TheAgitator.com
Big Love and Big Government
Friday, April 18th, 2008A few folks in the Hit & Run comments section have asked for a thread on the Texas polygamy case, so I’ll post one here as well.
I haven’t had the time to thoroughly read up on the case, so I don’t yet have an opinion of the propriety of the police action. If Scott Henson’s take is correct, I guess my opinion would be that given what we now know, the tactics seem excessive, the justification for the raid iffy at best, and the cult in question is unquestionably icky.
Ickiness alone isn’t illegal, of course. And if Texas law says parents can marry their 15-year-old daughters off to 60-year-old men, perhaps we should talk about the wisdom of that law, not arresting the people who still manage to stay within it, repugnant as they may be.
I have seen other reports in which police do claim to have found evidence of girls on the compound being pregnant while as young as 13. So I guess we’ll have to wait and see how it all shakes out.
In the meantime, here’s something to mull over: Should we allow parents to give consent for a child under 18 to marry, or to have sexual relations? If 18 is that state’s age of consent, I think I’d be inclined to argue that we shouldn’t.
But it’s an interesting question.
Thanks for the linkage, Radley. FWIW, after reviewing records from the search for two weeks, DPS found no pregnant or married FLDS girls under 16 (Texas’ legal marriage age with parental consent), and just 5 pregnant girls between 16 and 19. They’re hoping to pin statutory rape charges on those girls’ husbands, if they turn out to be substantially older.
Also today’s big news is that the phone call setting off the raid was proven a hoax.
FWIW, the most age disparate “marriage” I’ve seen alleged besides the original hoax phone call was between a 39 year old man and a 16 year old girl.
Obviously I don’t know what went on there, but they brought in 700 cops in riot gear and a tank to raid the place! “Excessive” seems an understatement. Texas DPS came ready to start another Waco.
Let’s first get the age-of-consent laws back to reality. We live in a country where people are prohibited from having sex for 5-6 years after reaching the age they would naturally be having it.
If age of consent were set at say 14. Then we could think this through. But after hearing that the state was holding 17yr olds over this.?!?! Please!
(and yes, I know 14 sounds young, but you don’t have to go too far back in history or too far around the world to find a time that that was acceptable)
“Should we allow parents to give consent for a child under 18 to marry, or to have sexual relations? If 18 is that state’s age of consent, I think I’d be inclined to argue that we shouldn’t.”
Who’s the “we” you’re talking about? I know I don’t have the right to stop someone from having consensual sex or enter into a marital contract, regardless of biological age. And I certainly don’t have the right to require or forbid parental “consent” to such acts.
Should we allow parents to give consent for a child under 18 to marry, or to have sexual relations?
Marriage: No. Sexual relations: Yes.
Actually according to the info a Cornell Law, the legal age for marriage with parental and judicial permission in TX is 13 for females and 14 for males.
Seems to me that in statutory rape cases, more should have to be proven than simply the fact that a minor and an adult had sex. There should be some standard to prove that some harm was actually done to the minor.
This group is originally from Colorado City, AZ. When they got busted they established a presense in Texas at this new location, the Arizona press has been over the story for quite a while, but marrying young girls without their consent does seem to be a major factor in the case hence the charges against the leader of the group. I haven’t paid particular attention to the case but you can’t really live in the state and not hear about it in the media.
Here is the Flagstaff papers results on the case, I’d give you the AZ Republic but if I recall correctly they firewall content past a certain date after publication.
http://www.azdailysun.com/shared-content/search/index.php?search=go&o=0&q=Jeffs+Colorado+City&d1=0-01-2007&d2=04-18-2008&s=relevance&r=Subject%2CAuthor%2CContent&l=50
As for marriage, I don’t think that the state should have anything to say about marriage at all, straight, gay, polygamist or whatever.
How many 13 yr old girls OUTSIDE the complex are/have been pregnant?
If there are some of the evils as claimed by MSM, then punish those guilty. If no one will testify, then, however evil, the state is SOL. When CPS separates out the children because “the children will be able to tell the truth when the parents aren’t around”, you can bet the CPS is going to do their own brain-washing. But then brain-washing is the primary reason for the existence of the public education system as per numerous court decisions. But the judges don’t say brain-washing, they say inculcating the values society wants.
-Skip Oliva-
Are you nit-picking Radley’s grammar, or making a point about government power coming from the consent of the governed, indicating that government should not be allowed to do something an individual could not do?
