Polygamy, Child-Wives, and Rape

| | Comments (5)

David Bernstein raises some good questions about how the FLDS case has been handled. But he quotes an op-ed that seems to me to be dead wrong:

You've ruled the existence of five girls between 16 and 19 who were pregnant or had children was evidence of systematic abuse, even though in Texas 16-year-olds can marry with parental consent. You've ruled young toddlers are in "immediate" danger because of their parents' beliefs or what might happen 15 years from now, not because anyone abuses them.

Excuse me, but unless these girls were the first wife of the father of their children, they weren't married. Texas allows parents to consent to marriages of their children when they're 16. They don't allow parents to consent to non-marital sex with a dude who's already married to someone else but wants to have a pretend wife in addition. That's not marital sex, since they're not married. Since the men are already married, there's no marriage the parents could have consented to, and that makes it rape. Automatically. The girl can't consent, and the parents can't consent to an illegal marriage. The legal question ends right there. This is child abuse.

Someone might try to argue that the law doesn't track with the right answers to such questions when you're talking about what counts as abuse morally speaking. But that's not the issue here. What matters is whether it's legally abuse, and it's legally rape if the man in question is already married to someone else and thus can't have gotten genuine consent to a legal marriage from the girl's parents.

It's hard to resist commenting on what GatoRat says in the comments:

Several of those old girls already have children. If a fifteen-year-old is pregnant with her third child, were the first two immaculate conceptions?"

It is correct to point out that there were clearly pre-16 cases. It is not correct to confuse immaculate conception with virginal conception. I don't see how the idea of a child being conceived without original sin is relevant at all to this discussion.


"I don't see how the idea of a child being conceived without original sin is relevant at all to this discussion."

That made me laugh out loud.

Maybe they just thought the conceptions were very neat and tidy. Which also seems irrelevant in regard to the girl's age.

I'm glad someone is finally doing something about it. It makes me wonder why it took so long. As if they didn't know about what was happening inside that compound before it blew wide open.

They did, but they needed something to serve as probably cause from a legal standpoint, and they may well not have had anything like that. What's unfortunate is that they might not now either, and it might make it very difficult for them to prosecute unless they can get testimony from these women, which they don't seem to be able to get. It would be even worse if the only thing that comes from this is that the cult gets some money out of the government for violating their rights in an illegal search.

The women are so brainwashed that if they don't testify, they may lose all the efforts they have taken to get what they wanted, that is, custody and protection of their own children. Plus, they will have been humiliated as a church (FLDS).

Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04