Here are several articles and some photo galleries featuring the YFZ ranch families:
Deseret News: FLDS are still Feeling Effects One Year Later
Salt Lake Tribune: Texas vs FLDS - A Year After the Raid
Go San Angelo: FLDS Members Use Faith to Cope with FLDS Raid
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I find it disturbing that there are still people out there that think the raid and mass round up of children was a good thing.
I was so ashamed that this could happen in America. I started following it purely as a civil rights matter but had never really considered whether it was right or wrong to outlaw polygamy.
Having studied it the past year I am now firmly in favor of decriminalization of the practice of plural marriage and have made it one of my political goals in life to work towards just that. People ought to be free to follow their religion without outside interference.
I still don't agree with anybody being married at the age of 16 (or younger) in this day and age whether it be a plural marriage or a monogamous marriage. Even if it is more of a betrothal than a consumated marriage it clouds the issue. There is no harm in waiting until 18 unless it is an unfortunate situation where a child will be born outside of the covenant of marriage (which is not really a problem among the FLDS). Outside groups will have less cause to interfere if people wait until the legally recognized age of adulthood.
I am glad for the FLDS that they have pledged to do just that.
I agree with you, Dale. I think that marriage should, ideally, be an adult decision (as should sex be). Sometimes teens surprise us by showing us how "adult" they want to be, whether they are really ready or not, and in those cases it is good that the legal right to marry is available to them (for monogamy). Still, while marriage may well work for some, it is not going to be the remedy for every teenager engaging in these activities.
I also agree with you about the raid. I hope the fact that the FLDS are now speaking out and that they have pledged to conform to marriage age laws will help them and the outside world come to an understanding that will allow the FLDS to peacefully co-exist while maintaining their faith and values.
Dale said:
I am glad for the FLDS that they have pledged to do just that.
I'm skeptical of their veracity on that pledge. They have pledged to stop living in polygamy before too (normally to get their leaders out of prison on parole) and immediately started living in polygamy again.
Mary:
I have no feelings one way or the other on polygamy per se - if the states want to legalize it, I don't have a problem with it. I do doubt the trustworthiness of the FLDS.
Thus far, they have shown nothing to indicate that they really intend to comply with the law.
My hope is that they will comply. If they do not, they will continue to suffer the repercussions of that choice.
I would encourage them to comply with the law until, if ever, it is legal to have polygamous marriages and / or underage marriages (meaning under 16).
Based on their extensive history, I just don't think that they will do it.
TXBlues, I know that about you.
I object to the criminalization of marital relationships. It is an interesting situation. In Utah, homosexual relationships are "solemnized" by Unitarian ministers; polygamous relationships are solemnized by various fundamentalist Mormon clergy. Such "commitment ceremonies" (be they homosexual or polygamous) are not considered legal and binding, nor do any of the participants consider them to be so, but they fall within the definition of a crime because it is against the law to "perform" a "void" marriage (and homosexual marriages are considered void).
Back in 2001, my friends and I lobbied a parental consent law that made it a felony for a parent to consent to his/her minor child marrying into a void marriage (i.e. polygamy, etc.); it also clarified the penalty for performing such marriages (the penalty did not change; it was a felony already, but the bill clarified the language so that the felony penalty was spelled out).
Our position at that time was to modify certain language in the bill that would infringe upon religious teachings or beliefs of parents, while still preserving the intent of the bill; we also lobbied to change the criminal penalty of performing void marriages for consenting adults.
We won a friendly amendment at that time, and got everything we asked for. The language we objected to re a parent's teaching of beliefs to children was removed, and the criminal penalty for performing void marriages for consenting adults was changed from a felony to a misdemeanor. It remained a felony for those void marriages that involved minors.
It is still against the law to perform "commitment ceremonies" or marriage ceremonies for "void marriages", but it is now a misdemeanor instead of a felony. That notwithstanding, Unitarian ministers pledged on that occasion that they would continue performing those ceremonies, and still do. So do our clergy perform plural marriage ceremonies. They are religious commitment ceremonies that are not legal and should not be criminal.
Where consenting adults choose to live together and create a family together with multiple partners, I believe it becomes a matter of civil disobedience. Yes, if it is criminally charged, it can mean criminal consequences. I don't think it should, I just know that it can.
TXBluesMan,
I don't expect consenting adults to follow the law against plural marriage and I hope they don't.
I do consider it to be a matter of civil disobedience to not follow an unjust law just as much as I consider disobedience to the old Jim Crow laws of the south to be a righteous thing.