As far as the substance of the issue, I don’t see how one person could give “consent” to another person to have sexual relations, regardless of parental relationships. It seems to me, the consent to having sex is personal, and not delegated… If I am the legal guardian for a mentally retarded person whose mental age is on the order of 7 - 10, can I give “consent” for that person to engage in sexual relations with some third party?
Marrigae is another issue, since it has become a state institution, with legal benefits, consequences, and the like. In that case, it seems reasonable to me that the governing body would place restrictions on who can enter into the institution. The better solution, however, is to keep marriage private from the state, and let it remain a personal (and in most cases, religious) institution. Meaning, no benefits, no consequences as far as the government is concerned…
Consider: in supporting things like DOMA, conservatives tell us that religion is between a man and a woman because that’s what God intended… That makes marriage a religious function, so providing alternate tax status for a married couple would seem to be establishing or endorsing a religiuos institution, no?
Radley, not necessarily where you wanted to take the conversation, but there you are…
FWB,
They changed that law in 2005 in Texas. The youngest a girl can marry is 16–with parental consent. Parents cannot consent to marriage younger than 16–whereas, before 2005 they could down to the age of 14. It is thought that the law was changed to target the FLDS–as they moved to Texas in 2003 or 2004. However, there was also a case around that time, involving Mexican illegal immigrants. The mother approved the marriage of her 14 or 15 year old daughter to a man in his late twenties. When I was 14 and 15 in the late 60’s, there were several Hispanic girls in my class who dropped out of school to marry men in their twenties. No one thought anything about it back then–that I can remember.
Further, there is evidence now that the call from “Sarah” which started this off, was actually a call from a hoaxter named Rozita, who lives in Colorado.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8966589
It is an interesting question. I think it also goes back to our arbitrary decisions about what age is old enough for what activity. So at age ‘X’ you can have sex with someone close to your own age, but you must be age ‘Y’ before you can have sex regardless of age difference. Is it reasonable to assume that at 15 a person is mentally able to have sex with another 15 year old but would be traumatized by sex with a 20 year old? SHould the parents decide or the government?
Should a parent be able to give permission to marry? SHould a parent be able to give permission to drink? If a parent should be able to give their permission to let their child do something they would otherwise have to be of age to do, then shouldn’t a parent be able to give permission for a child to join the army?
Personally, I believe there should be a single age of consent to engage in a specific legal act…enter into a marriage contract, purchase alcohol from a store or restaurant, sign a commitment with the service etc…so no, a parent can’t marry a kid off, but can give them a beer. A 20 year old can’t have sex with your teenager but another teen can. It is up to you raise them different or monitor them better if you want to prevent it.
Even beyond the libertarian right to parent type issues, there is an even bigger problem even in situations where everyone agrees the kids are in a bad situation — the wretchedness of the foster care system. In almost every state, the foster care system is a Dickensian nightmare.
Now, of course, I wouldn’t want my daughter in one of these fundamentalist LDS compounds. But we are not comparing the life these kids have with some kind of ideal home situation. We are comparing what they have now with being ripped away from the only family they know and cast into the foster care system.
Personally, unless there is true physical danger, I would leave kids where they are. As bad as their home life is, foster care is very likely to be worse.
Skip –
If a 40-year-old man is having sex with a 10-year-old girl–with or without her parents’ permission–yes, I’m not only okay with the government interfering to stop it, I’d want them too. I would think that even an anarchist would feel a moral obligation to help someone who was being harmed by a third party, if not the state then a third party.
Is your argument that there is no such obligation, or that a 10-year-old who has sex with a grown man isn’t being harmed?
Parents currently do not have the ability to override age related laws on:
1. Mandatory education
2. Child labor
3. Drinking
4. Military service (as far as I know)
5. Voting
6. Sex at a legal brothel (Believe me, dad tried….)
Why should marriage and getting pregnant at an early age, which have far more serious consequences, be any different?
As far as I am concerned, adults can live as they wish as long as they don’t place a burden on others or cause undue hardship on others. In other words, be self sufficient and don’t steal my stuff or put me in danger. And don’t park your grocery cart in the middle of the dang isle.
