Comments about ‘FLDS cases may help end polygamy ban’

There needs to be a Ban on Polygamy, just because of what you see from the FLDS. Also you would have to allow it both ways. Like just about everything else the people who are going to do it, are going to do it anyway. Except where Sex with underage girls are concerned and arranged perhaps forced underage marriages, that are in reality nothing more then rape. I do not have much against consenting adults doing anything they want, short of Abortion, which is Murder. The key words being Consenting and Adults.

If legal Polygamy is ever allowed it would bring up many issues of health care, insurance and estate issues. Also Divorces when this happens and custody battles, and child support and visitation issues could get really messy.

I think it would be better to leave well enough alone and just say the "Marriage is Between 1 man and 1 Women.

Either way the LDS Church will has to stay out of it as much as possible and never endorse it publicly.

When The Church came out with Declaration 1, all those already in Polygamist Marriages where allowed to stay that way. It took Decades before they passed on.

The obvious and logical solution is to decriminalize it. Decriminalize it, and I think you'll find that within a generation there will be a sharp drop in the number of practicing polygamists, because without the threat of prosecution and sundered families, they're going to be a lot more open to mainstream culture. Let's face it, there's not a lot of people battering down their doors to sign up for it. For most people, there's not a lot of appeal in the lifestyle.
I believe the whole underage bride issue was actually exacerbated by the fact that polygamy is illegal, creating an "in for a penny, in for a pound" mentality. I also believe the underage marriages in the FLDS specifically were a tool by which Warren Jeffs shored up loyalty.

Decriminalizing polygamy might help solve the society's huge problem of single, welfare-dependent mothers and the men who abuse them.

Regulated like any other marriage union, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with polygamous marriage. If anything, it would be a benefit in this day and age because of the economy. Truly dedicated Polygamous families work close together to take care of their families; live much more naturally, and the children are not running about, joining gangs and gaining a criminal record through their teen years.

Everyone talks about "Jeffs" being a polygamous leader --- NOT! He is just a sick, sick, sick man who got his kicks from little girls. Call it like it is, hes a bona fide sex offender, and should have been charged as such.

Given the opportunity, legalizing polygamy would actually be a much more beneficial option for men and women in todays society.

Trixie, the allegations of welfare fraud being proven false doesn't mean a blasted thing. There are still some of them on welfare--they just haven't been caught yet. Unfortunately, the welfare system is such a mess that it's hard to investigate all the claims in order to prove fraud.

As for decriminilizing polygamy; why not just legalize drugs and homosexual marriages? Polygamy is a crime, and while it may be one of the "lesser crimes", it is still illegal. Laws are set down for a purpose, and one of the reasons that this country is falling apart is due to the fact that our government keeps changing the laws to please the people. The government has to do what's right--and that means they must stop giving in to the groups that throw tantrums like spoiled children wanting their way.

It is so refreshing to see Shurtleff and Parker agree that the means and motivation used by Texas were overblown.
I guess even Shurtleff won't be suprised when the cases are thrown out for lack of evidence.

I don't have much problem with polygamy being legalized as long as there are protections in place to make sure it does not become a vehicle for abuse of marital benefits or vulnerable persons. But then, I think the state should pretty much get out of the marriage business altogether.

I don't think polygamy should be legalized. There is a reason for it being band. There are reasons for laws. I feel that polygamy creates more problems than it is worth. Just think if there was a domestic violent husband and the cops were called. How many people would be involved? How many people would be arrested? Think of the kids in this situation!! They are the real victims!!! I feel if we give people an inch, people will take a mile!

Mr Shurtleff, STAY OUT OF TEXAS!! You were doing a POOR job handling this situation in UTAH to begin with!! My suggestion would be to round up every polygamist sect in US and let Utah take care of them! Its possible Mr Shurtleff needs to read the supreme court decision on Reynolds vs US on Polygamy. Since he doesnt seem to UNDERSTAND why polygamy is against the law.

Most people practice "seriel" polygamy in the USA already. Most of the people that I know outside of my church are on their 3rd, 4th or 5th spouse. If you add in the people they "co-habited" with in "spiritual" marriages, then their "spouses" would be up to 10-15.

Polygamy, practiced the way the FLDS practice it, has more security for the women and children involved than the 5 women with children all from the same "baby daddy".

