NationStates Jolt Archive

In addition to stripping them of their children, the state of Texas announced it fully intended to charge the mothers of the 416 children in the case with a bigamy for the high crime of being polygamists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24186718/

"Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott hinted Thursday at possible bigamy prosecutions of wives and mothers from a West Texas polygamist commune."


This would certainly turn the whole case into religious persecution.

Well, it's against the law. And if it turns out that those children were in an abusive situation (which it certainly sounds like they were) I have no problem with the conduct of the state.

If you have a problem with the law itself, that's a different story, but most of the media attention has been about the conduct of the police.

In addition to stripping them of their children, the state of Texas announced it fully intended to charge the mothers of the 416 children in the case with a bigamy for the high crime of being polygamists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24186718/

"Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott hinted Thursday at possible bigamy prosecutions of wives and mothers from a West Texas polygamist commune."


This would certainly turn the whole case into religious persecution.

No it would turn the whole case into something it always was...a legal issue. Polygamy is against the law in many countries, and though personally I feel the law should be looked at and maybe scrapped, it is still currently illegal in the state of Texas.

No religious persecution, just laws being reinforced.

Bigamy carries its own punishment: two mothers-in-law.

How is it bigamy if they don't have dual Texas marriage licenses? If someone has a marriage in one state, never gets divorced, and then get married again to someone else in another state (or the same state under false pretenses), that THAT is bigamy. Two marriages. But if there are no state licenses to get married, then the state doesn't recognize their marriages and they aren't married to anyone, how then can it be bigamy?

Is it against the law to have too many sexual partners simultaneously in Texas or to intentionally have children out of wedlock?

Last question, how are the wives guilty of bigamy if they only have one husband? It's the husbands who might be guilty of bigamy, not the wives.

In addition to stripping them of their children, the state of Texas announced it fully intended to charge the mothers of the 416 children in the case with a bigamy for the high crime of being polygamists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24186718/

"Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott hinted Thursday at possible bigamy prosecutions of wives and mothers from a West Texas polygamist commune."


This would certainly turn the whole case into religious persecution.

In what way? Polygamy has been against the law for a long time. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't change its legality. Calling it religious persecution is like calling prosecution of prostitutes career persecution.

I hope at least this compound was entirely self-sufficient and not receiving any government aid. One of the ways polygamy hurts the system is when a man legally marries one wife and spiritually "marries" several other women, who then have children and file for welfare.

uh

i thought that only the person who has more than one spouse was guilty of bigamy

and that if its not a legal marriage (one made through the state) that it cant be bigamy. "spiritual marriage" doesnt count as being married does it?

I'm still waiting for Janet Reno to show up with some tanks...

How is it bigamy if they don't have dual Texas marriage licenses? If someone has a marriage in one state, never gets divorced, and then get married again to someone else in another state (or the same state under false pretenses), that THAT is bigamy. Two marriages. But if there are no state licenses to get married, then the state doesn't recognize their marriages and they aren't married to anyone, how then can it be bigamy?

Is it against the law to have too many sexual partners simultaneously in Texas or to intentionally have children out of wedlock?

Last question, how are the wives guilty of bigamy if they only have one husband? It's the husbands who might be guilty of bigamy, not the wives.

you don't need a state license to be considered married, common law marriage is legal in Texas, if you present yourself as married seriously you are considered common law married and even though you don't have a marriage license you must get a real life court divorce if you want to split.

I had an uncle who was common law married to a woman (filed married taxes and everything even though they didn't have a license) and they split, a few years later he got legally (with a license) married to another woman, his first "wife" sued him for divorce and he was charged with bigamy.

Ahahahaha, so they want to get rid of the no-fault divorce while having an automatic marriage?!
This is grand.

Ahahahaha, so they want to get rid of the no-fault divorce while having an automatic marriage?!
This is grand.

it's not an automatic marriage, it's an informal marriage

Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations." Black's Law Dictionary 277 (6th ed. 1990).

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm

it's not an automatic marriage, it's an informal marriage

Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations." Black's Law Dictionary 277 (6th ed. 1990).

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm

I have troubles understanding law text grammar in german, I am lost at this one.
So does that mean when I 'act' as if I were married... then some when, some one can claim I truly am legally bindingly married even if I never had any official marriage?

it's not an automatic marriage, it's an informal marriage

Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations." Black's Law Dictionary 277 (6th ed. 1990).

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm

The bolded aspect doesn't seem to apply to this situation, though.