BUT, parents should not impose their lifestyles on their children without giving them the opportunity to see other points of view. And when those lifestyles include hiding from the rest of the world, polygamy, and the limitation of personal freedom through social coercion, well, that’s just plain wrong. If confining kids to an environment that is ‘unquestionably icky’ is not illegal, it should be. This compound is not like the Amish (not that I am saying they are icky in any way). There is no transparency, and no opportunity for any of the inhabitants to meet Harrison Ford and learn about the ways of the outside world. I think it’s probable that the driving force for seclusion in this sect is more about fear the outside world will find out what’s really going on, as opposed to fear of what the kids will be exposed to.
I think it is disingenuous to suggest CPS is going to brainwash these kids. They want to find out what is going on, and protect the kids if they are in danger. Sometimes, however, those doing the questioning have already decided what the answers should be, and think they just need to ‘get through’ to the kids so they will admit the ‘truth’. And sometimes they go too far, and the kids end up saying things that are not true. So, they need to be very careful, and very transparent, when they question the kids.
————-
Further, there is evidence now that the call from “Sarah” which started this off, was actually a call from a hoaxter named Rozita, who lives in Colorado.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8966589
————
That is certainly interesting, but while it suggests the possibility, there is no actual evidence presented in the referenced article to help prove she made the original call. It seems more likely to me that Rozita used the information about the original call to perpetrate a sort of copy cat hoax. Flora Jessop and the Sarah phone call were in the news for a week and a half before the hoaxter was arrested. It’s seems more likely the original call was either genuine, or made by someone with the specific intent to create enough reason for the raid.
Kevin,
You may be right, but it’s interesting that the Texas Rangers were part of her arrest. We’ll have to see.
While I don’t believe government should have any hand in the scheme of marriage at all, the reality is that it does.
The government generally establishes the age of majority as the basis of asserting natural born citizens rights in full. Each state has a legal age of majority determined by the state. In federal eyes, this is 18.
If we look at marriage as a contractual agreement between two parties, I don’t believe parents have the power to commit their children to such an obligation when that obligation has direct consequences that would fall on the child later in life. Even with the child’s consent to a marriage arrangement, I do not find a compelling reason for upholding the marriage as a legal entity when the child reaches the age of majority.
Even with parental consent, I would question the binding power of any contract involving a minor where the parents are relinquished of any responsibility for the child’s welfare with exception to adoption or giving up a child to an external third-party institution who may care for the child without committing the child to a contractual obligation with an indefinite life. Just like a kid is not responsible when a credit card issuer gives him or her a regular credit card at the age of 15, how can you bind a kid to any obligation when they are underage?
But that is from the contractual mode of thinking.
Here is another story which better describes the suspicions about Rozita. Apparently, the FBI has been tracing the calls about the ranch.
http://www.krdotv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8184795
—————
(and yes, I know 14 sounds young, but you don’t have to go too far back in history or too far around the world to find a time that that was acceptable)
—————
Not really much of an argument there. Slavery and discrimination based on race were acceptable not too long ago, and still occur around the world. That in no way makes it acceptable here.
————–
We live in a country where people are prohibited from having sex for 5-6 years after reaching the age they would naturally be having it.
————–
Actually, there are usually no laws against two 14 years olds having sex, at issue is when a 14 year old and a 20+ year old have sex. Still, the argument does not hold water: Just because something is possible physically does not mean it’s ok. We develop the ability to consume and process alcohol at a young age, should we allow six year olds to start buying and drinking whiskey?
The age of consent laws are what they are because most think that’s the youngest age, on average, that people can engage in sex and accept the physical and psychological responsibilities that go along with it. Arguments for a younger age should be made on that basis, not simply on the fact that (1) It’s physically possible and (2) groups of people in other countries or temporal realities do it.
I’ve seen the AG of TX on TV saying that if a man at the compound is married to more than one woman that is a violation of state law.
As I understand it, since it is illegal to be married to more than one person, any subsequent marriages are invalid, and not recognized by any state. I believe case law where a person was issued more than one marriage license found that a marriage entered into by a person legally married to another person has no legal standing. Therefore it is statutorily impossible to be legally married to more than one person at a time, therefore the state cannot prosecute anyone for polygamy, since by definition it cannot occur. The only remedy the state would have would be to officially declare subsequent marriages void.
