Life in the real world (The evils of polygamy)

The Washington Times ^ | 04/25/2008 | Pete Vere

[JRochelle]

The raid this month on a polygamist sect's Texas ranch left more than 400 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in state custody.

Under any circumstances, children have trouble adjusting to a world in which their parents suddenly are gone. But in this case, these children likely will be put in an outside world that they have been raised to see as evil.

To better understand their plight, The Washington Times spoke with three former members of the FLDS as well as Rowenna Erickson, a founding member of Tapestry Against Polygamy (Polygamy.org).

The Utah-based organization supports children and vulnerable adults seeking to leave the polygamous lifestyle.

"Polygamy is one big male excuse" for sex, Mrs. Erickson told The Times, using graphic language.

She grew up in the Latter-day Church of Christ, a polygamous Mormon sect also known as the Kingston family. At age 20, she became the second wife of her older sister's husband; the couple bore eight children together.

"My children and I lived in dire poverty in a two-and-a-half bedroom house," Mrs. Erickson said.

Her husband lived separately from the family, and she was prohibited from disclosing their true relationship to others — including to the couple's own children — so as not to raise the suspicion of the civil authorities.

[deport]

I suspect that when the smoke clears, Texas will be nearly bankrupted.

---

Damn......... you mean we can’t get new roads, have the old ones fixed and will have to live with these roadway parking lots traveling at 20 mph?

Damn just damn. Send these kids back and lets build some roads....... After all that would be more profitable than helping some children in potential abusive situations..

[Judith Anne]

Absolutely, talking points.

Interesting to note that we can line them up without even referring to the FLDS, because they are so obvious.

[greyfoxx39]

You two have been five fathoms under for WAYYYY too long ;)

[Tax-chick]

bttt

[greyfoxx39]

I betcha if the case ever goes to court, the cult would be more than happy to make a deal to scuttle back to AZ/UT, give up the compound and stay the heck out of Texas forever, no money exchanging hands.

[White Bear]

“Instead of individual ‘due process’ all children were forcibly taken from their parents - not just those ‘at risk’, but every child.”

You have identified the 800 lb gorilla in the room. I am afraid that because the authorities have reacted in this way that ultimately a judge is going to find that these defendant's due process rights were violated and will throw out any and all evidence collected as a result. It's called the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. If the search and seizure are tainted then everything found attendant to that search or seizure are inadmissable as evidence. The short version will be that those who are truely guilty of child abuse will walk.

[informavoracious]

I disagree with polygamy and that these women were treated as property. But modest clothing in and of itself is not damnable. Women wore modest clothing for centuries and still their husbands were attracted enough to love and beget children with them. Our prevailing culture has been horribly desensitized by pornography and clothing styles that are more suited for the bedroom than the sidewalk and that have resulted in a very narrow definition of femininity. What’s wrong with leaving something to the imagination? What’s wrong with getting to know a woman as a person first? Youth and beauty fade. In the polygamous culture a man takes a new, younger wife. In the wider culture, some men leer at girls on the street, become addicted to porn, and leave their wives and children for trophy wives. What’s the difference?

[Zakeet]

THE EVILS OF POLYGAMY

The best summaries I have found to date are as follows:

• A PRIMER on polygamy prepared by the Utah and Arizona Attorney Generals.

  Caution: This document explains the effects of polygamy in graphic detail. It is emotionally disturbing.

• A VIDEO on polygamy prepared by a Christian ministry in Utah.

  Caution: This 90 minute video is heart-wrenching. You will need a box of tissues by the time you get to the end.

[El Gato]

I betcha if the case ever goes to court, the cult would be more than happy to make a deal to scuttle back to AZ/UT, give up the compound and stay the heck out of Texas forever, no money exchanging hands.

I'll bet when the smoke clears, there will be no charges brought against anyone on the basic underage sex/polygamy charges.

And there are, they will be thrown out because all the evidence will be ruled "fruit of the poisoned vine".

But the children will not be returned either.

[ansel12]

“But modest clothing in and of itself is not damnable. “

---

Who brought that up?

[Sherman Logan]

The perps in this case set up their lifestyle specifically so nobody would be able to figure out which kids were “at risk.” At least not without DNA testing. The only way to protect the “at risk” kids was to sequester them all. Frankly, I think all these kids are by definition at risk, but people can differ on that.

If you are correct in your assumptions, it would mean that those who structure their lifestyle properly to hide paternity will be untouchable by the law.

[andysandmikesmom]

I have not been following this case in as great details as many others have been, but one thing that you have pointed out, particularly strikes me as very pertinent...and that is, about there being only one address listed....I was just unaware of that....and yes, I agree with you, that when one child at one address has been thought to have been abused, and that child is removed from that address, usually all the children are also removed, whether it is 2 children or 20 children, or in this case, 400+ children...all children at the address where the abuse is thought to have occurred have to be removed...

