooty::snooty::snooty:
.......

Since Mark Shurtleff doesn't even bother to try polygamy or bigamy cases, what's the point in making it a misdemeanor? :mad:

[mykodiak]

It sounds as if Mr. Shurtleff is sleeping in two camps. That's a true politician for you. :rolleyes:

[golfmom]

It sounds as if Mr. Shurtleff is sleeping in two camps. That's a true politician for you. :rolleyes:

LOL, yes he seems to have that unique ability of speaking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously!

[Amraann]

I am a bit confused as I thought that Polygamist perform their own ceremony and are not usually legally married.

I really don't have a problem with some guy marrying a dozen women.
My problem is the underage girls forced into marriage and that under the current laws more often then not these Women have babies and then state aide supports them.

Why is it criminal to have a bunch of wives anyways?

[mollymalone]

You know what Dude? Murder isn't going away, drug abuse isn't going away, rape isn't going away ... I could go on for days, etc. etc. etc.

Just because polygamy "isn't going away" doesn't make it o.k. The only thing not o.k., IMO, is that Utah and Arizona haven't been enforcing the law.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

http://www.kutv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=c04353fc-9fce-4d6f-872d-3678285a5bd1

......
“The polygamy statute needs to be revised. Thoroughly revised,” said Don Timpson who lives in a polygamous community. “The state has to realize that polygamy is not going away.”

Attorney general Mark Shurtleff is said to be open to discussion of turning polygamy from a felony crime into a misdemeanor. This could mean that a man convicted of polygamy may spend a year or less in jail instead of several years in prison. :snooty::snooty::snooty:
.......

Since Mark Shurtleff doesn't even bother to try polygamy or bigamy cases, what's the point in making it a misdemeanor? :mad:Another point is... since when does Shurtleff make Federal policy? or change Supreme Court rulings on polygamy? Oh yeah, he can make it a tap on the wrist type of sentence, and if there are any federal guidelines about polygamy, why he'll just ignore them. PFFFT He's trying to be their friend instead of following the law. Granted, they may not have the resources to go after each individual polygamist. But until the laws change Federally, polygamy is against the law. Period. He can promise them anything he likes but it won't change a thing.

[golfmom]

I am a bit confused as I thought that Polygamist perform their own ceremony and are not usually legally married.

I really don't have a problem with some guy marrying a dozen women.
My problem is the underage girls forced into marriage and that under the current laws more often then not these Women have babies and then state aide supports them.

Why is it criminal to have a bunch of wives anyways?

I'm confused that you're confused.


Are you implying that a man who has a dozen women that he's sleeping with and having children is not practicing polygamy just because he doesn't have a state issued marriage license with each woman? :waitasec:

Polygamy is illegal in the United States and all 50 states. Under law, immigrants or refugees who practice polygamy are inadmissible for admission to the United States, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

[Pepper]

Maybe because Shurtleff comes from a background of polygamy in his family, he is more lenient about it?

[Pepper]

I am a bit confused as I thought that Polygamist perform their own ceremony and are not usually legally married.

I really don't have a problem with some guy marrying a dozen women.
My problem is the underage girls forced into marriage and that under the current laws more often then not these Women have babies and then state aide supports them.

Why is it criminal to have a bunch of wives anyways?

I kinda sorta agree with you. Consenting adults ought to be able to sleep with as many people as they want, and if one man and 5 women decide to live together, it should be no one's business, BUT the problems happen once they decide to have children using only one "husband" and several breeders.

The act of bearing children under these circumstances causes:

1. Little or no interaction between the father and the children. I mean when you have 50 kids, he doesn't even know their names or birthdays.

2. Forced labor of older kids taking care of younger ones out of necessity.

3. All kids made to contribute to the communal society by often unpaid labor.

4. Taxpayer expense in the form of welfare and food stamps to provide for all the children that the father cannot afford to support.

5. Birth defects possibly resulting in the elimination of the afflicted ones.

6. An overabundance of boys that need to be eliminated so that the elders can have more wives.

Once children are born into a polygamous situation, the problems surface, and they are ugly.

[Amraann]

I'm confused that you're confused.


Are you implying that a man who has a dozen women that he's sleeping with and having children is not practicing polygamy just because he doesn't have a state issued marriage license with each woman? :waitasec:
Polygamy is illegal in the United States and all 50 states. Under law, immigrants or refugees who practice polygamy are inadmissible for admission to the United States, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.




I am saying that they are not legally married so they can call it what they wish but IMO its no different then some guy having children with a bunch of different women. Our country does not prosecute men who go around having babies with various women so why prosecute these people for this?
There is no legal ceremony so how are they "married".
My question is how is it legally considered polygamy if they are not legally married?
I understand its illegal for a man to marry several women... but strictly talking about a man with many wives... I don't see why its illegal Nor do I see how someone can be prosecuted if he is not legally married to them.

Pepper I agree with you on many levels but I am strictly speaking about a man who wants many wives.
And I do not know if all polygamist can be accused of the things you listed I think that is possibly more likely on a secluded compound which again is an entirely different subject then just some guy with a few wives and a few children from each.