I’m tired of morally outraged politicians and bureaucrats persecuting Americans who don’t share their belief systems. While the public stance and the majority of the discussion of why the raid on the TX compound took place centers around child welfare, I think that was an excuse to go after people with a fringe lifestyle.
the tactics seem excessive,
On the face of it, they do seem excessive. But, after looking at pictures of the entire compound and realizing that the whole thing is 1700 square acres, I’m rather impressed that the initial raid happened without anyone firing a shot.
the justification for the raid iffy at best
That depends on your perspective. The information provided by the original caller (who, according to locals who have reviewed the tape pronounced “El Dorado” like a local (El doh-RAY-doh) instead of how most other Americans pronounce it (El doh-RAH-do)) provided enough evidence to trigger the raid (knowledge of the layout of the compound, the local area, etc.). Apparently, the Rangers who investigated found enough evidence after they arrived to not only set up shop, but to take the kids out of there.
I have seen other reports in which police do claim to have found evidence of girls on the compound being pregnant while as young as 13. So I guess we’ll have to wait and see how it all shakes out.
Correct. From what I’m hearing there’s a lot of other things that they can’t talk about yet either.
Should we allow parents to give consent for a child under 18 to marry, or to have sexual relations? If 18 is that state’s age of consent, I think I’d be inclined to argue that we shouldn’t.
That’s a difficult question to answer, for sure. I have to agree that the parents can’t over-rule the law, though.
Kevin - actually in most states two 14 yr olds having sex with each other would be against the law. Both would be violating the law.
I find it thoroughly disgusting whenever a particular religious group is chastised for indoctrinating their children with harmful ideas. It would be hard to identify another more blatant case of the pot calling the kettle black.
In Texas we have a small religious group whose lives are being utterly destroyed in the name of protecting children while a thousand miles away at the United nations we have the whole world honoring the current head of a huge religious group notorious for perpetrating the worst child sexual abuse scandal in modern history.
Chris and Kevin, parents must give permission for a 17-year-old to enlist. I suspect something similar happens for ROTC and service academies. Otherwise, I agree with everything you two said.
I’m about to take a little vacation, so I’m going to miss what already looks like an interesting discussion. Reasonable people, please don’t get dragged into the weeds by the anarchists on here.
the gov’t should not be involved in marriage whatsoever, except in cases where it is forced.
Jerri,
I guess I should have said “There is no evidence *so far*” since the fact the Texas authorities were involved could mean they are suspicious of a link. It’s also possible they are interested in quickly proving there is no link since it would seriously question the basis for the raid.
It just occurred to me, I suppose they have compared the hoaxter’s calls with the originals, I wonder what they found out, and why no one has mentioned it.
One thing’s for sure, we should not need this much media scrutiny to ensure we are getting all the facts.
the gov’t should not be involved in marriage whatsoever, except in cases where it is forced.
That’s one of the big questions in this case, j.d. Are these marriages considered “forced” or not?
“Kevin - actually in most states two 14 yr olds having sex with each other would be against the law. Both would be violating the law.”
This is a synopsis of consent laws in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#United_States
I am no expert, but the above link does not seem to support your claim. Of course, when you say “most” you may simply mean 26 States. I did not count, but it seems like most states have exceptions to consent laws when both participants are minors. It seems to become more confusing when you go below the age of 14 (good thing I got lucky and picked 14 in my example…)
For example (and I am admittedly cherry picking a bit here)
Minnesota: “If the victim is between the ages of 13 and 15 the actor must be no more than 48 months older.” (Bad use of the word victim there, IMO. And actor too….)
New Hampshire:”However a close in age exception exists where a person may “engage in sexual penetration” with a person 13 years old or older and younger than 16 if their age difference is less than 3 years.”
There are quite a few more similar examples. I would site more, but I am beginning to creep myself out (:
The only case I have heard where two minors of the same age got in legal trouble for having sex was when they filmed it and then one disseminated it as an adult. The charges were under child pornography laws, not consent laws.
One minor question.
We state that someone isn’t responsible enough to drink alcohol until they are 21.
We state that someone isn’t mature enough to vote until they are 18.
We state that someone isn’t responsible enough to drive until they are 16.
We state that someone isn’t mature or responsible enough to give thier consent to have sex until they are 14-17 (pick a State).
Why can they be tried as an adult as young as 10 years of age?
“That depends on your perspective. The information provided by the original caller (who, according to locals who have reviewed the tape pronounced “El Dorado” like a local (El doh-RAY-doh) instead of how most other Americans pronounce it (El doh-RAH-do)) provided enough evidence to trigger the raid (knowledge of the layout of the compound, the local area, etc.).”
Pokerwolf, that is extremely interesting to me. From what I’ve read, the women from the FLDS never interacted with the locals–and the men did so only rarely. The sect is from another state. I wouldn’t necessarily expect any of them to pronounce the name of the town the same way as the locals. Maybe they do, but this raises other possibilities about that call, in my mind.
