I don't mean to be flippant about the possibility of 14-year-old girls being forced into arranged marriages, but it increasingly seems that what's going on with the state seizure of all the children from a fundamentalist Mormon compound in Texas is producing scant evidence (to date) of actual abuse. Scott Henson, in the Dallas News, asks Where's the evidence of abuse?, while blogger Katie Granju queries where is the ACLU? (hat tip: instapundit). She writes:
I cannot express strongly enough how much I believe the state needs to take a strong, unequivocal stance in going after any of these individual adults in this group who have committed crimes against children in the name of religion. However, I am increasingly disturbed by the way the state of Texas is handling this matter. The wholesale rounding up and de facto incarceration of hundreds of women and children-none of whom have been individually accused of any crime-is very troublesome.
Also, David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy and Tim Lynch of the Cato Institute raise similar concerns about a disturbing overreaction by state authorities.
If the breakup of these families is based on the prejudice/contempt that both left-liberals and religious conservatives feel toward fundamentalist Mormons who practice polygamy, it raises issues of basic liberty in America that even those who oppose state-recognition of polygamy should take seriously.
More. Social conservative Rick Lowry may quote our own Jonathan Rauch, but his attempt to blame fundamentalist polygamy on "the liberal wave of nonjudgmentalism and of hostility to traditional marriage" is a stretch.
I did like the commenter to Lowry who suggests if polygamy is a risk factor for child abuse and so we take children away from polygamous homes, should we also not take children away if their single mom moves in with her boyfriend, as that's also known to greatly raise the risk of abuse?
GOP Congressman Cites Lawrence in Defending Polygamous Families . Said Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), as quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune:
"I don't think it's the place of society to prosecute people who choose to cohabitate responsibly and are responsible for their children as opposed to men who are licentious or women who are licentious who are producing children that don't have place or context or male authority in their lives."
As Jonathan Rauch has pointed out, the criminalization and prosecution of polygamous behavior, as opposed to the state's refusal to license polygamous marriage, is unsustainable. It's important to make and sustain this distinction.
Furthermore. The AP reports: Sweep of polygamists' kids raises legal questions. Do tell.
53 Comments for “Alternative Families Under Attack?”
posted by Regan DuCAsse on
I have noticed that very conservative journals like TownHall and WorldNetDaily are defending parental rights and control, and criticizing too what they believe is the overreach of the TX CPS.
Interestingly, only ONE writer tipped towards criticizing the exponential problems of sects like this. And this writer quoted our very own Jonathan Rauch. I was actually astonished that a Townhall writer would use a quote from a gay man who is committed and supportive of marriage equality.
The abuses of females and boys who would be romantic rivals is well documented. So has welfare fraud, federal laws regarding child labor and publicly funded contracts. And the complete and profound control that IS exacted over the entire community requires examination. This is a secret society that operates like another country within this one. They don’t want to be transparent, but at the same time they want to benefit from local and federal taxpayers. Likely without paying taxes themselves.
There is no defense of this. J. Rauch has already pointed out some very specific qualities in polygamist societies that is unworkable. It’s a matter of disparate opportunity. One man with many wives leaves several men without that option.
How attentive and effective is ONE father, to many wives and children?
Ask the progeny of serial divorce and remarriage and see how difficult it is for one man to pay so much alimony and child support, let alone attend to their child’s emotional needs. And in fact, many fathers of this situation don’t.
Mores the point, the conceit of religious communities is to try and be above civil law, while benefitting from the Constitution and Bill of Rights while trying to exclude gay people FROM it’s protections. Even against the tyranny of the majority against a perpetual minority.
Another conceit is demanding that gay people compete romantically with straight people.
I’ve asked straight people…why would they want to compete with a gay man or woman for a spouse?
And lose that competition, only to find out that such a union broke up later after the respective parties got damaged by the experience?
No WAY is polygamy defensible. It leaves so many people and children without the opportunity for an attentive parent, a woman without a husband who can fully attend to her and if so many women are with this one man…who decides and who has the primary custody and power in case of an emergency?
