Posted on 05/16/2008 6:27:40 AM PDT by JRochelle
Abandoning their religion and husbands may be the only way that FLDS mothers will be reunited with their children. Texas official issued new rules, Thursday, that dictate what the mothers will have to do before the state will return the 464 children.
The plan says that the mothers will have to prove that they have provided the children with “a home free of persons who have, or will abuse the children.”
Texas officials consider many polygamist husbands as abusers.
On top of that, Texas officials will have to know every person living in any building where any of the children live. This would make customary polygamist communal housing impossible.
FLDS Attorney, Rod Parker says that “the rules are subject to interpretation by Child Protective Services (CPS) in a manner that makes it impossible for these people to live on the ranch.”
To hammer their point even harder, Texas officials told FLDS communities that if they don’t cooperate, the court could “terminate parental rights” and “appoint a conservator with authority to consent to each child’s adoption.”
“Those terms are going to be defined, ultimately, by Texas CPS, and what Texas CPS says is a safe environment or appropriate education, exclude participation in this religion,” Parker said.
The initial call, that alleged that a 16-year-old girl was beaten and raped by FLDS member Dale Barlow, has never been identified, and is believed by many to have been a prank. Still, authorities are convinced that there is a repeated pattern of abuse on FLDS compounds.
Authorities point out that many of the teenage girls in custody were pregnant, some as young as 13 years old. They also say there is a conspiracy of secrecy within the mothers. They say that FLDS moms will not cooperate with identifying their children.
Authorities also claimed that FLDS boys had signs of broken bones and that they had possibly been sexually abuse as well.
Now, for the first time, the state is talking about lost boys who have allegedly been forced out of the group in order to have more women than men in the community for polygamy.
There are lost boys in Utah, however, Texas cannot name one lost boy.
Officials say that the proof is that there are more 16-to-17-year-old girls than boys.
FLDS attorney, Rod Parker says that Texas is counting 20-to-22-year-old women as underage girls.
“But we know they are counting women as underage girls,” said Parker. “That’s why the ratio is out of whack.”
I’ll repost the Texas bigamy statutes here again. It seems Texas has your “multiple shack-up” theory covered.
TITLE 6. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY
CHAPTER 25. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY
§ 25.01. BIGAMY. (a) An individual commits an offense if: (1) he is legally married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor’s prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with a person other than his spouse in this state under the appearance of being married; or
(2) he knows that a married person other than his spouse is married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry that person in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the person’s prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
B) lives with that person in this state under the appearance of being married.
(b) For purposes of this section, “under the appearance of being married” means holding out that the parties are married with cohabitation and an intent to be married by either party.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)
(1) that the actor reasonably believed that his marriage was void or had been dissolved by death, divorce, or annulment.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the lawful wife or husband of the actor may testify both for or against the actor concerning proof of the original marriage.
(e) An offense under this section is a Third Degree Felony.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974 .
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended September 2005.
They will get charges of rape if anything. Of course they have scurried away like the rats that they are.
As of the last count, only 8 of them showed up to give DNA samples.
Those were men that knew they weren't in legal jeopardy. I was surprised to see there was one older man in that place that had only one wife. Good for him. I am all for him getting his kids back, as long as he keeps his kids away from the other men.
Of course. If it is statutory rape, that is another matter. The post I was responding to was about bigamy.
How many wives did Jacob have?
Nobody said anything about “impregnating 13 year olds”, I was talking about polygamy. Did you get your education out of a Cracker Jack box?.............
Homosexuals cannot claim “religious freedom” easily, unless they resurrect a religion from ancient times. Polygamy, however, can be claimed as a “religious” tenet with longstanding, and the cultural discrimination against it adds to their argument......
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...........
*************************************************************
Even if it includes rape and child abuse? Would that cover human sacrifice as well, since it’s been such a widespread religious practice in other cultures throughout history?
After all, if the inner city pregnant teens and pregnant teenage mothers of past generations , is a valid enough argument to protect the cult’s illegal practices, then the past generations and world wide practice of human sacrifice should be enough justification for the First to cover that.
Right?
Ten years ago, or so, a professor at the University of Wyoming published a book, the thesis of which was that raising any child in a Christian religion was child abuse.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...........
Guess the next step maybe the defining of what is a religion......
Suppose a group wants to start a religion that used human sacrifices?.... Is that okay?
Suppose a criminal gang decides we’ll become a religious group rather than a gang and part of our ritual will be the use of, mfg of, distribution of drugs?..... Is that okay?
Gov’t needs to take hands off but there has to be rules, boundaries and limitations ......
I don’t see anything illegal about them “multiply shacking up” with whomever they want as long as it is consensual, between adults, and children are not being abused. Why can’t they just do their thing within the confines of the law?
To defend it, you have to believe it's true
Thanks for the citation - do you have one on TX common law marriage?
And your tag line is funny as heck.
Anyone can claim religious freedom. Where does it say it has to be an ancient religion?
At least four. The sons who headed the twelve tribes came from four different wives.
Even voluntary polygamy?>/p>
Good question. I think in some polygamist groups they don’t “marry” girls below the age of consent. I think that used to be the case even for the FLDS.
Then you agree that potentially not everybody is guilty and not everybody should be stripped of parental rights if not guilty and perhaps even, not be stripped of the fundamental right in this country to have freedom of religion? One can have beliefs but act according to the laws.
“And if my thought-dreams could been seen
They’d probably put my head in a guillotine”
Bob Dylan.
Yes!
I put it on the level of voluntary incest, gay sex etc.
So, under that statute, all they would have to do is refrain from saying they are “married” and call it something else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.