The Polygamy case in TX-Defining what marriage means.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Since the OP made this statement:

Quote

I agree that the underage marriage is illegal but if we were dealing with adults should their definition of marriage be respected?

It's not clear to me why you think any points have been missed. He addressed this point right off the bat.

All I'm saying is, the only point this case deals with is under-age children marrying older men. There is no attempt to define marriage or anything else. That's all.


Chuck

[labrys 0]

Quote

All I'm saying is, the only point this case deals with is under-age children marrying older men. There is no attempt to define marriage or anything else. That's all.

Right. And what the OP did was ask what general opinion was about what consenting adults did outside of this case. It wasn't ambiguous at all.

Owned by Remi #?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

All I'm saying is, the only point this case deals with is under-age children marrying older men. There is no attempt to define marriage or anything else. That's all.

Right. And what the OP did was ask what general opinion was about what consenting adults did outside of this case. It wasn't ambiguous at all.

The OP implied that this case was about multiple marriages. As masterrig pointed out, this case has been about child abuse, not polygamy. It is not an attempt to define marriage, except to the extent that marriage is an institution between (or among, in the case of multiple marriages) adults.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Nightingale 0]

Honestly, I think the case is partially about polygamy.

If it wasn't about polygamy, the children from households in the community that had evidence of abuse would have been removed, but not the children from the house next door or the entire neighborhood. Because the families were all polygamist, CPS assumed they were all extremely closely associated enough to make one warrant good for the entire area, not just a few houses.

If it wasn't about polygamy, the news would be saying "Children removed from compound in Texas", not "Children removed from POLYGAMIST compound in Texas".

Even though the children weren't removed solely because they were in polygamist homes, saying that polygamy wasn't a factor is naive.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

If it wasn't about polygamy, the news would be saying "Children removed from compound in Texas", not "Children removed from POLYGAMIST compound in Texas".

That just means that the media is making it about polygamy. It doesn't mean that it actually is about polygamy.

There is confusion in this case about which children belong to which parents, but that still has nothing to do with polygamy. There are plenty of polygamous families who have no confusion about how they are related to each other, and who are not forcing their underage daughters to "marry" older men.

I think that this case is simply about potential child abuse, and nothing more. The media just likes to throw the "polygamist" slant in there to increase the drama of the story.

[Nightingale 0]

The media is making it about polygamy, which is influencing public opinion. Courts are influenced by public opinion, even if they're not supposed to be, and CPS is almost certainly taking it into account when looking at the big picture of the children's environment.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The media is making it about polygamy, which is influencing public opinion. Courts are influenced by public opinion, even if they're not supposed to be, and CPS is almost certainly taking it into account when looking at the big picture of the children's environment.

Yeah, I guess you're right about that.

It's really annoying me that the media is doing that. That type of "reporting" is wrongly perpetuating the idea that any type of relationship other than the "one man, one woman" thing is somehow harmful to the children they have.

[Nightingale 0]

I have no idea why people seem obsessed with pushing their own ideas of what makes a family onto others. If their definition of family is working for them, who are we to tell them it's wrong?

(child abuse excepted, of course)

[Darius11 12]

Just to clarify.


My question is about consenting adults and not about the specifics of this case.
I believe we all or most agree that child rape or adults having sex with children in any form should be illegal.

As mentioned in the original post: I was listening to a radio station (that leans to the right). They were mentioning how come you don’t hear an outrage from the liberal side to allow polygamy. The host was mentioning that if you support Gay marriage you should also be fighting for the rights of polygamy.

It was a good question. If marriage can be defined by consenting adults why would polygamy not qualify.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

A couple of things:

1) Marriage is a legal privilege conferred by state law. Consent to enter into marriage is not enough to constitute a marriage. In every state, I believe, there is the requirement for a license and a solemnization.

Thus, without a license of solemnization, you don't get a marriage.

2) This is done because legal marriage confers certain rights and presumptions under law. Thus, if the law does not consider it a "marriage" you don't get those rights or presumptions.

Conclusion - I believe that "marriage" should NOT be individually defined. Call it a "spiritual marriage" or "religious marriage." But don't call it a "marriage.'

p.s. I support conferring the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same sex couples. But that should be up to the state legislatures.