I have troubles understanding law text grammar in german, I am lost at this one.
So does that mean when I 'act' as if I were married... then some when, some one can claim I truly am legally bindingly married even if I never had any official marriage?

It's possible. Not all countries (or states) have common-law marriage laws, and the ones that do vary considerably. Check your local jurisdiction.

I have troubles understanding law text grammar in german, I am lost at this one.
So does that mean when I 'act' as if I were married... then some when, some one can claim I truly am legally bindingly married even if I never had any official marriage?
basically if you present yourselves as husband and wife and have the same expectations of your "spouse" as you would if you were really married, you can be considered legally married under common law. Usually if you fill out any paperwork (like medical forms or tax forms) claiming to be married (like signing as someone's spouse or filing taxes married) then you are considered to be common law married, and if you decide to part ways you have to go to court and get a divorce just like if you had a state license to get married.

The bolded aspect doesn't seem to apply to this situation, though.

polygamy is still illegal, we are dealing with two different issues

1 it's illegal to be married to more than one person (polygamy)
2 it's illegal to get married if you are already married (bigamy)

they sound the same, but I'm having trouble communicating today.

I have troubles understanding law text grammar in german, I am lost at this one.
So does that mean when I 'act' as if I were married... then some when, some one can claim I truly am legally bindingly married even if I never had any official marriage?

yup

there was a famous case of a US movie star whose ex-girlfriend sued him for a divorce settlement because they had spent ONE NIGHT in a motel/hotel/inn in a southern state and had registered as husband and wife.

laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

That's a quite odd concept, but ok, I think I got it.

In addition to stripping them of their children, the state of Texas announced it fully intended to charge the mothers of the 416 children in the case with a bigamy for the high crime of being polygamists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24186718/

"Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott hinted Thursday at possible bigamy prosecutions of wives and mothers from a West Texas polygamist commune."


This would certainly turn the whole case into religious persecution.

Bollocks. They broke the law, they face the charges.
Should murder be suddenly be legal when performed in a ritual way?

Bollocks. They broke te law, they face the charges.
Should murder be suddenly be legal when performed in a ritual way?

This gives me an idea for a new religion.

This gives me an idea for a new religion.

New? It's been done before, hon ;)

New? It's been done before, hon ;)

Drat. But I have so many ritualistic ideas! Only like half of them involve knives of various lengths and sharpness!

Bollocks. They broke the law, they face the charges.
Should murder be suddenly be legal when performed in a ritual way?

It's a stupid law.

It's a stupid law.

its a good time to challenge it then.

It's a stupid law.

Definitely. But so far, it's a law. And considering that gay marriage still isn't legal in much of the US, what chances do you think polygamy will have right about now to become legal?

Definitely. But so far, it's a law. And considering that gay marriage still isn't legal in much of the US, what chances do you think polygamy will have right about now to become legal?

Pretty well none.

No it would turn the whole case into something it always was...a legal issue. Polygamy is against the law in many countries, and though personally I feel the law should be looked at and maybe scrapped, it is still currently illegal in the state of Texas.

No religious persecution, just laws being reinforced.

The reason it becomes religious persecution is that while they are enforcing a law. The law being enforced is based entirely off of one group's interpretation of the Bible. At least in the US it is. Hence, American laws against polygamy would be unconstitutional. First amendment takes precedence over any one's right to enforce religious morality rules.

The reason it becomes religious persecution is that while they are enforcing a law. The law being enforced is based entirely off of one group's interpretation of the Bible. At least in the US it is. Hence, American laws against polygamy would be unconstitutional. First amendment takes precedence over any one's right to enforce religious morality rules.

:confused:

uh

i thought that only the person who has more than one spouse was guilty of bigamy

and that if its not a legal marriage (one made through the state) that it cant be bigamy. "spiritual marriage" doesnt count as being married does it?

it doesn't.

it doesn't.

sucks to be them but it will be interesting to see how they go about prosecuting the women instead of the men.

In what way? Polygamy has been against the law for a long time. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't change its legality. Calling it religious persecution is like calling prosecution of prostitutes career persecution.

I hope at least this compound was entirely self-sufficient and not receiving any government aid. One of the ways polygamy hurts the system is when a man legally marries one wife and spiritually "marries" several other women, who then have children and file for welfare.