Way too often in different states, child protective services, have been reluctant to remove children in spite of reported abuses....I suppose they have been reluctant for varying reasons, one of which is always, the public outcry, that child protective services were overstepping their authority...and in many of those cases, the child or children who were not removed, wound up in the hospital with life threatening injuries, or wound up in the hospitals dead...and then public outcry all of a sudden shifts, and then the child protective services are chastised for not removing the children....so it seems, in many cases, child protective services are damned if they do remove children, and damned if they dont remove the children...

I think that whether or not the warrant will be deemed legal, is one issue, a matter for the courts to decide, when and if it comes to collecting evidence for criminal prosecutions later on, should it come to that...but I believe that the matter of child protective services receiving information about possible child abuse, and acting upon that information, is a different issue, and that child protective services are required to follow up on those reports, regardless of the legality of the warrants...

If the warrants are found to be illegal, then any evidence, used as a basis for criminal prosecution in the courts, based on the information gotten from that search would be, I suppose disallowed..however, I do believe, that child protective services, would still have the right to determine whether or not children were abused, and have the right to decide whether those children should be allowed to be returned to their parents or not...and that their right to make this determination, is not dependent on the legality or illegality of the search warrants...tho perhaps I am wrong here...not being a lawyer, I am merely looking for information, and simply stating how I see this..

I see this as two different matters...first off, there is the matter of whether or not evidence gathered from this search based on the search warrant can be used for criminal prosecutions....whether or not the evidence gathered can be used, will be based on whether or not the search warrants are deemed to be legal...the second matter is the responsibility of child protective services to protect children...does the ability of child protective services to protect the children depend on the legality of the search warrants, or is it not dependent on those search warrants...in other words, once someone, anyone, claims abuse is taking place, isn’t child protective services required to investigate, regardless of who makes the claims...I am not sure, how much of this depends upon the legality of the search warrant, and would appreciate feedback from anyone who is much more knowledgeable in the law than I am....

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

You’re right. There is a concerted effort by FLDS sympathizers/enablers to try and sway public opinion on this board and elsewhere by throwing up these non-issues as a defense against Texas’ intervention.

[informavoracious]

You did-concealment, restraint, inhibition of feminine movement-if they’re not swinging their hips or shaking their booty, they don’t stir your juices?

[Califreak]

Agreed, but the nagging question on my mind has been why do they seem to only pick on mormons and christians?

I would put money on this kind of thing occurring in many of the little “Islambergs” that have sprouted up all over our country in recent decades, yet they receive no scrutiny, at least none that I’ve heard of.

Why do they get a pass on everything?

[Colofornian]

Instead of individual ‘due process’ all children were forcibly taken from their parents - not just those ‘at risk’, but every child. If the threat is to underage girls, then why are the boys taken? Why are children under 5 being forcibly separated from their mothers?...No evidence, no criminal complaints - but private property was seiged, women were forcibly separated from their children - at people somehow support this....If the issue is polygamy, fine. Due process, and press charges. If the issue is statutory rape, fine; press charges and have trials. But wholesale abduction of 100% of all the children is simply wrong. [Hodar]

You have identified the 800 lb. gorilla in the room. [White Bear]

No actually, it's a monkey-like nuisance that just won't go away on these threads.

One of the most common misunderstandings I've seen on these threads is the role of CPS vs. the role of law enforcement officials. Statements made by at least 5 posters who've I've responded to all seem to confuse the two agencies.

CPS plays "defense." (child removal) based upon if there is a credible report of a rape that could be repeated. (If CPS waited til law enforcement folks finished their investigation, there'd be a whole lot of minors with intensified, escalated cases of abuse).

Law enforcement agencies working with prosecutors play "offense" to get the perps off the streets. What we saw earlier this month was child removal, not men arrested.

When I wrote this post to CharlesWayneCT, even though we are on opposite sides of this debate, he said it was “a good summary of the crux of the debate": Whereas the law enforcement folks might take weeks to investigate a case before charges are pressed (an offensive role vs. suspected perps), CPS is charged with a more immediate intervention role to pre-empt potential reoccurrence of a sexual tramautic event (defensive role). It doesn't have to have to same level of investigative certainty.

In part, CharlesWayneCT responded: Actually, that is a good summary of the crux of the debate. The level of certainty before a person is arrested for a crime is much different than the level used before a child is arrested for being abused…

I find it somewhat hypocritical, that in today’s society polygamy is looked upon as a huge crime… [Hodar]

Well, by all means why don’t you just go ahead & advocate for…
…polygamy (deception & all for underaged victims)…
…bigamy (deception & all for the extra spouses that the perpetrator failed to inform the other “wives” of)…
…polyandry (why just tell that prostitute on the corner that she could marry her 100 “johns” & thereby “legalize” her practice!)
…group marriage (come on, we dare ya…just tell us how “hypocritical” it would be for law enforcement folks to go after a 10-interperson marriage of gay & straight & orgy sex when adultery’s already rampant)
…all of the above, knowing full well the societal & legal entanglements you would invite as the above families try to legally adopt kids into these messy arrangements & as the kids of these messy arrangements vie for but get shut out of inheritance rights or alimony provision settlements.