[Pepper]

I am saying that they are not legally married so they can call it what they wish but IMO its no different then some guy having children with a bunch of different women. Our country does not prosecute men who go around having babies with various women so why prosecute these people for this?
There is no legal ceremony so how are they "married".
My question is how is it legally considered polygamy if they are not legally married?
I understand its illegal for a man to marry several women... but strictly talking about a man with many wives... I don't see why its illegal Nor do I see how someone can be prosecuted if he is not legally married to them.

Pepper I agree with you on many levels but I am strictly speaking about a man who wants many wives.
And I do not know if all polygamist can be accused of the things you listed I think that is possibly more likely on a secluded compound which again is an entirely different subject then just some guy with a few wives and a few children from each.

What you are saying is exactly how these people got around the polygamy laws in Utah and Arizona for decades. Apparently the law in Texas is a bit different, since they recognize a common law marriage as legal, no official marriage certificate needs to be filed for the state to consider them "legally" married.

[mysteriew]

I am a bit confused as I thought that Polygamist perform their own ceremony and are not usually legally married.

I really don't have a problem with some guy marrying a dozen women.
My problem is the underage girls forced into marriage and that under the current laws more often then not these Women have babies and then state aide supports them.

Why is it criminal to have a bunch of wives anyways?

Basically I agree as long as the people involved have a choice and there is no underage 'marriage.' And as long as there is no fraud involved, as in no welfare or other benefit fraud.

The real question is what constitutes marriage? Some states recognize common-law marriage, some do not. In those states that do not recognize common-law, the multiple spiritual marriages would not even be a problem as long as they don't apply for marriage certificates.

And in those cases where the marriages are not recognized, basically the spiritual marriages would be looked at as adultery. Adultery is not illegal. I know of couples where one party commits adultery on a regular basis with multiple women. He does it, she lives with it and at least on the surface accepts it. Heck, even Barbara Walters admitted to a long term adulterous relationship.

Basically I view polygamy as adultery, and if we start prosecuting polygamy as a crime, we need to start prosecuting adultery.

To me bigamy is where a person meets and weds another person and doesn't tell them they are still married to still another. To me that constitutes marriage fraud and that I do believe should be illegal. But for a couple to allow adultery into the marriage I believe should be the couples decision. Unless we are going to make adultery illegal in the general population.

At least under the FLDS system, the fathers do parent any resulting children and they do make a committment to any 'spiritual wives.' Not so in the general adultery situations. However, I don't believe that any employer should be required to provide benefits to any 'spiritual' spouse.

So far in Texas all they are talking about is the abuse. They are not talking polygamy. They are not making accusations about polygamy. It is only in Utah and Arizona that the discussions are happening about polygamy. It is like they (Ut. and Az.) are trying to provide a smokescreen to hide the accusations of abuse in Texas. Like maybe if they can turn the public attention from abuse to polygamy, they can change public opinion and make them believe that this is religious persecution.

I do have to say though that under Texas law, the spiritual marriages are illegal. And that anyone who entered a plural marriage, knowingly broke the law. For that reason I would support Texas if they do choose to prosecute the plural marriages. But somehow I don't think they will.

[golfmom]

I am saying that they are not legally married so they can call it what they wish but IMO its no different then some guy having children with a bunch of different women. Our country does not prosecute men who go around having babies with various women so why prosecute these people for this?
There is no legal ceremony so how are they "married".
My question is how is it legally considered polygamy if they are not legally married?
I understand its illegal for a man to marry several women... but strictly talking about a man with many wives... I don't see why its illegal Nor do I see how someone can be prosecuted if he is not legally married to them.


Since Texas recognizes legally spiritual marriages and common-law marriages, they are in fact LEGALLY married.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/p/texas.htm

Common Law Marriage or Informal Marriage:
Yes. Texas also refers to common law marriage as an informal marriage.

For a marriage to be declared an informal marriage in Texas, a couple has two options.

1. Sign a declaration of their marriage under oath. The form is available at County Clerk's office.

The Declaration and Registration of Informal Marriage asks for full names, woman's maiden surname, addresses, dates of birth, places of birth, social security numbers, and relationship information.

The Declaration states: "I solemnly swear (or affirm) that we, the undersigned, are married to each other by virtue of the following facts: On or about (Date) we agreed to be married, and after that date we lived together as husband and wife and in this state we represented to others that we were married. Since the date of marriage to the other party I have not been married to any other person. This declaration is true and the information in it which I have given is correct."

2. Live together as husband and wife in Texas
Represent to others that they are married.
Agree with one another that they are married.

Individuals under the age of 18 may not enter into an informal marriage.

[Salem]

Well - if they are legally married in Texas, then they can get a legal divorce. I kinda like that idea...... I don't suppose these women will be getting divorces though. Bummer.

Salem

[mykodiak]

Actually, the FLDS is probably practicing "polygyny". Quoted from Wikipedia: Polygamy exists in three specific forms, including polygyny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny) (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry) (one woman having multiple husbands), or group marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage) (some combination of polygyny and polyandry). Historically, all three practices have been found, but polygyny is by far the most common in the world. Confusion arises when the broad term "polygamy" is used when a narrower definition is really meant.To my mind the difference between their actions and some guy that is merely having sex and children with a lot of different women is that the FLDS and other polygamists "portray" themselves as a family. The guy with no morals and a slippery zipper is just that...a guy with no morals and a slippery zipper. I don't approve of either, but if you're going to "portray" yourself as a family, then don't get upset when somebody asks you to identify your children. Step up to the plate and take responsibility.

