More From Texas

I can't help but follow this story about the FLDS. I don't agree with them fundamentally, but then religious freedom was supposed to be one of the big freedoms in America. We are free to disagree. It would appear, freedom is a rather liquid term. I don't know if there were a bunch of middle aged men abusing under aged women, but what I have read in the past few days sounds very much like the state is abusing authority where these women are concerned.
First, the state took the women into protective custody with the children. Now the state says the standard protocol is not to have any parents with children in state custody, but the parents of children under 4 are still there. Second, the women and children were all together until a few mothers made some phone calls from the Fort. Next thing I read, the cell phones were prohibited and collected. Seems amazingly similar to the original statement the state made against the so called cult. Something about the young women being unable to make contact with the outside world . . . So, now the ones that spoke out, have been cast out and their children kept. How is this justified by an abuse accusation, when the mothers have been with the children in custody? I keep reading about how they are taught to distrust the outside world. I haven't seen any evidence that should convince them to the contrary in their treatment.
I read today that an attorney for the church said all the men offered to leave and allow the women and children with state monitors to return to the ranch. The state claims to have not received that offer. I read it, how did they miss it? If it was bogus, all the state had to do was call the bluff.
The state is claiming the children must be separated from their mothers on alleged abuse charges against the organization, not the mothers that have been with the children for the past several days. Again, it seems this only became an issue after the mothers spoke out about the conditions in which they were being kept. Big reason, once again, to have not trusted these outsiders!
I've already had some interesting dead end attempts at discussing this matter with a few folks and of course, polygamy is their big issue. Well, according to my research, there were no state licenses issued, so technically there is no state polygamy law broken. Cohabitation is not against the law and any number of people can choose to cohabitate together. If I did not have a marriage license with my husband and tried to file joint taxes, the federal government would most assuredly inform me that I was not married to him, so . . . by reciprocity, polygamy doesn't make sense in this charge. When laws of survivorship and all that was directed to my attention, I did a bit more checking. Again, a person must be a legal spouse or joint tenant or named beneficiary for this to be an issue. My husband could leave anything he chose to anyone he chose, if it were only in his name. My guess is, there is virtually no personal property in this situation. I'm guessing all or most of the property is property of the FLDS organization, anyway.
And for what it's worth. I checked into SS laws. Did you know, if a man was married to a different woman for ten years, every ten years and worked his entire life from 16 or 18-65 or 67, theoretically 5 women could collect on his social security, without still being involved with him at all. But that's not polygamy if there are divorce decrees between the marriage licenses. Culturally and socially, perhaps a bit more acceptable, but the end results are much more costly than a group of people that choose to live as a commune or community without asking for anything from the government, except their American birth right: freedom of religion.
And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Acts of the New Testament