jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 988
|
|
===========================================================
...The state of Texas should not have removed children from a polygamist sect's ranch because it didn't prove they were in "imminent danger," an appeals court ruled Thursday.
===========================================================
I predict that as a result of all this brouhaha some jackass will introduce a Bill into the Texas Legislature defining "endangerment to a child" as living in a polygamous family, or one in which the mother is underage, and holding that this by itself constitutes "emminent danger". This, as with all other asinine laws in Texas, will then be passed by anonymous "acclamation".
As has been made abundantly clear in anti-male divorce law, no statute which imposes arbitrary punishment on someone, provided that he is a member of the particular "class" of persons chosen to be victimized, can be considered to have resulted in any denial of "due process" as long as the particular law providing for this victimization is followed. This is true even if the law in question specifically DOES deny such due process, to individuals, as for example the Texas law requiring a court's presumption of an equal division of assets in a divorce does. The hysteria driven fools will then go back and take the children away AGAIN!
Edited by jbar (05/22/08 06:52 PM)
|
malone
Platinum
Reged: 12/30/07
Posts: 1865
|
|
[quote]===========================================================
...The state of Texas should not have removed children from a polygamist sect's ranch because it didn't prove they were in "imminent danger," an appeals court ruled Thursday.
===========================================================
I predict that as a result of all this brouhaha some jackass will introduce a Bill into the Texas Legislature defining "endangerment to a child" as living in a polygamous family, or one in which the mother is underage, and holding that this by itself constitutes "emminent danger". This, as with all other asinine laws in Texas, will then be passed by anonymous "acclamation". [/quote]
Well, finally we agree on something.
I sure as anything hope you're right. Protection of children and underage mothers is very worthy. Don't tell me our points of view are finally sinking in to you Jbar. Let's hope it continues.
|
chatter box
Platinum
Reged: 11/09/07
Posts: 1197
|
|
[quote][quoteWell, finally we agree on something.
I sure as anything hope you're right. Protection of children and underage mothers is very worthy. Don't tell me our points of view are finally sinking in to you Jbar. Let's hope it continues. [/quote]
+1
Throw enough $h!tty bills out and one of them is bound to become law.
|
mistake#2
Platinum
Reged: 07/19/06
Posts: 3136
Loc: Florida
|
|
[quote][quote]===========================================================
...The state of Texas should not have removed children from a polygamist sect's ranch because it didn't prove they were in "imminent danger," an appeals court ruled Thursday.
===========================================================
I predict that as a result of all this brouhaha some jackass will introduce a Bill into the Texas Legislature defining "endangerment to a child" as living in a polygamous family, or one in which the mother is underage, and holding that this by itself constitutes "emminent danger". This, as with all other asinine laws in Texas, will then be passed by anonymous "acclamation". [/quote]
Well, finally we agree on something.
I sure as anything hope you're right. Protection of children and underage mothers is very worthy. Don't tell me our points of view are finally sinking in to you Jbar. Let's hope it continues. [/quote]
I don't think JBAR was stating that it SHOULD be...
|
stoltz
Platinum
Reged: 01/29/07
Posts: 1478
Loc: Texas
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
I sure as anything hope you're right. Protection of children and underage mothers is very worthy. Don't tell me our points of view are finally sinking in to you Jbar. Let's hope it continues.
--------------------------------------------------------------
So, I take it you're all for ripping a child away from ANY underage mother? Or, is it just because they have a different religion? If the latter, where does one draw the line and dictate which religions are to be targeted? And, in doing so, are you not also segmenting a population, thereby, denying one group their constitutional rights? Can't have it both ways.
|
malone
Platinum
Reged: 12/30/07
Posts: 1865
|
|
Mothers and children belong together regardless of their age.
Nasty old polygamists who exploit their age do not belong with them however.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 4839
|
|
If the mothers choose to expose the kids to men who seek marriage to the kids, I don't care whether the mothers are adults or underage, they're unfit. As unfit as the pedophiles they're exposing the kids do.
I don't care what religion they're from or what lifestyle. if We had a man calling 3 adult women his wives and pro-creating 10 children among em, able to afford the house and kids and wives without any of 'em being on the public dole, then fine. I'd not consider scrutinizing thier choices.
But that's not what we have here. I'm not particularly interested in supporting the undocumented wives and large families full of children with my tax dollars, and I'm similarly not interested in dealing with the aftermath of a bunch of underaged girls who were forced into marriage by their parents to older men, without their own free and knowledgeable choices about the alternatives.
