Marriage age for girls: 14 in Texas, 2005!

[amicus]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080408/NATION/795800661/1002

The Texas Legislature raised the legal marriage age for a girl from 14 to 16 in 2005, a year after members of the polygamist sect began arriving in Eldorado from their longtime community on the Arizona-Utah border.

~~~

Just to muddy the waters of this bizarre incident even more. Perhaps they were legally married at age fourteen?

Now what?

Amicus...

 

[CeriseNoire]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080408/NATION/795800661/1002



~~~

Just to muddy the waters of this bizarre incident even more. Perhaps they were legally married at age fourteen?

Now what?

Amicus...

If they were, doesn't Texas have to recognize the marriage for those girls? If so, then there's nothing they can do except return them to their homes.

 

[amicus]

Brings up more questions than answers to me at least.

'Arranged marriages', against the will of the bride, have been a part of many cultures and it usually takes place with older men who are well situated to provide for them.

Further this, 'forced' DNA testing, does that not raise the ire of those defending privacy rights and such?

Wonder where this is all going to end up?

amicus...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

What is truly sad is that there a good many well-behaved, decent polygamists still up on the AZ/UT border and all this does is blacken their reputations. Tarred with the same brush, as it were.

 

[CeriseNoire]

Brings up more questions than answers to me at least.

'Arranged marriages', against the will of the bride, have been a part of many cultures and it usually takes place with older men who are well situated to provide for them.

Further this, 'forced' DNA testing, does that not raise the ire of those defending privacy rights and such?

Wonder where this is all going to end up?

amicus...

Well, personally I very much dislike the idea of forced DND testing, but it wouldn't be the first time a court has ordered such to be done.

Honestly, I think the police force there overdid it and now they're in over their heads.

 

[amicus]

The AH is a fairly progessive community in terms of social relationships and I realize that, however, Polygamy, as I understand, is illegal in the United States.

I love women and children and, in my earlier days, would not have been adverse to having several wives and a bevy of children, assuming I could have supported them, as I do not fancy women working outside the home.(bad old fashioned me, I know)

I can even comprehend the mindset of a woman, or women, who would be content as being one of several wives, however, from some of the interviews it seems there is/was, a great deal of friction and jealousy among the many.

Dunno...hate to see the heavy hand of the State impose its' will upon any one.

Amicus...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I suspect that the friction is caused by the fact that they were all more or less forced into the arrangement at a very young age. Decisions like that, IMO, must be mutually consentual and made with full knowledge aforethought. 14 or 15-year-olds aren't capable of such.

Polygamy is illegal only if you attempt to have the marriage recognized by the state. If a church recognizes the match(es) and the people involved recognize it, they don't have to ask the states permission. After all, marriage is simply a civil contract that has been registered with a governing body. The contract can still be valid and binding between parties even if the governing body doesn't know it exists.

Another one of those things which is not of the gov's damned business.

 

[CeriseNoire]

It is indeed illegal for the moment, thought the focus seems to be on that pesky issue of underage marriage if that is in fact the case.

I do try to consider different perspectives; I can see why some women would want to stay home and raise children, just as I can see why they'd want to work. I know my mother worked for most of my life, yet both she and my father always made time for us kids. Seems to have worked well enough for them as they've been married for almost 30 years now and actually still enjoy being together. On the other hand, I know plenty of women who are happy staying at home. People should do that for which they are best suited.

All I can say about the friction and issues between wives is that different personalities are bound to clash, especially when there is nowhere to go and vent. It always seem that those who make it out of that type of more fundamentalist polygamist community speak of feeling a certain isolation while they were there (especially when they are taught that we are out there waiting to violate them in countless ways).

An interesting topic, but as I am one of those reproachable employed women, I must to bed now

I will have to agree with you Ami, on the State's overbearing hand. I try to thread lightly on such matters because I know I certainly don't want the government too deeply involved in my own life.

 

[sweetness6280]

Polygamy is illegal only if you attempt to have the marriage recognized by the state. If a church recognizes the match(es) and the people involved recognize it, they don't have to ask the states permission.