Prosecution of prostitutes, in many instances, does amount to religious persecution. Because in many localities the reason it is illegal is because it is veiwed as a threat to public morality based off of local church teachings. In most of the laws banning prostitution will you not find any references to public health, instead you will find references to morality, public decency (always based on religion) and, (in a lot of communities if not all) a reference to the Bible.

They had several big corporations they ran. At least one had millions of dollars worth of US government contracts. I don't understand how it is that with all the money they were making, any of their people would need to be on welfare or any other assistance program. Even the schools in the original communities in Arizona were private until the state seized control because they were teaching that polygamy was ok and the state took strong offense to it becaues it contradicted state political doctrine.

you don't need a state license to be considered married, common law marriage is legal in Texas, if you present yourself as married seriously you are considered common law married and even though you don't have a marriage license you must get a real life court divorce if you want to split.

I had an uncle who was common law married to a woman (filed married taxes and everything even though they didn't have a license) and they split, a few years later he got legally (with a license) married to another woman, his first "wife" sued him for divorce and he was charged with bigamy.

You know what, that's a very good answer. Thank you. I understand the charge now.

I think it's a relatively useless charge.

HOWEVER, I am glad that their kids were removed from them, I do not believe it is at all fair to innocent children to be raised as sex slaves and indoctrinated by a fundamentalist cult.

The reason it becomes religious persecution is that while they are enforcing a law. The law being enforced is based entirely off of one group's interpretation of the Bible. At least in the US it is. Hence, American laws against polygamy would be unconstitutional. First amendment takes precedence over any one's right to enforce religious morality rules.

Your opinion.

However polygamy is not only illegal in the US, but Western Europe, China, Mongolia, Hong Kong. So the Bible has nothing to do with all of this.

If you want a case where Polygamy is reliant on religion look at India where Muslim men are allowed multiple wives while people of other faiths are not.

They had several big corporations they ran. At least one had millions of dollars worth of US government contracts. I don't understand how it is that with all the money they were making, any of their people would need to be on welfare or any other assistance program. Even the schools in the original communities in Arizona were private until the state seized control because they were teaching that polygamy was ok and the state took strong offense to it becaues it contradicted state political doctrine.

its not a matter of need, its a matter of squeezing as much money out of the government as legally possible

common law marriage is one the worst inventions of modern society.

Just as with gay marriage, polygamous marriages should be legal. Especially if you can prove that your polygamous family is entirely self supporting.

The reasons given for banning either polygamy or gay marriage is that both are morally offensive to people's sense of christian virtues.

Excuse me, but the US is based off of seperation of church and state and laws like those that dictate who you can and can't marry breach that wall of seperation.

Yes the antipolygamy laws have been on the books for awhile. After all, they were passed by the exact same people who said that blacks were not human beings and hence property. And the same exact people who passed laws banning women from going to school or owning property. Mind you, all these laws were passed not in Europe, not Asia, not in the middle east, but right here in the US of A.

It would be huge leap for civil rights to abolish the last two laws that deny equal protection of the law to all of America's citizens.

Plus, you don't have to be reliant on state assistance in order for polygamy to work. You just make sure that all the spouses, both men and women, have jobs and that they contribute to the family coffers. Polygamous families have the potential to be economic powerhouses if done right. Especially if you only marry women who with high intelligences because they make the most money and can hence contribute the most. Of course the man has to be highly intelligent too becuase no chick wants to be marry a dumb a**. LOL

The other benefit of polygamy versus monogamy is that monogamy only works if you are pretty well off. Most low income single parents are struggling because they have no one to help them.
In the polygamous household, if a woman needs a break or help, she has other people in the family that will help her. The other women will help her. So there are more extensive support networks in polygamous communities than there are in monogamous communities.

The other benefit of legalizing polygamy, is that it makes it a lot easier to get eliminate from the rolls, those women who are in polygamous relationships cause then you can limit welfare to only one adult recipient per family.

But it would also mean less people having to get on welfare becuase they have privately funded support networks to turn to. That's something that women in monogamous relationships do not have.

Your opinion.

However polygamy is not only illegal in the US, but Western Europe, China, Mongolia, Hong Kong. So the Bible has nothing to do with all of this.

If you want a case where Polygamy is reliant on religion look at India where Muslim men are allowed multiple wives while people of other faiths are not.