[Amraann]

Salem I would also think it would mean they would legally have to divulge who their husband was and that would impact their welfare.

Putting all that aside for a second.. Golfmom I was not talking about Texas specifically as a matter of fact the original article was about Utah.

I am not sure if the women in Texas qualified as even spiritually married unless they did all in fact live with their husband. (not living together would not make it legal under the law)

Lets say for the sake of debate some guy pops in to his various GF's homes every now and then for a couple of days ... The result is a few children by a few women .... He does not call himself a polygamist just a player with a few babies mommy's he sleeps with every now and then....
And I am sure Texas has their share of men like this as does every state...
SO what makes what he does any different then a polygamist?

[mysteriew]

Salem I would also think it would mean they would legally have to divulge who their husband was and that would impact their welfare.

Putting all that aside for a second.. Golfmom I was not talking about Texas specifically as a matter of fact the original article was about Utah.

I am not sure if the women in Texas qualified as even spiritually married unless they did all in fact live with their husband. (not living together would not make it legal under the law)

Lets say for the sake of debate some guy pops in to his various GF's homes every now and then for a couple of days ... The result is a few children by a few women .... He does not call himself a polygamist just a player with a few babies mommy's he sleeps with every now and then....
And I am sure Texas has their share of men like this as does every state...
SO what makes what he does any different then a polygamist?

I don't know what all they would use (remember Texas is not even talking yet about any prosecutions for polygamy) but one thing they might be able to use is the Bishop's records. Records of the marriage's (legal and spiritual) and of the household lists. The household lists seem to be filled out of the male (self) and he lists his "wife" many times more than one wife. Some males have women listed as "wife" who at least at the time of the list info, were in another community. That would be proof that they presented themselves to the community as husband and wife.

[Pepper]

Actually, the FLDS is probably practicing "polygyny". To my mind the difference between their actions and some guy that is merely having sex and children with a lot of different women is that the FLDS and other polygamists "portray" themselves as a family. The guy with no morals and a slippery zipper is just that...a guy with no morals and a slippery zipper. I don't approve of either, but if you're going to "portray" yourself as a family, then don't get upset when somebody asks you to identify your children. Step up to the plate and take responsibility.

AMEN!! :clap:

[Amraann]

I don't know what all they would use (remember Texas is not even talking yet about any prosecutions for polygamy) but one thing they might be able to use is the Bishop's records. Records of the marriage's (legal and spiritual) and of the household lists. The household lists seem to be filled out of the male (self) and he lists his "wife" many times more than one wife. Some males have women listed as "wife" who at least at the time of the list info, were in another community. That would be proof that they presented themselves to the community as husband and wife.

Good point but if that were to be a valid record then the polygamist sect would have to legally be a "church"

I don't think they qualify for the tax exempt status or actual religious classification like the (insert name here) church down the road.

[michelle]

I am a bit confused as I thought that Polygamist perform their own ceremony and are not usually legally married.

I really don't have a problem with some guy marrying a dozen women.
My problem is the underage girls forced into marriage and that under the current laws more often then not these Women have babies and then state aide supports them.

Why is it criminal to have a bunch of wives anyways?I agree Am, I dont see what the big deal is if they have a million wives just leave the underage girls being forced out of it.

[mysteriew]

Good point but if that were to be a valid record then the polygamist sect would have to legally be a "church"

I don't think they qualify for the tax exempt status or actual religious classification like the (insert name here) church down the road.

I believe we found where the FLDS did file under whatever it was they needed to file to be established as a church. But no they didn't file for tax exempt status. Evidently that is an option, not a requirement for a church.

I don't know who does the first marriage, whether they go to a justice or it is done in the temple. But I think they are able to do the marriage ceremony through the church. The first wife is legally married to the hubby and the marriage is legally recorded with the state, but the 'spiritual wives' while married in the church the records are not submitted to the state to become a part of the legal records.

[Pepper]

Seems to me that since they have not filed as a tax exempt organization, i.e. church, then they can't use religious freedom as a defense for breaking the law. Can't have it both ways!

[Trino]

I agree Am, I dont see what the big deal is if they have a million wives just leave the underage girls being forced out of it.

It's not just the girls who are affected but the boys, too.

[golfmom]

Salem I would also think it would mean they would legally have to divulge who their husband was and that would impact their welfare.

Putting all that aside for a second.. Golfmom I was not talking about Texas specifically as a matter of fact the original article was about Utah.

I am not sure if the women in Texas qualified as even spiritually married unless they did all in fact live with their husband. (not living together would not make it legal under the law)

Lets say for the sake of debate some guy pops in to his various GF's homes every now and then for a couple of days ... The result is a few children by a few women .... He does not call himself a polygamist just a player with a few babies mommy's he sleeps with every now and then....
And I am sure Texas has their share of men like this as does every state...
SO what makes what he does any different then a polygamist?