Texas recognizes cohabitation as common law marriage. Any union sanctioned by an ordained minister is considered to be a legally binding marriage in Texas, as well. Texas also recognizes cohabitation as a standard for prosecution in bigamy cases. Utah does the same... as do a couple other states. Which makes you wonder why a polygamist sect would choose Texas?

As for the legal age, that could have an effect on any girl who is currently 17 or 18, but would not have any bearing on those who are under that age. The dates of arrival of many of the members are ambiguous, as the temple itself was not completed until 2005.

While I understand the hesitation concerning DNA testing, the sad truth is that there is no other real way to determine the parentage of these children. Because of family "reassignment", the biological fathers may not even be members of the sect anymore.

A very sad, confusing state of affairs.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Texas recognizes cohabitation as common law marriage. Any union sanctioned by an ordained minister is considered to be a legally binding marriage in Texas, as well. Texas also recognizes cohabitation as a standard for prosecution in bigamy cases. Utah does the same... as do a couple other states. Which makes you wonder why a polygamist sect would choose Texas?

As for the legal age, that could have an effect on any girl who is currently 17 or 18, but would not have any bearing on those who are under that age. The dates of arrival of many of the members are ambiguous, as the temple itself was not completed until 2005.

While I understand the hesitation concerning DNA testing, the sad truth is that there is no other real way to determine the parentage of these children. Because of family "reassignment", the biological fathers may not even be members of the sect anymore.

A very sad, confusing state of affairs.

Ah, common law marriage. I forgot that as California "de-recognized" it in, I think, 1949. (At the tender age of 2 it didn't mean much to me.) Yep, that throws a completely different light on the subject.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

This has kind of gotten lost in the arguments, but the case isn't even about the legal age of marriage. That was a side issue raised by the DA during an interview.

The case is about child abuse.

I have a feeling it's going to be months before this fiasco gets sorted out.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

This has kind of gotten lost in the arguments, but the case isn't even about the legal age of marriage. That was a side issue raised by the DA during an interview.

The case is about child abuse.

I have a feeling it's going to be months before this fiasco gets sorted out.

Just months?

 

[amicus]

JJ...was the child abuse not defined as forcing underage girls into marriage and sex? Not neglect or physical abuse by parents, although that has been alleged, the so called, 'smoking gun' was again an 'alleged' telephone call by a sixteen year old girl that started the whole thing.

Amicus...

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

JJ...was the child abuse not defined as forcing underage girls into marriage and sex? Not neglect or physical abuse by parents, although that has been alleged, the so called, 'smoking gun' was again an 'alleged' telephone call by a sixteen year old girl that started the whole thing.

Amicus...

True. But the phone called specifically said her husband was abusing her. It started with child abuse. As far as I can see, the Texas courts haven't even decided if there were crimes committed yet.

 

[DeeZire]

If it takes 'the heavy hand of the state' to stop child abuse, I would think the state would be justified. Isn't that why we have government, to protect the citizens from harm?

 

[amicus]

Isn't that where most disagree? The amount of control the 'State' has over an individuals life?

There is also the sometimes conflicting 'freedom of religion', freedom of speech and freedom to own firearms, the people disagree about.

Infringements upon individual liberty and freedom, in this case, 416 children, must be carefully documented and supported even though the practice of polygamy is objected to by many.

There has been thus far, no proof offered of child abuse and if the girls were legally married in the state of Texas, at age fourteen, then the State has no grounds to intervene.

This will be even more of a mess than most think....

amicus....

 

[S-Des]

JJ...was the child abuse not defined as forcing underage girls into marriage and sex? Not neglect or physical abuse by parents, although that has been alleged, the so called, 'smoking gun' was again an 'alleged' telephone call by a sixteen year old girl that started the whole thing.

Amicus...

Right, and that call turned out to be a phony. However, as this is a complicated situation, people are missing the obvious. Any marriages happening after 2005 to girls under 16 would be illegal. However, that is a mute point because any "marriages" taking place (especially ones between middle-aged men and 14 year-old girls) would most likely not be his first, hence not legal in the eyes of the state anyway (and I'm highly doubtful that any marriage licenses were applied for in the case of those types of arrangements, even if there weren't previous marriages for the man). Therefore, in the eyes of the state, the girl was never married to the man, and it's child rape.