Except that US laws are not based off of laws in other countries. They were made locally for locally reasons, often with the intent to enforce Biblical morality.

its not a matter of need, its a matter of squeezing as much money out of the government as legally possible

But even then, the welfare code is already in such a way that it is already illegal to file more than a certain number of applications.
If they are doing fraud prosecutions because the man fathered multiple children then they should go after unmarried men too. Afterall, most men have more than one child with more than one woman.
The only difference between the single men and the polygamous men is that the polygamous men actually try to support their kids instead of running to another state or country to avoid being responsible for their actions.

uh

i thought that only the person who has more than one spouse was guilty of bigamy

and that if its not a legal marriage (one made through the state) that it cant be bigamy. "spiritual marriage" doesnt count as being married does it?

Always on top of it as usual Ashmoria. This is absolutely correct. They can't be charged with bigamy. If that were the case then one could charge half the foreign born Muslim men. Reason being is that they typically have another wife in their home country including the one in the US. Some have more. I can get married to more than one wife in Morocco by law. Not that I would want that headache. However it doesn't carry over to the US. So I wouldn't be breaking any US laws.

Always on top of it as usual Ashmoria. This is absolutely correct. They can't be charged with bigamy. If that were the case then one could charge half the foreign born Muslim men. Reason being is that they typically have another wife in their home country including the one in the US. Some have more. I can get married to more than one wife in Morocco by law. Not that I would want that headache. However it doesn't carry over to the US. So I wouldn't be breaking any US laws.

How would that work? Does the us only recognize one as your wife? How does the US government decide which of your wives to recognize?

How would that work? Does the us only recognize one as your wife? How does the US government decide which of your wives to recognize?

You can only marry one woman in the US legally. Which I have. Simple as that. Truly it is just the act of filing multiple paperwork for marriage license without legal divorce that brings you into conflict with the polygamy laws. There is no law sleeping with as many different partners and getting them pregnant. If they happen to live in the same huge house then so what. Who are the rest of us to cast judgement? As long as no laws are broken I don't see where the problem lies.

You can only marry one woman in the US legally. Which I have. Simple as that. Truly it is just the act of filing multiple paperwork for marriage license without legal divorce that brings you into conflict with the polygamy laws. There is no law sleeping with as many different partners and getting them pregnant. If they happen to live in the same huge house then so what. Who are the rest of us to cast judgement? As long as no laws are broken I don't see where the problem lies.

and since they never leave the compound they arent out in the world passing off women as their "real" wives. not that im sure that its possible to commit common law bigamy. its one thing to have a common law wife and fail to divorce her to marry another woman and, i think, another thing to fail to divorce your state-sanctioned wife and live with your girlfriend as if she were your legal wife.

and since they never leave the compound they arent out in the world passing off women as their "real" wives. not that im sure that its possible to commit common law bigamy. its one thing to have a common law wife and fail to divorce her to marry another woman and, i think, another thing to fail to divorce your state-sanctioned wife and live with your girlfriend as if she were your legal wife.

I don't even think common law bigamy could be a case. In the end I think the majority of the people in this compound will not be charged with anything. Most of this will be thrown out of court. The kids will be returned to their mothers hopefully. I am glad that this wasn't a repeat of Waco.

The reason it becomes religious persecution is that while they are enforcing a law. The law being enforced is based entirely off of one group's interpretation of the Bible. At least in the US it is. Hence, American laws against polygamy would be unconstitutional. First amendment takes precedence over any one's right to enforce religious morality rules.

:confused:

So USoA are you going to try explaining the bolded?

In addition to stripping them of their children, the state of Texas announced it fully intended to charge the mothers of the 416 children in the case with a bigamy for the high crime of being polygamists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24186718/

"Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott hinted Thursday at possible bigamy prosecutions of wives and mothers from a West Texas polygamist commune."


This would certainly turn the whole case into religious persecution.

Personally I do not think there should be a charge for bigamy ... at all for them or anyone else.

I have no problems with removing the children from their custody or the charges of those who took advantage of underage kids or child endangerment on the part of the mothers

Though I am not sure this is "religious persecution" so much as crappy moral policing on the part of the charges of bigamy

Polygamy is fine as long as it's consensual. Any consensual romantic relations have to be allowed, even if we don't like them.

Freedom means people can do what you don't like. End of story.

I've been using the term religious persecution in this instance and with child welfare case because the vast majority of Texans are deeply religious and invoke God in everything they do.
Not all Texans are like this, but a lot of them are. Just like not all Americans are christian fundamentalists but a lot of Americans are. Unfortunately, the fundies have more control over the laws of America than the nonfundies. Witness the administration of fundamentalist Christian George W Bush.
He believed that a war in the middle east would cause God to return and "smite the heathen". Unfortunately it has not worked out that way. Either that, or God has decided he does not support Bush's policies.
Looks like the latter.

In addition to stripping them of their children, the state of Texas announced it fully intended to charge the mothers of the 416 children in the case with a bigamy for the high crime of being polygamists.

If bigamy is illegal in Texas, I don't see how the state prosecutors could avoid charging them for that.
DVRA LEX, SED LEX.

In addition to stripping them of their children, the state of Texas announced it fully intended to charge the mothers of the 416 children in the case with a bigamy for the high crime of being polygamists.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24186718/

"Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott hinted Thursday at possible bigamy prosecutions of wives and mothers from a West Texas polygamist commune."


This would certainly turn the whole case into religious persecution.

There's a fine line between something being religious persecution and allowing people to wantonly break the law of the country they're living in, which is why I agree with this one:

Well, it's against the law. And if it turns out that those children were in an abusive situation (which it certainly sounds like they were) I have no problem with the conduct of the state.

.....though since no-one's actually ever been through those gates before now we don't actually know what's been going on exactly......it's a tricky one!

If you have a problem with the law itself, that's a different story, but most of the media attention has been about the conduct of the police.

Mmmmmm police can be insensitive!:mad:

Bigamy carries its own punishment: two mothers-in-law.
That's just funny!:D

basically if you present yourselves as husband and wife and have the same expectations of your "spouse" as you would if you were really married, you can be considered legally married under common law. Usually if you fill out any paperwork (like medical forms or tax forms) claiming to be married (like signing as someone's spouse or filing taxes married) then you are considered to be common law married, and if you decide to part ways you have to go to court and get a divorce just like if you had a state license to get married.

I think I've heard of something like that being instituted in the UK a few years ago......I think that it is a bit harsh in some ways cos it means that people who may not be ready for marriage may get forced into being legally so....I don't really agree with people living together before marriage as it goes against my religious views, but I do think that the freedom to choose is important, and people may end up in sticky situations without any of it being their fault!

it may be big a me, but its damd small of governments poking their noses into the private lives of individuals where government's noses have no bussiness being.

does anyone who isn't a total loonie run anything in texas?

shouldn't they be next in line for regeme chainge?

certainly sounds like a terrorist axis of evil state to me.

=^^=
.../\...

This would certainly turn the whole case into religious persecution.Yes it would, just like charging an Aztec who sacrifices someone to Quetzalcoatl with murder is heinous repression by the state.

why the hell is this even about bigamy?

I would think the more important topic is these people having sexual relations with minors.

why the hell is this even about bigamy?

I would think the more important topic is these people having sexual relations with minors.

Yep, however the "authorities" are going to throw out whatever charge they think will stick.

This would certainly turn the whole case into religious persecution.

Let me know when I can sacrifice your still beating heart to Kali while I carve it out of you with a hooked knife.

What's that? I can't? Help! Help! I'm being religiously oppressed!

Let me know when I can sacrifice your still beating heart to Kali while I carve it out of you with a hooked knife.

What's that? I can't? Help! Help! I'm being religiously oppressed!

and the reason you keep insisting that polygamy equals murder/rape, is??????

No one is harmed in voluntary polygamous marriages which is what the FLDS is teaching.

The state is require to bend over backward for the group's religion if the religion does not involve forced violence.

The SCOTUS has already held that this how the first amendment is to be interpreted.

There's a fine line between something being religious persecution and allowing people to wantonly break the law of the country they're living in, which is why I agree with this one:



Mmmmmm police can be insensitive!:mad:


That's just funny!:D



I think I've heard of something like that being instituted in the UK a few years ago......I think that it is a bit harsh in some ways cos it means that people who may not be ready for marriage may get forced into being legally so....I don't really agree with people living together before marriage as it goes against my religious views, but I do think that the freedom to choose is important, and people may end up in sticky situations without any of it being their fault!
unlike other countries, the first amendment requires the US federal and state governments to accomodate people's religious beliefs in a reasonable manner. The issue here is that the state of Texas is saying they don't have to. Texas is clearly on a collision course with the SCOTUS.

unlike other countries, the first amendment requires the US federal and state governments to accomodate people's religious beliefs in a reasonable manner. The issue here is that the state of Texas is saying they don't have to. Texas is clearly on a collision course with the SCOTUS.

It would be, if SCOTUS didn't already rule that laws restricting polygamy were constitutional. Reynolds v. United States.

and the reason you keep insisting that polygamy equals murder/rape, is??????