There is NOTHING egalitarian about such an arrangement.
And therefore, as an ‘alternative lifestyle’ at least this IS a lifestyle. A religious life decided on as religion basically is a choice.
And homosexuality is not.
There is nothing positive or at all anything in common that polygamy has with gay marriage.
And conflating them both as alternative lifestyles is exactly the definition that is wrong, and gay people are still trying to live down.
posted by avee on
No WAY is polygamy defensible. … There is NOTHING egalitarian about such an arrangement.
There is a huge difference in a free society between what might be in a child’s best interest from a majority’s point of view, and when the government should use force to take children from their parents and place them in foster care (where they are, probably, more likely to face abuse).
I have heard the argument that kids should be taken away from gay parents because they will be “brainwashed” to accept homosexuality, and after all, they would be better off with a mother and a father. So beware of the slippery slope when you defend such use of state power over individual families.
posted by RIchard on
The children are being put into protective custody until the proper adults (parents, relatives, etc.) can be found.
Serious accusations of child abuse were made, and they deserve a serious response. I have not seen anything to suggest that they are being attacked soley for being Mormons (albeit a fringe sect).
posted by Ashpenaz on
I think the age of consent for sex should be 30. That being said, the questions here are the polygamy and age. Many cultures raise their children to believe they are ready for marriage at the onset of puberty. I’m not sure it’s abuse if children are raised where people have a different idea of when one is sexually mature. I believe Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, and Jewish cultures traditionally have an earlier age of consent, so I’m not sure why it’s wrong for Mormons. I also think that polygamy is a cultural thing. Islam limits you to four. Why shouldn’t Mormons have that many? Do Muslim or Hindu immigrants have to give up their wives?
I believe that sex is only moral between consenting adults in marriage–this Mormon thing is hard to fit in that paradigm. A priest molesting a young boy and then abandoning him is different than an older man marrying a young girl and committing himself to a lifelong relationship with that person for relgious reasons. The Anglican Church, of which I am a part, allows for polygamy in certain African cultures (cultures which condemn monogamous gay marriage, ironically). So I don’t have a clear response to this.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Stephen, let’s see what the DNA tests show, huh? The cult has 50-year-men screwing 14-year-old girls. Maybe that sits well with some people, but not me. Not to mention the rest of what comes with polygamy.
It takes a while to process the lab results, so I think it would be a good idea if you held off with your crocodile tears until the results are in. It would save you the mea culpas later on.
posted by ReganDuCasse on
Hi Avee,
The difference here is young girls are inculcated to accept and ENGAGE in premature SEX and pregnancy and marriage that is to someone not of their choosing.
Having gay parents and accepting theirs or anyone else’s homosexuality isn’t about accepting anything else BUT homosexuality for what it is.
As you know being gay isn’t an abuse of children.
And homosexuality is an orientation that many people have in the always have and that predates organized religion. And homosexuality doesn’t require taking away the freedoms and protections of anyone else in the way these polygamist sects do.
It’s that plain and not so much a slippery slope if people stopped looking at this TX as only a parental rights issue and one of religious abuse.
And gay people certainly understand what being on the receiving end of religious abuse is too.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Out of 400 or so children, at least 40-50 of those children are likely to be gay.
Imagine what this sect will do to them. Parents that use their religion in such a way that is harmful to children or females, deserve every bit of scrutiny, again because of the isolation this sect commands of it’s members.
Gay parents aren’t secretive, necessary…except to perhaps keep their child or themselves from being assaulted. That’s very different from being secretive because you don’t want outside influences or because you want to abuse your children.
Those parents that let their children die from treatable and curable illness who try to use their piety as a reason, should also be held accoutable.
posted by ReganDuCasse on
Ashpenaz, your comment reminds me of the sorts of people that say our culture that is bombarded with raunch or violence because ‘that’s what the people want’.
Well, there’s a difference between what the people want, and what they get without any other choices. Or at least, fewer and fewer choices.
