The problem I have is that marrying at 14 (and yes, the law should be looked at) is flawed in that you are assuming that the parents aren’t involved. If as a minor, this child has no choice but to ‘marry’ (and the question is also if they are older, no technicality, but LAW) a man she doesn’t want to. And I don’t mean ‘the Bible tells us we should...’ crap either.
How many 14 year olds are going to protest being married off when the option is being cast out? This whole operation needs to be investigated and you can’t do that when all the families are together.
I do agree it’s individual rights, but if there were a cult that regularly made child porn, would you be so defensive?
The only reason I might seem defensive about it is that these people are American Citizens and taxpayers and are GUARANTEED certain rights and there are plenty in the govt of the State of Texas and a shocking number here on FR who want to strip them of their rights an GET them just by opinion only.
There but for the Grace of God go I.
You say *IF* there was a cult that did that until the formal charges are brought and the evidence submitted.
I’d wager they’ll find that in the desks of the “elders” as well..................
There are several members of FLDS active on the Free Republic it seems.
To what extent do you believe that the seriousness of the charge should dictate the degree to which due process is followed?
This is why I might seem defensive:
You say *IF* there was a cult that did that until the formal charges are brought and the evidence submitted.
I’d wager they’ll find that in the desks of the “elders” as well..................
No proof required. No evidence required. Just their overactive imagination that requires nothing but vengeance for some reason.
And if you dare disagree with them:
There are several members of FLDS active on the Free Republic it seems.
Is it any wonder that some of us are fighting so hard for these people's rights? Because there are some of us fighting so hard AGAINST these peoples rights.
If the other posters are correct about the legal definition of "polygamy", that is that anything other than the first marriage is not an actual marriage, then there is really very little concern about legal marriage age.
The accusations are that adult men are engaging in sex with UNMARRIED underage girls. The exceptions to the statutory rape laws for married persons are probably irrelevant to whatever might be found within the FLDS.
The marriage records that have been seized would mainly be useful for establishing which adult men, if any, had sex with which underage girls, if any. The DNA might establish the same thing if a pregnancy had resulted.
I haven't read the record of Jeff's conviction for being an accomplice to rape. But the conviction probably rests on the fact that his overt action of performing a sham marriage encouraged the illegal act of raping an underage girl.
Most of the FLDS members did not officiate at a sham marriage and therefor would not be legally guilty of anything, unless some other legal duty existed to protect the underage girl being raped. Such a duty would exist, I think, for the parents of that girl and they face legal jeopardy if the case can be proved.
This type of case is probably a prime candidate for a grand jury. People have a DUTY to respond to a grand jury subpoena. They have a duty to answer questions truthfully subject to their fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination and subject to some other privileges.
If they claim fifth-amendment privilege, a judge can order them to testify subject to an immunity agreement. Failure to then testify can draw a jail sentence for contempt. Tesifying untruthfully, like Bill Clinton did, can subject them to charges of perjury, if a jury can be convinced of the false testimony.
There are plenty of tools available to law enforcement to get this job done. But the authorities have to have the guts to jail people for non-cooperation and the authorities have to be able to sustain the public furor if they appear to be abusing their power.