I see well Utah law is specific in that no common-law / spiritual marriage is acknowledged unless the parties present themselves in front of a judge and swear their intent. So, those are not legal marriages and although polygamy is against the law, Utah turns it's head aside and ignores the issue. They said the only cases they will prosecute are in regards to child abuse. Unfortunately, with it being such a closed community, no one's calling to report diddley-squat.

As for Texas, they do not have to live together to be considered married. They can also just represent that they're married or agree that they're married. The "bishop's" lists will be invaluable IF Texas decides to prosecute.

The guy who runs around creating a wake of babies in his path is abhorrent, but not illegal ... just like the mom's who has hard time sorting out who's her babies daddy's.

[golfmom]

Seems to me that since they have not filed as a tax exempt organization, i.e. church, then they can't use religious freedom as a defense for breaking the law. Can't have it both ways!

Pepper, I read somewhere that they do in fact meet the criteria to be considered a church. The government doesn't force churches to be non-profit ... heck ... if they want to pay taxes, the government is more than happy to take their money.

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

I really don't have an issue with polygymany (sp?). If people WANT to commit to a life togther and raise children, who am I to say no. It seems wrong to me that people say it is ok to sleep with whom ever you want when ever you want in a non-committed relationship, but that the moment you try to commit to eachother for a life of raising children together there is an issue.

I suppose that this does beg to ask the question of what is marriage the same way gay/lesbian marriages do, but that is a whole different conversation.

Take tax issues out of this, take children being forced into marriage out of the issue, take compounds out of this issue. If all of those issues are put aside, what is the real issue with people who choose to live that way? There are so many cultures around the world that successfully practice polygamy.

I would have no issue with legalizing polygamy. Before i get beat up for saying that, that does not mean i believe in rape, forced marriage, being held in abusive relationships. I am simply saying that I think a committed polygamous relationship may work better for some people than simply sleeping around and having kids with 5 baby dads or however they say it.

[Vegas Bride]

I'm not concerned about the plural marriages if the people involved are concenting adults, not closely blood related and are ready and able to provide for their children. What I have a problem with is abuse of a baby, wives and children taken away from their husband and father if he falls out of favor and handed over to another man, young boys who are abandoned on the roadside to fend for themselves with no training on how to get along in the outside world, walls built and guards posted to keep people in, the mental and spiritual blackmail where people have such a fear for their soul that they will do anything for their profit, babies born with disabilities that are avoidable if people did not marry close relatives and having many questions about just what does happen to these babies? Why so many babies in the graveyard?
I look at the flds like a cancer, if something isn't done to stop all the abuse it will continue to spread, Utah and Arizona have both failed and IMO Texas is not willing to let the cancer continue to spread there. It's going to take some time and many things will need to get sorted out but in the end I hope there will be less abuse.
Texas is not the guilty party here, IMO Warren Jeffs is responsible for everything that has happened, he and his cronies built a house of cards that was bound to fall.

VB

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

I'm not concerned about the plural marriages if the people involved are concenting adults, not closely blood related and are ready and able to provide for their children. What I have a problem with is abuse of a baby, wives and children taken away from their husband and father if he falls out of favor and handed over to another man, young boys who are abandoned on the roadside to fend for themselves with no training on how to get along in the outside world, walls built and guards posted to keep people in, the mental and spiritual blackmail where people have such a fear for their soul that they will do anything for their profit, babies born with disabilities that are avoidable if people did not marry close relatives and having many questions about just what does happen to these babies? Why so many babies in the graveyard?


Good comments. There are soooo many problems to deal with. Polygamy and religion seem to be what they hide all of these other problems behind. I don't have a problem with pologamy or religion. I have a problem with it being used to conceal and fortify all of these issues.

[FlowerChild]

Here's how I view it:

So long as BOTH PARTIES are adults of 18 or older and consent freely ---
I don't care who "marries" who - I don't care if two men marry, two women marry or if a man or woman marries 6 spouses (of whatever sex).

So long as NONE of it is illegal and it doesn't CONDONE illegal activities or violence or ABUSE ---
I don't care what religion people practice or raise their children in - Wicca, Amish, Mennonite, Quaker, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian Science, it can be New Age or Christian Fundamentalism - doesn't matter to me personally. I don't want it pushed on ME, but people should be free in the US to worship (or not) as they please and raise their children (without harm or abuse) in their belief system.

The ONLY thing I care about in the FLDS Case is ABUSE of the children, defrauding the Govt, abandonment of male children, the insufficient (8th grade) education, the genetic disorders due to inbreeding, lack of proper state OVERSIGHT over births, deaths and legal matters and the marriages of underage girls (to ANYONE, no matter their age).

If their way is so superior to everyone else's and they are "right" then the girls will be even happier to marry at age 18 or older. If they are such superior parents, they won't mind CPS checking on them and making sure they aren't "breaking and training" their children and infants with TORTURE. If they truly "need" their children, then they will support them ALL (boys and girls) and educate them thru 12th grade or until they are 18. If they are so "righteous" then they will obtain Birth and death certificates and file EACH with the state as necessary. If they are so "innocent "they won't need walled compounds and guns. If they are so "successful and self sufficient" , then we (the taxpayer) won't need to give them ANY state aid or funds or health care.