For the same reason you insist law-breaking = ok if for religious reasons. All or nothing. You don't get to pick and choose.


No one is harmed in voluntary polygamous marriages which is what the FLDS is teaching.


Hah! Voluntary in the sense of indoctrination from the very beginning? How do you know it's not as voluntary as North Korean's god worship of Kim Jung il?


The state is require to bend over backward for the group's religion if the religion does not involve forced violence.

Does not involved forced violence? Like the child raping bishops who were spirited away before the law could get them?

You're actually a pedophile aren't you?


The SCOTUS has already held that this how the first amendment is to be interpreted.

The SCOTUS has also ruled that laws against polygamy are constitutional. Guess what? The FLDS is breaking the law. So clearly they have to be rounded up.

But hey, they don't have to be. The day I'm allowed to rip your internal organs out for ritual sacrifice that is.

For the same reason you insist law-breaking = ok if for religious reasons. All or nothing. You don't get to pick and choose.



Hah! Voluntary in the sense of indoctrination from the very beginning? How do you know it's not as voluntary as North Korean's god worship of Kim Jung il?



Does not involved forced violence? Like the child raping bishops who were spirited away before the law could get them?

You're actually a pedophile aren't you?



The SCOTUS has also ruled that laws against polygamy are constitutional. Guess what? The FLDS is breaking the law. So clearly they have to be rounded up.

But hey, they don't have to be. The day I'm allowed to rip your internal organs out for ritual sacrifice that is.

Except that in the US of A society does get to pick and choose. People are granted exemptions for religious purposes if thier beliefs are sincere.
See the law requiring employers and public agencies to accomodate the religious beliefs of their customers and employees. See the law that says that prisons must accomodate the beliefs and practices of their inmates as reasonably possible.

they are considered married in the state of Texas because of common law marriage. which in Texas makes you legally married if you live with someone and your publicly proclaim that your married (which the spiritual weddings fulfilled.)

now a days marriage laws have less to do with the bible and more to do with limiting legal benefits that one receives with marriage.

No one is harmed in voluntary polygamous marriages which is what the FLDS is teaching.


Except people (particularly young women) are being harmed. See the following:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy403.html

http://www.glamour.com/news/articles/2007/06/polygamy

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/16/polygamy.escapes/index.html

Enough testimony? Or are they all evil harlots, determined to bring down a perfectly legal and moral cult?

they are considered married in the state of Texas because of common law marriage. which in Texas makes you legally married if you live with someone and your publicly proclaim that your married (which the spiritual weddings fulfilled.)

now a days marriage laws have less to do with the bible and more to do with limiting legal benefits that one receives with marriage.

even then, we don't know they went out and publicly proclaimed themselves.

They did keep to themselves and no one ever visited. It would be like me, moving in with my girlfriend and then telling my family we are married. But not telling the state or anyone else. It's common law marriage if you tell the state you are married and then act married. Cohabitation should not be considered the same as marriage.

even then, we don't know they went out and publicly proclaimed themselves.

They did keep to themselves and no one ever visited. It would be like me, moving in with my girlfriend and then telling my family we are married. But not telling the state or anyone else. It's common law marriage if you tell the state you are married and then act married. Cohabitation should not be considered the same as marriage.

the spiritual marriage ceremony is the public declaration you don't have to declare it to the state you declare it to the community in this case the community of polygamist. the whole point of common law marriage is that those who are poor and live in remote areas to be able to get marriage license via normal means. if your in an area where you live 2 hours away from the county clerk you got to drive down there get the paper work, then go to a doctor get your blood test ETC... go home wait for the results of the medical test then go apply for a marriage license go home wait for the license to get married to be mailed to you, then go back to the county clerk and get married.

Except that in the US of A society does get to pick and choose. People are granted exemptions for religious purposes if thier beliefs are sincere.


Like where hmm?


See the law requiring employers and public agencies to accomodate the religious beliefs of their customers and employees. See the law that says that prisons must accomodate the beliefs and practices of their inmates as reasonably possible.

And I'm sure you'll show us these laws. Which you most likely won't, because then we'd find out what they really mean and that wouldn't do any good for your platform now would it?

it's not an automatic marriage, it's an informal marriage

Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations." Black's Law Dictionary 277 (6th ed. 1990).

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm

If this is the case, then the women in the compound were not, in fact, married under common law to their "spiritual husbands".

"a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others" does not describe what happened there.