The state is taking it's time in making it's case, but make no mistake, there will be a lot of prosecutions here. Also, I feel no sympathy for the women losing their kids. Since it is a cult, and the kids are indoctrinated from birth, returning them to the mothers who allowed them to be abused would not only be idiotic, it would be seriously detrimental to any case (since obviously the mothers would attempt to coach the children not to testify against their "husbands" or about any details that would be important). They went in with too much force, and are lucky this didn't turn in to another Waco, but removing the kids until it's sorted out is exactly the right thing to do.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Isn't that where most disagree? The amount of control the 'State' has over an individuals life?

There is also the sometimes conflicting 'freedom of religion', freedom of speech and freedom to own firearms, the people disagree about.

Infringements upon individual liberty and freedom, in this case, 416 children, must be carefully documented and supported even though the practice of polygamy is objected to by many.

There has been thus far, no proof offered of child abuse and if the girls were legally married in the state of Texas, at age fourteen, then the State has no grounds to intervene.

This will be even more of a mess than most think....

amicus....

If the girl was under 16 years old at the time of the raid, the "marriage" would not have been legal. That would mean she was under 14 in 2005. If the "marriage" was a bigamous one, it would not be legal. If the girl was coerced into the "marriage" against her will, even with parental consent, it would not have ever been legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
Brings up more questions than answers to me at least.

'Arranged marriages', against the will of the bride, have been a part of many cultures and it usually takes place with older men who are well situated to provide for them.

Further this, 'forced' DNA testing, does that not raise the ire of those defending privacy rights and such?

Wonder where this is all going to end up?

amicus

Why should this bring up any questions? It is not part of the culture of the USA in the 21st century. As for common law marriages resulting from cohabitation, that would only apply if it would be legal for the couple to marry. If one was already married or one was underage, there would be no marriage, and the adult could be charged with staturory rape, at least.

I also don't like the part about enforced DNA testing, but it seems to be necessary for the welfare of the chldren.

 

[amicus]

Maybe, S-Des, maybe...

I personally consider any religious indoctrination of a child to be child abuse. The teaching of faith and mysticism, in my opinion, does irreversible damage to a child's ability to think and reason.

On the other hand, our Constitution guarantees the people the right to a religious belief of their choosing, with or without State approval, as it should be.

I would suggest that the Muslim faith might also suffer under close scrutiny as practiced, perhaps even in the US. What about Quakers and other sects that do not adopt modern technology but live in the past?

I am not in any way defending the FLDS, nor Polygamy nor early marriage. I do however defend the right of each individual to express their own life in the manner they choose as long as it does not violate the rights of another.

Something smells terribly wrong about this case...we shall see....

amicus...

 

[amicus]

If the girl was under 16 years old at the time of the raid, the "marriage" would not have been legal. That would mean she was under 14 in 2005. If the "marriage" was a bigamous one, it would not be legal. If the girl was coerced into the "marriage" against her will, even with parental consent, it would not have ever been legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
Brings up more questions than answers to me at least.

'Arranged marriages', against the will of the bride, have been a part of many cultures and it usually takes place with older men who are well situated to provide for them.

Further this, 'forced' DNA testing, does that not raise the ire of those defending privacy rights and such?

Wonder where this is all going to end up?

amicus

Why should this bring up any questions? It is not part of the culture of the USA in the 21st century. As for common law marriages resulting from cohabitation, that would only apply if it would be legal for the couple to marry. If one was already married or one was underage, there would be no marriage, and the adult could be charged with staturory rape, at least.

I also don't like the part about enforced DNA testing, but it seems to be necessary for the welfare of the chldren.

My thought is that we take pride in being a 'diverse' culture, not all marching to the same drummer.

As someone mentioned earlier, those women look live versions of the 'Stepford Wives' educated to please a man and care for children and little else. That is not my choice nor do I commend it to anyone but if people choose to live that way, have they not the right to do so?