And babies having babies is never something we shoudl condone. The health risks are too high. It happens, and when it does, we try to make the best of it and hope no one has lasting health or psychiatric issues because of it... but if it was not a mistake, if it was planned by adults to have a child become pregnant, then although it's not an "imminent" danger the way a loaded gun pointing at you is an imminent danger, it most certainly is a danger we need to find a way to protect those teen girls from.
As it is, for THIS situation, it would seem that they GOT thier due process and so it's ridiculous to complain... other than the same general complaints made every day by parents who go through the same thing on a smaller scale (parents wrongfully accused of abuse, drug use, criminal acts, and therefore having their children withheld from them). At least in the Texas situation, the foster parent situations were carefully controlled so that the kids were not alienated or given mean inforamtion about their parents... which is NOT the situation when one parent snatches the kid from another during a divorce situation and spends the next however many weeks or months until the courts rectify the situation indoctrinating the child against the absent parent.
|
malone
Platinum
Reged: 12/30/07
Posts: 1865
|
|
Amen to everything you said. I agree with all of it.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 988
|
|
===========================================================
I don't care what religion they're from or what lifestyle. if We had a man calling 3 adult women his wives and pro-creating 10 children among em, able to afford the house and kids and wives, then fine. I'd not consider scrutinizing thier choices.
===========================================================
Not to mention the often overlooked issue of religious freedom. These people believe that God commanded them to practice plural marriage, and have documentation to show the history of this belief.
===========================================================
But that's ("without any of 'em being on the public dole") not what we have here. I'm not particularly interested in supporting the undocumented wives and large families full of children with my tax dollars...
===========================================================
I wasn't aware that any tax dollars had been spent, or asked, for this.
===========================================================
...and I'm similarly not interested in dealing with the aftermath of a bunch of underaged girls who were forced into marriage by their parents to older men, without their own free and knowledgeable choices about the alternatives.
===========================================================
This has been talked about here before. In a legal sense they apparently were only "common-law" marriages, oweing to the fact that they would not have been able to get marriage licenses, due to the their being minors. The fault then, if any, must reside with Texas law which apparently declares them married, if they are living together and holding themselves out as husband and wife, even if underage. As long as the parents of these young "wives" provide for them until they are grown, in accordance with the law, then freedom of religion and freedom of speech permit them to advise or suggest to them that they do anything their faith advocates. The law against marriage of minors refers to real marriages, recognized by law, not a purely religious exercise.
Edited by jbar (05/24/08 01:07 AM)
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 4839
|
|
JBar, if you're not aware of tax dollars spent in the polygamist groups then you've missed about half the point of the government's prosecution of their situations. The first half is the abuse of the young women, the other half is the institutionalized format for collecting welfare.
They have whole instruction setups on how to manipulate the system.
You didn't think that these men were magically rich and able to support all these wives & kids on their own, did you?
Here's the setup. They legally marry one woman. They have what is considered an affair with the others. According to the state, they can't marry more than one EVEN commonlaw because the state does not permit polygamy... the prohibition of polygamy trumps the statute allowing commonlaw marriage.
In thier faith they're married, and that's really all they care about. They could care less about whether the state recognizes their marriages, so they could care less about whether the common law allows this. It's NOT about commonlaw marriages for them... they do a religious service without the marriage license from teh state and it makes them right by thier god, and wives number 2-10+ are simply thought of as "single mothers" by the state.
The single mothers all apply for aid to families with dependent children.
Thier large houses are setup as if they're rental units, large dormatories where the men visit the wives, and therefore no one woman is really "married"... all but the first one (assuming that one was married according to the laws with a marriage license)... and so they apply for all the housing, food assistance, healthcare, child care (doing daycare for each other)... all the assistance possible from the state for free, so the husbands have to provide much less in support of their families.
And the church builds their dormatories with the tax exempt donations... provides nearly everythign for their communal lifestyle that way. In this way, they live nearly tax free by giving away the maximum possible earnings to the church, which turns around and uses the donations to provide a tax free room/board/clothing... and they have huge amounts of state assistance coming into the community through free healthcare, WIC, AFDC and every other program imaginable for single mothers.
This is not a group of people I'd be advocating for if I were you, JBar. Your exremist federalist position on many things is very contrary to the true position that the polygamists take on anything. They want no government intererence with them whatsoever, while expecting 100$ government participation in funding their lifestyles.
I'm surprised you've never heard of this. You must not be quite as well-read as you always claim... or are the blogs you get all your opinions from so incredibly one-sided that they never even mention the "rest of the story"... ?
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