Funny how when the FLDS is up the creek in a storm without a paddle how the nasty ol' Gov't that they only used for MONEY before starts looking like a pretty safe haven. They DISDAINED and CHEATED the the "beast" for 100 years and now they stand before the "head" of that same beast asking for his help.

The FLDS has spent 100 years getting THEIR WAY and living by THEIR OWN RULES and LAWS and now, like a spoiled child, they are throwing a mighty tantrum because they have finally been told NO and that they have to follow the same LAWS everyone else does!

Hey, I hear there are some lovely ISLANDS for sale, perhaps the FLDS can use their millions to BUY one and have their own little isolated COUNTRY - isn't that even BETTER than the YFZ Ranch?? They have have wanted to be apart from everyone else in the world for 100 years and be in charge of EVERYTHING in their world - an island would be PERFECT. Of course they'd have to give up their incomes, their companies, their medical care assistance and "bleeding the beast" and start over on their own but they do believe they are His chosen people so don't they believe "God Will Provide"???

My Opinion

[mollymalone]

This town in Mexico was where others fled to before - they don't want the flds fleeing down to their community, they're not welcome, including those who have family down there. In 2002 Orson Black fled there from the U.S. and was kicked out of town by its residents.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/mexico/stories/050808dnmexicomormons.dc0e95bf.html
Polygamy in Colonia LeBaron today is only practiced by consenting adults, said Mr. Jones, who is widely respected as a community leader and bridge builder. He served as Galeana's first American mayor, a reference to his blonde hair and blue eyes, from 2001 to 2004. Those who practice polygamy stay within the law by not being legally married to more than one person and their numbers are dwindling. The Chihuahua native is married to one of Alma Dayer LeBaron's granddaughters and he does not practice polygamy. If we're doing plural marriage at all, we're doing it within the law, within freedom of choice, Mr. Jones said. And maybe that's why we're living plural marriage less and less because there is not the religious push anymore toward doing that.

[mollymalone]

SNIP
Funny how when the FLDS is up the creek in a storm without a paddle how the nasty ol' Gov't that they only used for MONEY before starts looking like a pretty safe haven. They DISDAINED and CHEATED the the "beast" for 100 years and now they stand before the "head" of that same beast asking for his help. SNIP

"Willie Jessop, a de facto spokesman in Eldorado for that group, said the idea that members of his sect would move to Mexico is ludicrous. They want to stay near their children most of whom are in foster care, Mr. Jessop said. And they may be disenchanted with the U.S. government, but they don't feel they'd have greater protection south of the border. I would never send any wife or child of mine down there, he said.

[Seeker]

I am a bit confused as I thought that Polygamist perform their own ceremony and are not usually legally married.

I really don't have a problem with some guy marrying a dozen women.
My problem is the underage girls forced into marriage and that under the current laws more often then not these Women have babies and then state aide supports them.

Why is it criminal to have a bunch of wives anyways?

I hear you. The fact is that the bible recognizes many wives as being ok and I have often wondered if these sects aren't following that as their prime example....I think they've lost something in the translation though.
I do worry about the children not knowing who their biological parents are and their possible close blood relationship to whomever they may one day marry. This goes for the girls and boys. I don't believe any child (or adult) should ever be forced into a marriage...of any kind.

I have always believed that it was just "man's law" that dictated one man and one woman be "married". I didn't know there was an actual monogomus marriage performed in the bible...I'll have to look again. If this is indeed what these religious sects are following (the many wives aspect) then they need to quit skewing it to suit their debauchery.

Of course I don't believe in polygamy for myself, but that's my choice.

I was suprised to learn many countries still practice polygamy.

What has been happening with these cultists isn't even polygamy, it's private home grown pedophilia and it's sick.

[FlowerChild]

Yes, polygamy (and marriage of girls/boys under 18) is practiced in cultures all over the world - the difference is that in those countries it is both legal and socially/culturally accepted. That is NOT the case in the US. Here it remains ILLEGAL to have more than one wife/husband OR to MARRY or have SEX WITH A CHILD.

Frankly I could give a FLIP how many spiritual wives some weird yayhoo of a man has...so long as he is honest with ALL his "wives" about how many wives he has and they ALL are over 18 when he does the whole "celestial plural marriage" thing with them or they start a family. I don't believe a "spiritual wife" is entitled to ANY assistance either - she should be considered the same as a legal wife - so the "husband" has to be able to FULLY SUPPORT ALL of his WIVES AND CHILDREN himself. If they are going to embrace the idea of polygamy, then they should also have to embrace supporting their families - as in NO STATE OF FEDERAL MONEY or SERVICES - if they believe God intends them to have 7 wives and 60 children then surely "God will provide" the husband a job to support all of them.

If we want to STOP the cycle of abuse and child-brides I think the FLDS children should be required to attend an accredited public school or an accredited private school until they are 18 or graduate - NOT home schooling, but a school that maintains the STATE REQUIREMENTS for graduation. Right now, I can assure you the "home schooling" the children get IS NOT approved by the state and does NOT meet state educational requirements. The women "teaching" likely didn't graduate from HS themselves. Putting the children into a real educational environment, with certified teachers where religious training and chores CANNOT be a part of the curriculum, would prepare the children for ANY life they decide to live - within the FLDS or outside it. Nothing needs to change, - there can even be a dress code or a uniform that meets FLDS wardrobe requirements and Religious "training" and chores can continue - before and after school, on weekends and in the summer. THEN - If AFTER GRADUATING and turning 18 the children wish to be polygamous - well great, but they won't be doing it out of ignorance with no education or knowledge of the world outside the FLDS.