On the outside looking in, I am following the developments in this case as closely as possible and to this date, there have been no charges levied and no proof of any laws being broken.

I prefer to withhold judgment until such evidence is made public.

Amicus...

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

[/I]

My thought is that we take pride in being a 'diverse' culture, not all marching to the same drummer.

As someone mentioned earlier, those women look live versions of the 'Stepford Wives' educated to please a man and care for children and little else. That is not my choice nor do I commend it to anyone but if people choose to live that way, have they not the right to do so?

On the outside looking in, I am following the developments in this case as closely as possible and to this date, there have been no charges levied and no proof of any laws being broken.

I prefer to withhold judgment until such evidence is made public.

Amicus...

Diversity does not permit statutory rape or bigamy.

No charges have been levied yet, but the state will build their case until they know who did what and to whom, and whether it was coerced or otherwise illegal or not. At the very least, there seems to be some truancy laws being broken, unless the children can be validly home-schooled in the compound. Beyond that, once paternity and maternity have been established, charges will be filed against some of the men, and maybe some of the women, at least as accomplices.

I feel the most sympathy for some of the women there. They are over 18, and not subject to protection as children, but their marriages will probably be found illegal because of bigamy laws. They will be given the choice to continue living the only life they have ever known and having their children taken away or leaving with their children and entering a world where they will lack even the most basic survival skills.

 

[DeeZire]

...I do however defend the right of each individual to express their own life in the manner they choose as long as it does (not) violate the rights of another.

(I added the 'not' in your quote, since without it, it makes no sense.)

I would think the rights of an underage girl would take precedence over the religious rights of a middle aged man who likes to have forced sex with kids. At some point, you have to leave semantics out of the argument and go with common sense - unless you hate the government so much you'd rather see kids getting raped than see the government step in to stop it.

 

[S-Des]

I feel the most sympathy for some of the women there. They are over 18, and not subject to protection as children, but their marriages will probably be found illegal because of bigamy laws. They will be given the choice to continue living the only life they have ever known and having their children taken away or leaving with their children and entering a world where they will lack even the most basic survival skills.

I'd be surprised if there aren't already people who've set up support systems for these kinds of women. Carolyn Jessop's book 'Escape' should be required reading for anyone leaving that lifestyle. Hopefully enough services can be provided to help limit the damage done to everyone, but it still doesn't come close to the damage those kids suffered (or will suffer) in those kinds of forced marriages. I don't care where you come from or what you believe, if you want to live here there are certain standards (such as no tolerance for physical or sexual abuse) that must be adhered to. If it bothers someone to have to alter their beliefs in this regard.....tough shit.

 

[amicus]

Gads...I seem to find myself defending civil rights aka ACLU style, and that is most unusual.

To clarify, if possible, I am a militant atheist, despise all forms of religion. I also raised eight children, five of them girls, none of whom were ready for marriage at age fourteen and not even sixteen, although some were chomping at the bit in their late teens.

Nor do I condone what is loosely called, 'underage' sex, which seems subject to definition here and elsewhere. Like it or not, in 2005, in Texas, sex at fourteen was legal and sanctioned by marriage by the State.

As a parent, I would not have permitted it, but it was law at that time and place.

My only point of contention in all of this concerns whether individual civil rights of the parent or the children have been violated by the State. If that is proven, beyond a doubt to be the case then by all means prosecute to the full extent of the law.

Most of the last few posters seem to have made up their minds already and to my knowledge only accusations and allegations have been aired and no charges have been filed.

If that religious compound or any religious or other cultish type commune is operating within the law, then they have a guaranteed right to exercise their freedom to do so.

Youse guys are the bleeding hearts and the Liberals here, gimme a break!


egads...


Amicus... (Oh, and thank you Deezire, I corrected my error.)

 

[S-Des]

Youse guys are the bleeding hearts and the Liberals here, gimme a break!


egads...

I think you have me confused with someone else. While not a Conservative, I am most definitely not a bleeding heart (especially when it comes to people abusing kids). If the evidence comes out that not a single one of those kids was being forced to have sex before they were of age, then I'll feel really bad about condemning them (for about 10 seconds), but I'm not holding my breath.