In the same way that heterocentric males have been in control of information about homosexuals up until recently….not many people have asked or consulted with the WOMEN who are a part of polygamist societies.
It’s true what I said. Such arrangement lack egalitarian principles or choice for the women. They are in arranged or assumed situation and don’t have much options to fight it.
They will find themselves shunned or ostracized if they rebel.
Or have to compete for the attention of the husband with the other women. It’s MEN who control this cultural phenom, and women have little alternative but to accept it.
Coming out against such situations isn’t in a woman’s best interests. Same as coming out as gay, living as a gay person or not marrying someone of the opposite sex just because you’re pressured to from the prevailing culture.
Might, doesn’t make right in this instance and these traditions, usually always work against females.
Women and gay people are almost ALWAYS on the losing end of archaic or strict religious communities.
And with impunity.
Just because something is done, Ashpenaz, doesn’t mean it should continue.
Case in point, is the MESS this sect has made of trying to sort out whose children are whose.
On any given city block, it’s not a problem. Why should a separate government live within our own? Why should this sect make up their own rules?
And when polygamist people live here in America, they are not legally attached to another. This country cannot recognize all of the spouses.
I don’t know if you remember this incident.
But an immigrant from Mauritius or some Eastern African country was working as a cabbie in NYC. He had two wives and nine children in total by each of them.
The family was very, very poor and lived in a two flat walkup.
Well, they didn’t have smoke alarms and almost all the children and one of the mothers died in a fire in their apartment.
It was difficult to sort out the legal obligations and paternity of the children.
It was a mess and nine people died because that man COULDN’T provide properly for two different families.
There is more to this TX story than the sex abuse. There is usually welfare and other federal benefit fraud.
It’s a mess….and that’s what a polygamist situation usually is.
posted by KamatariSeta on
The age of consent in Texas is what, 17?
If we’re talking about 14 year old girls having sex with middle aged men or older, should we grant an exception for this group? Or hold them to the same laws of age of consent that the rest of the state is expected to follow?
Ash, you talk of cultural differences, but the examples you cite, such as the Anglican church allowing for polygamy in some cases in Africa, and how certain cultures have lower ages of consent, but should these things trump the current age of consent law? Isn’t that starting to go a little far in making exceptions from the law based on religious ideology?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, thanks for writing this piece and linking to the other conversations and concerns about the actions of state authorities in this matter.
As a gay parent of 2 sons though, I am troubled by the state’s unilateral and apparently overreaching action.
Rounding up the children, rending families apart, playing out a PR campaign in the MSM intended to impinge on the credibility of these families and community… all while learning that maybe –maybe– the initial complaint to authorities was bogus and fraudulent.
And then to have a assigned a single family law judge to handle the affair of sorting out this mess, seems completely indefensible.
I do worry about the appearance of sexual abuse -at least as reported in the biased press. But, like you, I know there are mechanisms and protocols to handle these allegations on an individualized basis.
Could my own home state decide one-day that being a gay parent isn’t good enough for our sons? I hope not but I can envision a world where that could happen given the excesses practiced in Texas of late.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Could my own home state decide one-day that being a gay parent isn’t good enough for our sons?
Many states have done exactly that, with respect to adoptions by gay parents. All of those states are run by your precious Republican Party, and whatever (if any) objections from the Log Cabinettes have simply been brushed aside.
posted by Ashpenaz on
The fact that some cultures, say, Canada, accept gay marriage is often used as an argument that our culture should. Why can’t polygamists argue that the success of polygamy in Africa means we should be open to it here?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, there is only one state with a law explicitly forbidding adoptions by a gay person — Florida.
Furthermore, numerous states run by Republicans — like Texas — have already heard and rejected such attempts.
But I suppose Charles Wilson needs to divert attention from the fact that Democrat gays fully endorse and support as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” measures that their Democrat politicians endorse and support.
posted by Charles Wilson on
As usual, North Liar Forty doesn’t tell the whole story. There is Arkansas, whose Republican administration had a ban on gay foster parents until the courts there struck it down, and where a wingnut group put a gay adoption ban on the ballot until that one was struck down
Oh, and here’s something that’s really rich: Flordia’s closeted gay Republican governor, Charlie Crist, opposes any effort to overturn Florida’s ban. Talk about your Log Cabinettes in action!