My Opinion

[yolorado]

My beef with polygamy (one man, many women) is that it trends in the direction we're watching right now-toward deifying men, giving them more and more control, and away from women's rights and women's education, toward younger and younger brides. You've got a situation where 1 man has 3 or 5 or 70 wives (usually his decision) and a woman has 1/3rd, 1/5th or 1/70th of a husband (usually not really her choice.) I've never had a sister wife, but I've had a mother-in-law (who I grew over time to love and adore) but from that experience, I decided that two women competing for the love of 1 man can create a lot of problems, even leaving romance or marriage out of it. Not saying it can't be done, but I think it goes against human nature, and I've never seen anything that would tell me it's God's plan in any way. Plus, there's the problem of excess men. In a society that gives men, but not women, plural spouses, many men will need to go without. What happens to the excess guys? How does it impact them and the rest of society? Generally speaking, I think it tends to be better for society, and the people in it, if people are settled with significant others and family participants. I especially think it's good for society to make a place for as many men as possible to be husbands and fathers. Polygamy leaves a lot of men out. A lot of people think that's why there are so many suicide bombers in the Middle East. When the economy doesn't provide gainful employment and there’s not much chance of marriage and family in their future, it’s possible to see why some opt for 70-something virgins in the hereafter as an alternative to bleak prospects on earth in the hear and now.

[Pepper]

Well said yolorado!

Any time man tries to screw with natures intent, problems arise. As you said polygamy in this culture leaves men without wives, and the competition needs to be dealt with.

In China there is a requirement to have only one child. Since males are preferred, there is a shortage of wives now for the adult men. We can only guess about the number of abortions or infant murders that befall female babies.

It's just not natural.

[KR2tonenow]

[quote=FlowerChild;2218655]- she should be considered the same as a legal wife - so the "husband" has to be able to FULLY SUPPORT ALL of his WIVES AND CHILDREN himself. If they are going to embrace the idea of polygamy, then they should also have to embrace supporting their families - as in NO STATE OF FEDERAL MONEY or SERVICES - if they believe God intends them to have 7 wives and 60 children then surely "God will provide" the husband a job to support all of them.

I shortened the above. I think this point is well taken. These men want it all at FLDS. All the women they want, all the children they want and the goverment to pick up the bill. They are in this mess, because of the abuse issues and for breaking the law. Welfare fraud applies to all american citizens. Not one is excluded.

[Peculiar Petunia]

3 great posts that are a hard act to follow. Even in nature things go wrong when you have >1 mate/male. Look at zoos' problems with lion genetics.
The only situation I could ever see polygamy being understandable would be after a terrible war with near-total annihilation of the men, or after an epidemic that for some reason would wipe out men, not women.

[mollymalone]

"The only way for avoidance of taxes on the "Temple" building is to declare it a place of public worship and open it as such to the public. If not open to the public, it is considered as being privately held and as such is therefore considered as taxable property."

Of course they're not going to open it to the public... and WJ shut down the meeting house in CC where they held services at one time.

[Pepper]

"The only way for avoidance of taxes on the "Temple" building is to declare it a place of public worship and open it as such to the public. If not open to the public, it is considered as being privately held and as such is therefore considered as taxable property."

Of course they're not going to open it to the public... and WJ shut down the meeting house in CC where they held services at one time.

So does that mean that all LDS temples are taxed? None of them allow non "temple recommend" members or any outsiders inside their temples.

[mollymalone]

So does that mean that all LDS temples are taxed? None of them allow non "temple recommend" members or any outsiders inside their temples. YFZ is taxed and they did pay their taxes. We'll see whether that continues though come next tax time. As far as the LDS, I have no idea. I think I read that they filed for exemption? Perhaps someone else knows the answer.

[yolorado]

So does that mean that all LDS temples are taxed? None of them allow non "temple recommend" members or any outsiders inside their temples.

Good question. I'm not LDS, but I have family and friends who are and I've toured two temples with them, one after remodeling and the other after initial construction, both before they were blessed, or sanctified, whatever the term. Once that was done, they were closed to the public. But I doubt they are taxed.

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

So back to the polygamy topic. I think that if Polygamy becomes legal, you should be allowed to go on your honeymoon ALONE (meaning just the two of you). :) Afterall, it may be the last alone time you have with your man.

[Pepper]

I can't imagine a honeymoon with any of those creepy people.

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

I can't imagine a honeymoon with any of those creepy people.

I wouldn't marry creepy people. See, I'd get 3 husbands. I'd keep my current hubby because he is a good hubby and the best dad. I'd then get an absolute hunk. Finally, I'd get a nice rich businessman. I'd take a 2 week trip to Hawaii with any of them...(or perhaps invite all 3 :innocent:)

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

[MCDRAW]

Yes, polygamy (and marriage of girls/boys under 18) is practiced in cultures all over the world - the difference is that in those countries it is both legal and socially/culturally accepted. That is NOT the case in the US. Here it remains ILLEGAL to have more than one wife/husband OR to MARRY or have SEX WITH A CHILD.