Child abuse is wrong, whatever it was that Warren Jeffs was doing should be illegal. But polygamy is already being practiced by half of the United States, just the first wives and children are dumped for the trophy wife later on.

How will you feel being the fifth husband to your wife? She has 8 kids, 3 by you and 2 by him and the other 3 by ???. When you get fatter and balder, she will decide to have sex with you less and less. Your other young wives stop too because they will have 5 other younger studlier husbands. You'll be a lonely fat bald man working all day to feed your many children, while your wives are enjoying the nights with their other husbands. Sounds gr8 to me. Count me in!!!

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances....
This is from the opinion of Reynolds vs United States. This law has been tested since, by Barlow, Tom Green and Rodney Holm,, and each time the Supreme Court stuck with its decision on polygamy

If you study the opinion on the Tom Green case, you will see that the justices deliberately skate the issue of free speech rights. In a way, marriage can be deconstructed as a form of expression. Expression falls under the category of free speech, and should not be interfered with at that level. The only way I see it, under the constitution, the government can regulate consensual relationships such as any of the forms of "marriage" would be in the regulating of the signed marriage contracts. In the absence of the contract, which the government would be party to, there should be no regulation, as it would violate those individual's free speech rights, not to mention their rights to privacy and association.

ok - so 100 officers raided the compound of a preacher (last name Alamo) over the weekend. They took 6 children believed to have been abused. The kids are in state custody. Previous charges against this guy included child abuse for having 4 men hit a child with a paddle 140 times. Charges were dropped because no one would testify.

Exactly the same scenario as happened to FLDS, but I don't see anyone sticking up for him in the blogs. What's the difference between the two cases? Why is it good for him but bad for FLDS?

Free speech has been stretched into all kinds of funny shapes but by your definition any behavior at all can be justified under it. Assaulting someone, molesting a child, committing murder--hey they are all forms of "expressing yourself". They are not, however, protected speech.

I saw that in the news, too. I don't know what the difference is, except for me, the FLDS raid was more about a trashing of Constitutional rights and the persecution of a religion, than it was about 'saving children.' The NUMBER of children and women loaded on to buses - I'll never get that image out of my mind - too much like what the Gestapo did with the Jews - I know, people are tired of hearing the comparison, but it IS exactly what happened.

The men of the Ranch offered to leave so the women and children could stay - that wasn't allowed...

Just the whole 'feel' of the FLDS raid was SO wrong -

My question about the two raids - why do the authorities always wait until dusk to come for the children? Good grief. Why don't they come during the day and stop playing the role of boogie men in these kids' lives?!?!

Excuse me, Re: Joey, if you can't tell the difference between a verbal or demonstrative form of expression, and physical assault, then I think you need to repeat this phrase to yourself 200 times: "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me!"

Just what is this? Do we have the right to tell people how to worship God the FLDS have Constitutional rights too. Wake up America we should punish those who are proven guilty, but last I knew this was still America and people should be presummed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around We need protect our rights as Americians. Stand up if a wrong has been done as it was in Texas. If a crime was committed by an FLDS member punish the member not the sect

re Lillithe 9:22am:

come on, girl. serial polygamy?

If you are talking about when a man and woman divorce and then remarry others, that's simply marriage and divorce. Nothing serial or polygamist about it. And living together is not a "spiritual" marriage. It's living together. Multiple spouses only really occurs when there is intimidation involved.

"FLDS polygamy practice has more security for the women and children".
Have you ever lived out in the desert, taught to shun society, and told that if you leave you will have lost your place in heaven? If that's security, so is San Quentin.


re - "to zxcvbnm 9:25am"
Why would you want to be 5th husband to your wife (or visa versa)? Who in their right mind would want more than one husband or wife, unless you believed the "you must have 3+ wives to get to the good spot in heaven, and the women can only come with you if they are in your good graces" speil.

Not many people would fall for that line - mostly just FLDS and a couple of other groups that can't think for themselves. A free-willed thinking person would just laugh at the suggestion.

Realistically, I think marriage should be a private business or cease to exist at all. It's really no one's business who you are with, etc.

Married people shouldn't get tax breaks, and insurance/benefits should be limited to the person insured, one other person (spouse?) and 3 children. Same for welfare, etc - one applicant and max 3 children.

Then anyone could marry anyone since it really wouldn't matter.

That would solve most (if not all) of the issues here.