How about 'Common Law', or does that fall into your legal marriage description?

Here in Texas, if you cohabitate for a minimum of 6 months and or 'represent yourselves' to be married....you ARE!

...and I know of at least one case in which a common law couple legally divorced, complete with division of assets...property settlement, child support and split benefits to come from his 'retirement plan' for the time together.

Quite a surprise to him, he was hoping to trade for a newer model, without any penalty for early withdrawal...

He argued that his health insurance wouldn't cover her because of no marriage document from the court ,so he 'never considered' her to be his wife...

Judge didn't agree...

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As mentioned in the original post: I was listening to a radio station (that leans to the right). They were mentioning how come you don’t hear an outrage from the liberal side to allow polygamy. The host was mentioning that if you support Gay marriage you should also be fighting for the rights of polygamy.

No, just because you fight for viewpoint A, doesn't mean you also need to fight for similar rights B C and D. It may be hypocritical to fight against B while working for A.

If you can work out the legal issues for polygamy (code is all written for binary pairs), then yeah, there's no problem with it for consenting adults.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

It was a good question. If marriage can be defined by consenting adults why would polygamy not qualify.

I think it should. I don't think it's up to the government or an outside party to define someone else's marriage and family.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Honestly, I think the case is partially about polygamy.

If it wasn't about polygamy, the children from households in the community that had evidence of abuse would have been removed, but not the children from the house next door or the entire neighborhood. Because the families were all polygamist, CPS assumed they were all extremely closely associated enough to make one warrant good for the entire area, not just a few houses.

If it wasn't about polygamy, the news would be saying "Children removed from compound in Texas", not "Children removed from POLYGAMIST compound in Texas".

Even though the children weren't removed solely because they were in polygamist homes, saying that polygamy wasn't a factor is naive.

The whole mess started when, an anonymous phone call was made to authorities in Texas, in regard to child abuse and under-age marriages among the folks at the compound outside of Eldorado, Texas. Warrants were issued and the end result was, 437 children were removed. Some of the under-age girls are pregnant. CPS stepped-in and the children and their mothers were removed from the compound and put-up at state facilities. The residents of the compound refer to themselves as polygimists. That's how they refer to themselves so, that's what the press and everyone else calls them. Earlier today, the children were placed in better facilities and will remain there till all this is cleared-up. In the meantime, DNA samples have been taken from all the children and mothers to prove parentage. The odd thing about all this is, none of the men have appeared or been issued warrants or taken into custody. Seems odd. Also, the original phone call, supposedly from a 16-yr. old girl, was actually made by a 37-yr. old woman in Colorado, known to make anonymous phone calls. Here in Texas, when an accusation of child abuse is reported, CPS responds to the aid of the child or children involved.
The sole basis of the raid on the compound outside Eldorado, Texas was a response to child abuse... not polygamy or anything else.


Chuck

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Honestly, I think the case is partially about polygamy.

If it wasn't about polygamy, the children from households in the community that had evidence of abuse would have been removed, but not the children from the house next door or the entire neighborhood. Because the families were all polygamist, CPS assumed they were all extremely closely associated enough to make one warrant good for the entire area, not just a few houses.

If it wasn't about polygamy, the news would be saying "Children removed from compound in Texas", not "Children removed from POLYGAMIST compound in Texas".

Even though the children weren't removed solely because they were in polygamist homes, saying that polygamy wasn't a factor is naive.

I think the reason all the children were removed is that they were shuffled from house to house, so there was no way to reliably tell which kids were associated with which house.

To compound matters, the parents were not willing to step up and identify their own children, nor did the children identify their parents. I find it tragically humorous that those same parents are now complaining about how the state took their kids away from them. If they cared so much about their kids, why didn't they claim them as their own during the raid and possibly avoid much of the drama?

Polygamy or no, the state had little choice but to take all the kids, and the parents played a large role in that. Still, So far it appears that, at least as far as the judge is concerned, the polygamy is not the issue, the underage marriages and sexual abuse are. I think the media has just latched onto the polygamy aspect, because that is one of the characteristics by which the FLDS is known.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!