Frankly I could give a FLIP how many spiritual wives some weird yayhoo of a man has...so long as he is honest with ALL his "wives" about how many wives he has and they ALL are over 18 when he does the whole "celestial plural marriage" thing with them or they start a family. I don't believe a "spiritual wife" is entitled to ANY assistance either - she should be considered the same as a legal wife - so the "husband" has to be able to FULLY SUPPORT ALL of his WIVES AND CHILDREN himself. If they are going to embrace the idea of polygamy, then they should also have to embrace supporting their families - as in NO STATE OF FEDERAL MONEY or SERVICES - if they believe God intends them to have 7 wives and 60 children then surely "God will provide" the husband a job to support all of them.

If we want to STOP the cycle of abuse and child-brides I think the FLDS children should be required to attend an accredited public school or an accredited private school until they are 18 or graduate - NOT home schooling, but a school that maintains the STATE REQUIREMENTS for graduation. Right now, I can assure you the "home schooling" the children get IS NOT approved by the state and does NOT meet state educational requirements. The women "teaching" likely didn't graduate from HS themselves. Putting the children into a real educational environment, with certified teachers where religious training and chores CANNOT be a part of the curriculum, would prepare the children for ANY life they decide to live - within the FLDS or outside it. Nothing needs to change, - there can even be a dress code or a uniform that meets FLDS wardrobe requirements and Religious "training" and chores can continue - before and after school, on weekends and in the summer. THEN - If AFTER GRADUATING and turning 18 the children wish to be polygamous - well great, but they won't be doing it out of ignorance with no education or knowledge of the world outside the FLDS.

My Opinion


To require them to be educated in accredited schools and not home schooled....you would have to require everyone to be educated in accredited schools. Otherwise, it's discrimination.

[Trino]

FLDS pologamy is a lot like many men on the outside who have relationships with several different women, often at the same time and sometimes with underage girls. Many of these women/girls, like FLDS, end up collecting welfare. The real difference is that FLDS tries to make it appear legal, a religion, and an above board activity. Either way, it's the children who suffer. You just cannot legislate morality.

[FlowerChild]

To require them to be educated in accredited schools and not home schooled....you would have to require everyone to be educated in accredited schools. Otherwise, it's discrimination.

"Everyone" isn't in the custody of CPS and if CPS retains control over these children they can require a LOT of things. Like for the FLDS mothers to have NO CONTACT with the FLDS or it's members. And even HOME SCHOOLED children have certain requirements that must be met in their education - which I doubt include door knob washing or picking up trash. And I would think that requiring the children to get a HS Diploma or GED is discriminatory - it is all about what is "right" for the children and it's still a parent's responsibility to educate their child(ren). I don't think the state means thru the 8th grade either.

The FLDS parents may have to meet certain requirements to have their children returned to their custody - and education may be one of those. It doesn't matter what OTHER families do - their children haven't been removed by CPS.

My Opinion

[mollymalone]

From what I'm reading, in the CPS reunification lists, education is one of the conditions that will be required.

[yolorado]

From what I'm reading, in the CPS reunification lists, education is one of the conditions that will be required.

Thank you, God! It sounds like that's been totally lacking' for those poor kids. If these people are going to dump their unwanted 17 year-old boys on and on 'evile' society, leaving the kids to fend for themselves, the least they can do is leave them with a decent education leading toward a high school diploma.

[mollymalone]

Thank you, God! It sounds like that's been totally lacking' for those poor kids. If these people are going to dump their unwanted 17 year-old boys on and on 'evile' society, leaving the kids to fend for themselves, the least they can do is leave them with a decent education leading toward a high school diploma.There's a drawback with all this though, so don't get your hopes up too high. The parents, once they have their children back could beat feet and disappear, thus making any court orders or CPS guidelines moot. I'm not a betting person but it's probably good odds that many or most will do so.

[KR2tonenow]

Doubtful they will get them back, and if the women do, it will be on a very tight rope to abide by all the laws that they have been breaking.

CPS takes children out of homes-that are considered "unsafe". Will these women be able to provide safety to these children, even though they have allowed abuse to be present at "the Ranch"?

[mykodiak]

CPS is proposing to give parents until next April to "provide a home free of persons who have or will abuse" children and "demonstrate the ability to protect the child[ren] from sexual abuse." The children will remain in state custody until a judge is satisfied that the parents have complied. Sooo, IF I'm reading this correctly, the children might be kept in state custody until April 2009. I wonder if the parents will really stay around that long. :waitasec:
Oops...That was from the Dallas Morning News article.

[Vegas Bride]

IMO all the women who can, will be working on having new children asap, some may already be pregnant. They'll do what they can to hide their pregnancies and will deliver their "new crop" outside of Texas. They'll feel the children who were taken away have been tainted now by the outside and no longer sweet and clean so no longer worthy of being flds.

VB

[cheko1]

IMO all the women who can, will be working on having new children asap, some may already be pregnant. They'll do what they can to hide their pregnancies and will deliver their "new crop" outside of Texas. They'll feel the children who were taken away have been tainted now by the outside and no longer sweet and clean so no longer worthy of being flds.

