Flutterby™! : Legal update to Texas Polygamist story

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Legal update to Texas Polygamist story

2008-05-22 18:47:43.737582+00 by radix 12 comments


A court has now found that the State of Texas overstepped the law in its seizing the children, but did not order the immediate return of the children.

At the very least it's caselaw for Texas. I think it will take more publicized overreaches by DFCS agencies before we see real legal reform on this subject.

[ related topics: Children and growing up Law Current Events ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-23 03:27:51.117259+00 by: ziffle


#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-23 12:26:29.469204+00 by: m

This one will get very expensive for Texas in terms of both a dollar cost and publicity. A pity that all of the individuals involved will be immune to criminal prosecution.

A serious sequel here, is that the notoriety generated by this inane attack may make the trade and rape of underage girls too politically hot to handle.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-24 22:57:32.286374+00 by: polly

it has become too easy to "throw" children away. you see them in foster care and now they've become part of the political arena. the women and children of that polygmist camp are brainwashed by MEN who are going to get away with rape. unfortunately, those girls are probably not going to wake up one day and realize how they have been exploited for some scrawny old man's pleasure and retaliate. what ever happened to larana bobbitt? she could share some techniques of pay back!

#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-25 21:09:16.568921+00 by: Larry Burton

If someone is being exploited but is happy and does not know or understand that they are being exploited is it ethical to make them aware of their situation?

#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-25 23:27:18.170938+00 by: ziffle

Larry - great question!

#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-26 15:30:16.464117+00 by: polly

i would be more than willing to help them "see the light"!

#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-26 16:10:49.426616+00 by: JT

Larry, If a 12 year old girl doesn't understand that her 30 year old boyfriend is taking advantage of her, should we just turn a blind eye? What if it's part of their culture? The prophet mohammad married his wife Aisha when she was 8 and they consummated the marriage when she was 12. In Muslim culture this practice may be acceptable, but if it's practiced in our culture, it's criminal. Does this mean we prosecute the man who's having sex with a child, do we protect the child from the man who we consider a rapist or child molester, or do we accept that he could be a Muslim following his prophet or polygamist Mormon following Joseph Smith's examples and we may be infringing on his rights even questioning his behavior in the first place? I don't think there are black and white answers in a word full of shades of gray, however I think that there are laws for a reason, they guide and mold the morals and folkways of society as we know it, or the societies as known by others. Just because children in Taiwan are regularly exploited as sex workers in their countries and their government turns a blind eye toward them doesn't mean that our society accepts the same behavior and allows the same things to happen, and I personally agree with that. Due to the laws in our country though, it seems that the lawmakers and general public opinion agree with my standpoint, but does enforcing this law infringe on my rights? The rights of a 12 year old prostitute? The rights of his pimp? The rights of his parents for allowing it to happen? And at what point does the child's rights become more important than the pimp's right to free commerce?

#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-26 16:25:59.640055+00 by: m

"If someone is being exploited but is happy and does not know or understand that..."

By this reasoning it is acceptable to exploit the ignorant, mentally impaired, intoxicated or children.

Suppose that NAMBLA obtained males infants and brought them up to believe that it was the highest privilege of a five year old to have sex with adult men? Why not help defray the costs of caring for the comatose by pimping them out to necrophiliacs? The military could solve its future recruitment problems by having 8 year olds sign binding enlistment contracts.

There are classes in society who require protection. Sometimes temporarily as is the case with children, sometimes permanently. We do not allow parents to sell their children. Children, the insane, the mentally impaired and the intoxicated can not enter into enforceable contracts.

There are limitations on contracts that apply to all. Generally contracts are limited to seven years. There are rights that can not be contractually surrendered. There are contracts that simply can not be made. I can not convey to you the right to take my heart from my living body. I can not sell myself or you into slavery.

The superstitious beliefs of an individual or subculture can not be allowed to contravene basic human rights. Parents, and speaking as one myself, do not own their children.

On Children Kahlil Gibran

Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts, For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams. You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth. The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far. Let our bending in the archer's hand be for gladness; For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.

#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-27 02:48:22.367464+00 by: Larry Burton

I'm just asking a question. I understand that children must be protected but Polly stated that these girls might not wake up one day and realize they are being exploited. If the woman hasn't woken up by the time she is in her twenties and she seems happy enough is it right to point out to her how horrible her plight is?

What if this is a woman who enjoys being treated like a pet and subjected to all sorts of humiliation but still is happy in the relationship? Should this woman be made aware of her plight?

#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-27 16:57:41.010124+00 by: ebradway

What if this is a woman who enjoys being treated like a pet and subjected to all sorts of humiliation but still is happy in the relationship?

This is the essential argument in Queer Theory - but it presupposes that the dominant in the relationship can only derive pleasure from the pleasure of the dominated. In this situation, it is the bottom (dominated) who is actually in control of the relationship.

As far as being made aware of her plight: Yes. The woman cannot be truly happy unless it is a conscious choice of submission. And the man, if the dom/sub relationship is at all "healthy", could only derive satisfaction in the context of such a choice.

You have to give the choice of the blue pill or the red pill...

#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-27 23:55:34.249718+00 by: polly

ebradway...well said!

#Comment Re: made: 2008-05-29 22:49:23.149699+00 by: Larry Burton [edit history]

As far as being made aware of her plight: Yes. The woman cannot be truly happy unless it is a conscious choice of submission. And the man, if the dom/sub relationship is at all "healthy", could only derive satisfaction in the context of such a choice.

But if you read the passage closely enough you will see that this is exactly what Paul was talking about in his letter to the Ephesians:

Ephesians 5:22-33 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

What Paul is saying is that women should submit to the husband but the husband is told to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. The example that we are given of Christ's love is one of a servant. With this being the case a husband would never ask anything of a wife that didn't make her happy and would in fact seek to be in service to his wife.