Comments about ‘Texas makes deal with FLDS couple’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, May 27 2008 3:40 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Reality

Hmmm... Testifying 12 year old sisters married to your "perfect prophet" and living in the same residence are a bit scary, huh?

So much for "No proof! Send the kids home!"

Dagwe

This case will end in the US Supreme Court asking for that court ruling on freedom of religion.

realitycheck

wow - Dan Jessop really didn't want his 13 yr old sister to testify that she is married to Warren Jeffs. Guess he finally figured out that if he'll let his sister marry at 12 then he's not as good a parent as he suggests.

Thomas

Reality you are unreal. This is grounds for an investigation. It presents no grounds for the standard of eminent danger of abuse. It does not justify the legalized kidnapping of over 400 children.

Deal?

A "deal" from any Government is a "no deal".

One of the biggest lies - "I'm from the Government & I'm here to help you!"

Finally

I agree with "realitycheck"--Dan Jessop must have really been scared of the potential testimony in order to make a deal with CPS about anything. This thing is looking more and more like a mafia ring rather than a religion...I think the truth will begin to come out little by little and this image that the FLDS would have us believe--that they're just law abiding citizens exercising their religion, will be seen for what it is--hogwash.

watch your government

When one persons rights are denied, everyone's rights are endangered.

Justthefactsmaam

My a) above, of course, is referring to the credibility of the 'so-called parade of witnesses.'

If that parade was worth a plug nickel, wild horses wouldn't have kept Texas CPS from NOT CAVING and NOT handing those kids over to the mother. Instead, they would have GLEEFULLY gone into court and put on their PARADE.

Only an idiot thinks they have won when they have LOST their primary objective; full control of the children and a MASSIVE LOST of the degree of previous control that they had previously exerted.

What MOTIVATION could have caused Texas CPS to ACCEPT SO MUCH LESS than what they already had IF they had such a great 'parade of witnesses.'

Only logical answer is that they were afraid the parade of witnesses would BLOW UP IN THEIR FACES just like everything else has for them in this fiasco.

What?

Dan jessop is one step closer to getting his family back. Not the other way around.

If CPS had a real case, you think they would have allowed the children to go to Mom? No way.

CPS in Texas is losing their shirts, skirts and anything else the wind has blown up.

SLIPPERY-SLOPE

==

TO AVOID THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT IS TO AVOID CIVIL LIBERTIES ARGUMENTS

QUOTE: Glen Lavy says that the California Supreme Court?s legal reasoning could be applied to polygamous marriages and [FLDS] POLYGAMIST CUSTODY CASES. [A week earlier, I used the same reasoning AGAINST the Texas CPS arguments: the polygamist childrens slippery slope argument.] QUOTE LOS ANGELES TIMES with my comment added.

==

Interesting

I find it fascinating that very little of this makes its way to the major Texas papers, such as the Houston Chronicle. People in utah seem to be much more concerned with the day to day events unfolding in this case. And just reading the comments here, it appears that many Utahns have already made up their minds that the FLDS is in the right--not all but certainly quite a few. HMMMMM Maybe Utah needs to finally cut itself loose from polygamy and the culture that it breeds. I am not LDS, but if you honestly believe God doesn't condone polygamy anymore, stop defending it and stop defending its results. And yes--kicking out boys and marrying young girls off to older men ARE results of a culture of polygamy. At least Texas has the guts to stand up to this.

Re: watch your government

"When one persons rights are denied, everyone's rights are endangered."

Tell that to the FLDS children, hypocrit!

JFH

Hey, watch your government: When one person's children are abused while the government looks the other way, it puts all our children at risk. I guess we should just all shrug our shoulders and say it's OK in the name of freedome of religion.

re: Thomas

Thanks, good comment!

The Rock

This is a very difficult case.
My great grandfather had 3 wives (but only two mother-in-laws as he married sisters) and went on a mission to the southern states to avoid prosecution on polygamy charges. One of his companions was Heber J. Grant.

The US Supreme court ruled that we have the right to believe what we want, just not practice polygamy.

The first amendment reads; "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

So much for the free exercise part.

Forced marriages; however, do not constitute free exercise of religion.

We have seen laws changed (changing the marriage age from 14 to 16) an apparent hoax phone call that started the whole thing, a mass kidnapping of over 450 children just because they thought some kids were being abused and there was a suspected religious theme.

Oh well, I am pleased I am not dealing with this...

Anonymous

the thing is that there is no proof that all or even any of the children have been abused at this point. It kind of is like if your neighbor down the street abused his kids the state came and took all of the kids from the neighborhood because they must be abused too.

just wondering

How much is all this costing the taxpayers?

VA gal

I have to agree with Justthefactsmaam. If CPS had anything on this couple they would have kept the two kids. They would not have bent one inch.

As far as it being his little sister that married Warren Jeffs, being related to idiots or criminals does not make you one. If Warren Jeffs is the nightmare that he is made out to be then there is very little this man could have done to prevent his sister from marrying Jeffs. So not much of an argument there.

We don't take the children away from the mom if the dad is charged with child abuse of children outside his own. So I don't see how Warren Jeff's marriage has anything to do with this baby. I know many disagree but that is my opinion and I don't live in Utah and am not FLDS.

Sam Hampton

I agree that the state of Texas must involve itself if the FLDS are indeed violating the state's laws against marriage (and sexual relations with) 14 y/o girls. That said, it is quite alarming that any government can trample all over citizens' due process rights, which the FLDS case involved--it calls into question the legitimacy of state action. In addition, I do not agree that the state has any right to interfere in the contractual/marital arrangements amongs consenting adults unless they can prove that the state has a compelling interest--for example, it might be proven that incestuous relationships can promulgate genetic problems. I don't even agree that the state should license marriages at all, lest the state interfere in private relationships, with the family, etc.

Anonymous

The fact is that CPS should be verifying abuse and then taking the children, not the other way around. You don't pull all the children and place them in foster care and then figure out whose in harm's way. To me, this article just supports that not all 450(?) kids were/are/will be abused.

I'm sure the Texas Supreme Court will find similar cause and support the Appeals Court.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments