You're right about the numbers, 31 out of 53. Sorry about that. None of these girls are legally married, which means that if they were under the age of 16, the father can be prosecuted for statuatory rape. The suggestion of abuse validates an investigation.



Marrying a 13 year old is abuse, and the law agrees. A thirteen year old cannot be married, and for a mature man to have sex with a 13 year old without marriage is statuatory rape.

Regardless of what brought the matter to legislator's attention, the law was a good change. It will not be selectively applied to FLDS, it will be applied to everyone, so not persecution.

That will be for the courts to decide. IAC, I hope something is done to prevent FLDS members from getting aid to dependent children because the women in these multiple marriages are technically single.

And that is true. And when they take that man away, the woman can legally go on welfare, stay on the compound and then "spiritually" marry another man. Not to mention that the state has to prove the act happened in Texas. In fact it could be suggested that the Church could have set Texas up by instigating this whole thing. You lose 13 men, but you gain legally 13 sources of monthly income. Or even more likely, you just move 13 pregnant girls from other compounds to this one and all the fathers are elsewhere. You still get welfare checks and no one gets arrested. The only abuse is what they are doing to the taxpayers of Texas with the raid, investigation, DNA testing on 1000 people, court costs, foster care, etc.

Depends on what state/culture/society you are in. And whats the difference between sex with a mature man and sex between same age people? Do mature men have something different that's not compatible with younger females?
You are still posting with emotion but not facts. If it were truly physically abusive, there would be physical proof, not the contrived emotionally manufactured kind.

Application to everyone and usage are two different issues. Immigration, sodomy, racial profiling prove that's not always the case. That's still emotion, not taking account of what actually happens.

The women are single in the eyes of the law and should be afforded all the benefits afforded single women. Or else we have to either punish all women for having kids out of wedlock, or we have to allow polygamy. That's where "fair" bites you in the ass. Treat everyone the same, or else you are a hypocrite right?

Why would the state have to prove the act happened in Texas? It is likely the state would remove the children from those homes as they are clearly "unfit", and the women will have to go to work.

13-year-olds are too young to be married in any culture existing in these times. Probably 13 year-olds were too young even in frontier times, but at least they could survive without extensive education. Mature men are taking advantage when they go after young girls, whereas those of the same age are more likely to be an even match. The fact that pregnancy in young teens is always considered high risk is sufficient to warrant the label of abuse.

There is no reason to believe that the law would not apply to everyone. People will be equally outraged no matter what group claims exception.

I have no problem with requiring sterilization after 2 children for those getting government money for those children. After all, most of the people paying the taxes to rear those children can't afford more than 2 themselves because of the taxes. For those whose religion requires continuous breeding, they will have to pay for them by themselves. That applies to everyone, so is not discrimination. Men should have to be sterilized too, so that they can't have 2 children with one women, 2 children with another, etc.

First they have to find the father, then when they do, they have to show that the crime of statutory rape happened within their jurisdiction. A state can't prosecute a murder that didn't occur within it's borders, the same for this "crime".
As for the girls, since none of the girl have been proven to be abused and not all of them were "victimized", the rights of the mother to keep her children should not be voided on such flimsy evidence.
If Texas attempts to close down "this" ranch, the people will just assimilate into another FLDS clan. There are others. These people do have options.

That's an opinion. Not born out by facts. The good thing about our social structure is that people can be functionally illiterate and still function in our society. A 13 year old with several other wives around her is fine.

Application of the law to everyone is unimportant if the law is specifically targeted at a specific group. Have the cops raided the projects to find out if any of the kids there are abused. Children of "poor people" have kids younger than other economic groups.

Sounds plausible but constitutionally impossible. It would never fly.

Here are some of the other changes made with the arrival of the FLDS.
Jim Paulsen, a South Texas College of Law professor who teaches family law and civil procedure, says the Texas Legislature passed a series of laws in 2005 aimed directly at the FLDS ranch and its members -- statutory changes he teaches his students about. "What I teach mainly is that we amended large parts of the Texas Family Code to combat polygamy," Paulsen says.
"The legislative package included raising the minimum age of marriage, with or without parental consent; banning first-cousin marriages; banning ex-step parent, ex-step child marriage; amending the bigamy statutes, including eliminating the husband-wife testimonial privilege in bigamy prosecution; eliminating the presumption that the spouse of the polygamist entered into the relationship innocently; and much more," Paulsen says.

If the girls have been living on the ranch since the FLDS bought it, they were raped in Texas. Since the investigation is on-going, it is too early to say whether mother's rights should be terminated. I don't imagine the people of Texas care if the people in the FLDS clan immigrate elsewhere. The LDS have a history of being run out of town after all, they know how to run.

A 13 year-old wife is not fine under any circumstances. A 13 year-old is often still playing with dolls for pete's sake. Do you expect other wives to "mother" her?

Application of the law equally is all that is important. What inspired the law in the first place is not important. If the majority of the people approve the law (provided it is constitutional) that is all that matters.

It's true it would have to be offered as an option. I propose eliminating all payments for children, instead payment will be made for sterilization.

Those laws don't sound unusual, or unconstitutional.

I wonder how thorough do the FLDS keep their records. If the kids are taught to not tell their names and not trust authority, I wonder how easy it is gonna be to get enough information to prove where they live. And have lived. They are a closed society, no need for mail or anything listing an address. If the men that fathered these children simply aren't tested, and not identified, there will be no conviction. And if the "wife" isn't married under the law, there is nothing in the law that compels a minor to testify against someone that "rapes" them. I'm sorry, if the FLDS is smart enough, these charges are gonna be easy to dodge. If they had $2.5 million to buy this ranch, but keeps the members poor "on paper", the citizens of Texas are gonna have to pay for every cent of this. They better do better than they have been.

The FLDS has split up, but totally "left town"? Where did you read that?

Not all 13 year olds are still playing with dolls. Depends on where you live. You would hope they are, but not all of them. It seems though that most FLDS 13 year olds are still playing with dolls too though. Some 14 year olds though, might just want to get married and have kids, just as a couple of states allow.
Here's a good writeup on my feelings of the situation.

But I don't think it was put before "the people", it was just passed in legislation. And again, as with most laws of this ilk, it was a knee jerk reaction and not grounded on facts, but emotion.

Remember that part you just said about the constitution? That's why I am defending this topic, I feel this raid defied these people's constitutional rights. I don't agree with it at all. You can't force a woman to sterilize herself to get government assistance.

If they were always in force? Not a problem. But as a knee jerk reaction to the FLDS coming to town, that's persecution.

First of all fx, the women are getting welfare because they are not legally married to the men. They don't have to get rid of the men to get welfare. Secondly, thirteen year old girls having children against their will, or because they were forced into a spiritual marriage, is evidence of abuse. A baby is pretty hard to ignore as evidence, isn't it?

1. No proof of welfare fraud in this case. lie number one.
2. No proof of any children being forced into marriage or childbirth. lie number two.
3. No number of actual 13 year olds that might have been pregnant, and no proof of forced marriage.

Could you provide some information supporting the allegations? Or are they like those of that mysterious 16 year old? When you stop posting from your feelings and get some real information that implicates the FLDS as a group, you'll justify taking ALL these kids. Until then you are giving the police permission to raid any place they want with flimsy, made up, or just totally illegal information. I used to wonder why Niel Boortz Limbaugh used to say women shouldn't be able to vote and make decisions. I see now what he meant.
Deseret News | Utah, Arizona AGs feel fallout from FLDS raid
No-question policy at hearing draws criticism

FLDS custody case: Month after ranch raid, polygamous dad speaks out - Salt Lake Tribune

I'm telling you, Texas is gonna be dealing with the fallout from this for a long expensive time.

Maybe they will, but I feel they did the right thing.