VB


I totally agree with you Vegas Bride.....
The old geezers were probably told to take a extra viagra pill & impregnante any gal up to & including menopause.

[TGIRecovered]

IMO all the women who can, will be working on having new children asap, some may already be pregnant. They'll do what they can to hide their pregnancies and will deliver their "new crop" outside of Texas. They'll feel the children who were taken away have been tainted now by the outside and no longer sweet and clean so no longer worthy of being flds.

VB

I'm afraid you are correct. Any woman who truly wanted help to get out had that opportunity when the place was raided. The ones who chose to return to the compound have, in effect, condoned the abusive and un-godly practices of th FLDS. No way are those power-hungry, perverted men going to stop impregnating women just because the little girls are gone!

Susan

[yolorado]

IMO all the women who can, will be working on having new children asap, some may already be pregnant. They'll do what they can to hide their pregnancies and will deliver their "new crop" outside of Texas. They'll feel the children who were taken away have been tainted now by the outside and no longer sweet and clean so no longer worthy of being flds.

VB

You're almost certainly right. I think the operative phrase for Texas is "outside of Texas." To be sure, TX wouldn't have gone into the compound without a complaint. I really believe that. They wouldn't have had a reason to, but I think they might have been waiting for a reason. Once they had it, once they could go in, once they saw with their own eyes what they believed to be abuse, I think they intended to make a point. They wanted the FLDS to understand TEXAS RULES which are a little bit tougher, quicker and harder to undo than Utah and Arizona rules. If the FLDS wants to pick up and go back to Arizona and Utah (or Colorado, they're buying land here too-yikes) because they don't like the way Texas plays the game, well so be it. At least that's what I think Texas is thinking.

[southcitymom]

I would have no issue with legalizing polygamy.....

Neither would I. I don't even understand why it's against the law.

[mollymalone]

Neither would I. I don't even understand why it's against the law.I belive the prevailing wisdom when it was outlawed, as well as today, is that it promotes the abuses against women and children that we are seeing reported. Back when it was originally outlawed, I think it was equated with a form of slavery.

[mysteriew]

Sociologically polygamy is a problem. Look at the math. X number of males are born, X number of females every year. From year to year, those numbers differ by a small amount sometimes more girls, sometimes more boys. Those kids grow up and get married. Now if 1/2 of the males marry multiple females that leaves 1/2 of the males without the opportunity to take a wife.

Now take that 2 or three generations, you have many many males running around with no wives- about 1/2 the male community. With a huge opportunity to become rebellious. Men have biological urges also. Urges that want attention from women, and now half the community are without women. How long before they start tempting the women? Before they start challenging the men? How long before they use force to satisfy their urges?

So yeah, sociologically it is a problem. And the FLDS realizes it. That is why they began the "lost boys" program. A way to decrease the male population.

[yolorado]

(by mysteriew)Now take that 2 or three generations, you have many many males running around with no wives- about 1/2 the male community. With a huge opportunity to become rebellious. Men have biological urges also. Urges that want attention from women, and now half the community are without women. How long before they start tempting the women? Before they start challenging the men? How long before they use force to satisfy their urges?

Yes, good points. How long before they strap on suicide bomb belts, drive car bombs or fly airplanes into crowds of innocents to kill themselves and take as many others as possible with them to get 72 virgins in paradise, since that may be their only hope of getting a date. We have history to show us that polygamy and religious zealotry can be a lethal coctail.

[mollymalone]

Sociologically polygamy is a problem. Look at the math. X number of males are born, X number of females every year. From year to year, those numbers differ by a small amount sometimes more girls, sometimes more boys. Those kids grow up and get married. Now if 1/2 of the males marry multiple females that leaves 1/2 of the males without the opportunity to take a wife.

Now take that 2 or three generations, you have many many males running around with no wives- about 1/2 the male community. With a huge opportunity to become rebellious. Men have biological urges also. Urges that want attention from women, and now half the community are without women. How long before they start tempting the women? Before they start challenging the men? How long before they use force to satisfy their urges?

So yeah, sociologically it is a problem. And the FLDS realizes it. That is why they began the "lost boys" program. A way to decrease the male population.All of this is if the people are living within a "closed" society as the FLDS are and only take spouses from within their community. There are polygamous couples or groups that have spouses who are from outside their groups.

[mysteriew]

All of this is if the people are living within a "closed" society as the FLDS are and only take spouses from within their community. There are polygamous couples or groups that have spouses who are from outside their groups.

Even in a more open society, you are eventually going to run into problems. There will still be a limited number of women who are willing to enter into a polygamous relationship, and that will still result in more single men- who do not necessarily wish to be single. The impact would be lessened, but still there.

Also you would have large unwieldy families, that one 'father' would probably have trouble supporting, thus higher reliance on govenment support.

Employer medical care would be a nightmare- paying for the male, all females, and all the children, and guess who would have to pay for the increases in that? Their income tax forms would be interesting though. With that many dependents, even if the husband and all the wives worked, probably the government would still owe them. And every time a dependent aged out, 1-2 new dependents would be born.