I find it somewhat hypocritical, that in today’s society polygamy is looked upon as a huge crime; but a man can father unlimited children with unlimited women out of wedlock; and that’s just fine. In fact, if the police were to storm the ghetto and remove the children from groups of single mothers, who have a child without any ceremony from a single sperm donor - there would be hell to pay. [Hodar]

Nice try. Now instead of zeroing in on underaged girls being exploited for statutory rape, you want authorities to turn their attention to ”unlimited women out of wedlock” out there! (Boy, that’s priorities for ya with limited resources!)

…single mothers, who have a child without any ceremony from a single sperm donor…

You imply that while ghetto…single mothers” lack a ceremony, but at least polygamy offers a ceremonial covering. What? You think a mock “ceremony” that introduces a 13, 14, or 15 yo to the bed of an already married 50 yo man = “marriage?” (are you that discernment sick?) Can you spell religiously sanctioned p-e-d-o-p-h-i-l-i-a?

[ansel12]

I never mentioned their outer clothing that you seemed to imply I did, that is a favorite style for me, I used to encourage my wife to wear a softer, warmer version of the same dresses, I think that they can be very sexy on the right female form.

The only wearable thing that I mentioned was the magic mormon underwear and that is another subject I think, now since it is so god awful bulky, tight, and restraining, it also partly restrains some of the natural womanly movement of the body. Unnatural body movement for either sex can be disturbing, try visiting a lesbian bar and notice how disconcerting the dykes artificial body movements are.

[Judith Anne]

I disagree, I think that underage sexual exploitation charges will ultimately be brought against the “polygamous” men of the FLDS.

It really isn’t polygamy—these teens aren’t married to these men. That is illegal in all 50 states, so no matter what the FLDS calls it, it isn’t marriage. And BTW, if it’s “spiritual marriage” then why are those horny old goats having physical sex with them? Why don’t they keep it spiritual?

You may be right in one respect—likely any of the men who sexually exploited these underage cult prisoners will have moved out of state, so whether or not charges are brought, there will be no trials.

And I don’t think the “fruit of the poison tree” defense is going to work, much as the FLDS wishes it would, because in both warrants that I read, there was probably cause.

And there likely are 20 Dale Barlows at a minimum in Texas alone, and there are statements by the underage females that Sarah Barlow is real.

[PennsylvaniaMom]

It is not a question of the modesty of their clothing...its the absolute of control that the clothing epitimizes. They can’t wear anything different. No matter how hot, how stifling they have been ‘told’ that this is the dress you will wear, this is the color you are permitted, these are your black shoes; pull that hair back, etc. It is all about controlling and killing the human spirit of individually. My gosh...they ‘forbid’ red. I mean red? Why so much thought about a color? They take every choice from these women their entire lives...from the most basic (what to wear) to the most profound (who you will marry and have children with).

[Colofornian]

I am afraid that because the authorities have reacted in this way that ultimately a judge is going to find that these defendant's due process rights were violated and will throw out any and all evidence collected as a result. It's called the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. If the search and seizure are tainted then everything found attendant to that search or seizure are inadmissable as evidence.

That's what I love about posters like you. You stare at a cult square on, hearing that they've sexually abused minors; coerced them into bedding an already married man; "escorted" most of their teen boys out of their communities ("lost boys") to "weed out" competition; coach kids & wives to deceive authorities or just plain leave them in the dark as to issues like age, who their parents are, etc.; etc, etc, etc...and your conclusion? Well, it's not the cultists that is a "poisonous tree," why it's the government that has planted a "poisonous tree?"

Do you mean to tell us that if you knew a Roman Catholic priest ordered a teen to "marry" an already married man, you would give him a free pass? Do you mean to tell us that if a high school educator convinced a student to "marry" an already married man, that person, too would be worthy of your open advocacy?

Have you heard about abusing those within your authority--abusing your position of trust? You don't see any parallel application here?

Even from a legal standpoint you're off-base. If you would bother to look a copy of the warrant online, you'll see that law enforcement officials had two reports of "criminal offenses" listed on the warrant. Not only were they investigating a charge of sexual abuse, but "bigamy" (the latter as a violation of Texas code 25.01).

Under a warrant where "bigamy" is being investigated, even if it's only one man being investigated, that man may have 10, 20, 30, 40 wives there! That's a pretty broad swath of evidence there that's "usable."

And even if you are "correct" about your "poisonous tree" angle for any of the other men involved, what they did was still preferable to doing nothing. I would venture many of those men won't be intentionally setting foot back on Texas soil.