I don't think that anybody cares about full legal recognition of their plural marriages. Decriminalization is what is desired so that fundamentalist Mormons can live their lives in peace from governmental intrusion.
It would also help to open up some of the more closed communities so that where there is REAL abuse and/or neglect of children or spouses it can be rooted out. People would be able to seek out help when it is needed instead of being afraid of the legal authorities.
Your love is the law. You sometimes come across as someone that thinks that rights are granted by the law and government. I have a very different view. Rights are granted by our creator and the purpose for the law and government is to protect our God given rights. When they fail to protect those rights then we have a duty to oppose the government and its laws.
Call me a traitor for these beliefs as you did Joseph Smith/Brigham Young/John Taylor if you must. It is a badge that I will wear with honor.
You know, it's the "polygamy" argument that keeps blurring the issues.
How do I know that some of the YFZ kids weren't labeled "abused" or "neglected" because CPS determined those kids to be part of polygamous families?
How much of the determination did "polygamy" play in the way CPS viewed those families and the environment in which the children were raised?
Obviously there were some kids who were labeled "at risk" because supposedly they were in "households" where there were pregnant teens or "married" teens. Good luck yanking kids out of homes with pregnant teens in them in the rest of society!
I don't feel very sympathetic toward Ms Brown and CASA, considering the many allegations by CPS that just were not true, such as the broken bone claim, and the assertion that CPS didn't know which children belonged to which mother (a claim she repeated again only a few days ago, and is as wrong today as it was when it was first circulated).
Add to that the refusal of TX to recognize legitimate legal documents such as driver's licenses, etc., so that they could claim there were dozens of pregnant teens when there were maybe a few, and what you have is a giant mess where CPS injured its own efforts to protect the few by largely misrepresenting and maligning the many.
Now, on the flipside, it doesn't help the FLDS cause to bring the wrong baby in for DNA testing (and it is proved to not belong to the assumed mother). It lends support to some of the arguments against them.
At the same time, I can see why the girl would not want to bring her baby; I'm sure she is terrified her child will be taken.
In Utah, several years ago, an LDS couple bolted with their son, Parker Jensen, after he was diagnosed with a virulent, life threatening form of cancer, and the parents elected to go against the diagnosing doctor's medical opinion (in favor of chemo). DCFS stepped in and took legal custody of the boy but the parents took off and went on the run instead. They were declared "kidnappers", and faced jail time as a consequence. Ultimately, the case collapsed, the public soured on the state's actions, and the family returned to Utah. The boy is apparently still healthy and the family plead out a deal to avoid jail time (and the state agreed to it, presumably, to put the matter to bed).
People do irrational things when they are threatened and when their children are threatened. I believe in cooperation and in working to come to a reasonable resolution, but I do understand a parent's intense defensive reaction to the powerful arm of the government threatening to take away his/her child.
Also, I do want to say that I do believe they will respect the marriage age laws as they committed to doing. I believe in taking people at their word.
People need to remember, too, that the actions of individuals do not necessarily represent the ideal or commitment/philosophy of the whole community.
Betty Jessop (Carolyn's daughter) will be on the Oprah show. I met Betty last year and was impressed with how spunky, bright and genuinely happy she was. Truly, you know when someone is genuinely happy, and this woman is. There is this blurb on the Oprah website about Betty: "Betty says she rejoined FLDS because she wanted to return to her old life, family and religion. "There was nothing that I wanted more than that," she says. "I did whatever it took to get back."
Though Carolyn said she wanted to protect Betty from an early marriage, Betty says that wasn't always her mother's story. "After she left, she sat there and told us because she didn't want to live there anymore and she wanted something different," Betty says.
Betty says she never heard talk that she might be married at 14, and she says she doesn't know anyone who was forced to marry at a young age. Betty says she thinks 18 is a more appropriate age for marriage. "When they can accept that responsibility," she says."
Mary,
Like I've said before, you are going about things the right way, by trying to change the law.
You do realize that y'all will get your test case out of this? One of the men indicted is charged only with Bigamy, and not with a minor.
Dale,
You misunderstand my position. The people have the right to establish the law for the governance of their society. Individuals do not have the right to ignore what laws they don't like, that the rest of the people have implemented.
Unless you plan on taking up arms against the United States, as did Smith, Young, and Taylor, you would not be a traitor, nor would I call you one. They did commit the one offense that is defined in the Constitution, and I have no tolerance for traitors. A difference of opinion, civil disobedience, violation of civil or criminal law do not rise to that level of an offense. That is one of the reasons that treason is still a capital offense.
Post a Comment