For instance, I’ve looked at articles about this sect dating as far back as 2004. The community was not exactly welcoming. They were concerned that these people would register to vote! The local paper as been very purposely active in covering the FLDS travails in Arizona and Utah–especially the conviction of, I believe, Warren Jeffs–the one convicted of rape via forcing a 14 year old girl to marry a 19 year old.
I grew up part of the time in a small West Texas town not too far from San Angelo and El Dorado. If these people had asked me if it was advisable to settle near such a town in order to preserve their privacy, I would have said hell no–go to Lajitas or Study Butte in the Big Bend of Texas where people mind their own business. The towns in the area of the ranch are dominated by Southern Baptists and, sometimes, Church of Christ. They do not mind their own business when it comes to “lifestyle”. My parent were always joking that the people in our little town had to sneak off to Abilene to have a beer. I’m not sure that the high school, to this day, lets the students have dances.
It is evident to me that from reading the articles all the way from 2004 to now, that the townspeople wanted the FLDS out of there. Perhaps the caller came from their ranks–if not from the Colorado hoaxster.
Jerri,
That’s a very good point. When I read the comment about (El doh-RAY-doh), in my mind it either ruled out the hoaxster, or revealed her to be the Albert Einstein of hoaxters. It may have briefly crossed my mind that this could rule out the members of the compound too, but if I did have that fleeting thought, it escaped quickly. Cognitive dissonance strikes again…
What I find funny is that rather than call the ranch by what it is named (like Zion on Earth Ranch or something like that), the MSM has managed to get EVERYONE to call it the polygamous compound.
Everyone is okay with the government raiding a “compound”, but if they called it a ranch, or community, people wouldn’t be so cool with it.
I wonder which government official, or government official’s supporter is going to stand to profit when they either sieze the ranch, or it gets sold for cheap because they leave?
I know folks don’t like them, but come on, killing them off? That seems pretty harsh in a land that was founded by people who wanted freedom from religious persecution.
That’s why Michael Jackson has stayed out of jail. He will know he’s in real trouble when the authorities raid The Neverland Compound (:
Radley —
I posted my lengthy response at my blog:
http://skipoliva.com/?p=335
Everyone is okay with the government raiding a “compound”, but if they called it a ranch, or community, people wouldn’t be so cool with it.
Robert, it’s a “compound” because that’s the way it was treated. The FLDS men were in constant contact by cell phone and they monitored the movements of everyone on their land at all times. The Rangers had to take away driving privileges from the FLDS men because they were constantly trying to shuffle the women and children around to keep them away from the Rangers. I don’t know what kind of weapons and ammunition the FLDS men had, but they were definitely armed.
As I said earlier, considering the square area of land owned by the FLDS members, 1700 acres, how open it all is and how easily they could have set up resistance all over the place, I’m impressed that the Rangers locked the place down without a shot being fired.
I’m tired of morally outraged politicians and bureaucrats persecuting Americans who don’t share their belief systems. While the public stance and the majority of the discussion of why the raid on the TX compound took place centers around child welfare, I think that was an excuse to go after people with a fringe lifestyle.
Fringe lifestyle? I used to live in Cortez, CO, pretty close to Colorado City, where these yahoos used to live. My mother works as a local public health nurse, and every so often one of the escaped mothers would come by, lost and helpless. I personally heard a half-dozen stories of coercion, rape, brainwashing and exile (barren women are kicked out). I knew a young guy who was kicked out so they could keep the ridiculous gender ratios steady, who was planning on going back to bust out his girlfriend. To me, this is on the same level of refusing medical treatment for your children because you don’t want to interfere with God’s will. By the way, there’s a bunch of those kind of people around Cortez too: the Church of the Firstborn.
And talk about welfare parasites! Every one of these wives beyond the first is legally a single mother, and they sign them up for welfare, WIC, food stamps, and anything else they can get.
They bought some land outside Mancos, which is about 20 minutes from Cortez–I think that’s their backup when Texas falls through. I bet they get off–same raid thing happened in AZ and they pulled through.
well, at least the authorities learned one thing: how *not* to kill anyone when carrying out a raid. never forget waco. never.
Dallas Morning News Reports today (4/19) that the initial caller that tripped the raid was a 30 something woman from Colorado with a history of making false calls to various authorities.