As for Democrats, well, that party has been infinitely more supportive of gay people over the years than self-haters like North Liar Forty and Michigan Matt and their beloved Reopublicans. They’re not perfect, but their direction has been steadily more supportive over time, as opposed to the Republicans, who hate gay people with a passion.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson, speaking without a net or insight, offers: “Many states have done exactly that, with respect to adoptions by gay parents. All of those states are run by your precious Republican Party, and whatever (if any) objections from the Log Cabinettes have simply been brushed aside.”
Wow, Chas… you really don’t ever pay attention to facts or the truth. Michigan was solidly GOP -the Governor, the House, the Senate, the SupCt- when we adopted our first son. Marginally controlled by the GOP when we adopted our second.
No one stopped us. No laws prohibited it. We had to do the usual adoption/parent education classes at the local Catholic Social Service agency and no one stopped us there either -in fact, just like the black (Republican) Catholic judge who officiated the adoption ceremony, everyone was totally welcoming and supportive. Of course, that was the secular ceremony. When we brought our sons into the Catholic Church, the priests and deacons welcomes us with open arms… and a fork for Michigan-Matt partner’s glorious carrot cake.
As for your nonsense and silliness about the LCR being quiet while all those evil GOP-run states forced gay parents into the closet… I’d offer you that for the prior 8 years, the natl LCRs were run by a nominally Democrat leader… not a Republican. In Michigan, the LCRs haven’t been all that present. Did you mean the LCR state chapters of other states? Or the natl organization?
I’m really surprised at the length your mean-spirited and spiteful diatribe has carried you… telling lies and acting like a bully on the playground? Really, Chas ol’ boy, is that cricket in your neck of the woods?
Gheez, when you tell all these whopping lies in a row, it’s gotta be smashing your credibility into atrash heap.
Or are you just practicing to trash another blog?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChasWilson offers: “as opposed to the Republicans, who hate gay people with a passion”.
I think you meant to write “GayLefties who hate conservative gays with a passion”… or is that an obsession in your uniquely obsessive world?
Let’s try to get you back on topic, ok? Less personal smears, more discussion of the topic.
posted by Pat on
A priest molesting a young boy and then abandoning him is different than an older man marrying a young girl and committing himself to a lifelong relationship with that person for relgious reasons.
Nope. You forget to insert “and molesting” after marrying in the above quote. In some ways I find the latter even worse. Because not only is the girl molested, it’s made much worse by her having to marry him. Oh, it doesn’t matter whether it was “consensual” or not, just as it doesn’t matter if the boy “consented” to sex with the priest. At least the boy is not stuck with the predator.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I think they should put these 400 children with gay foster parents. Just to see the heads of everyone in the Family Research Council explode. (Plus they’d get some fashion tips.)
posted by Charles Wilson on
Wow, Chas… you really don’t ever pay attention to facts or the truth. Michigan was solidly GOP -the Governor, the House, the Senate, the SupCt- when we adopted our first son. Marginally controlled by the GOP when we adopted our second.
No one stopped us. No laws prohibited it. We had to do the usual adoption/parent education classes at the local Catholic Social Service agency and no one stopped us there either -in fact, just like the black (Republican) Catholic judge who officiated the adoption ceremony, everyone was totally welcoming and supportive. Of course, that was the secular ceremony. When we brought our sons into the Catholic Church, the priests and deacons welcomes us with open arms… and a fork for Michigan-Matt partner’s glorious carrot cake.
It’s good that your Catholic church there in Michigan is ignoring the pope, who calls you “objectively disordered.” Seriously, I’m glad they’re ignoring the old bastard, even if this means “moral relativism.”
Of course, there is the matter of your blessed Republican Party fag-baiting in the ’04 election, where it put your relationship out there as a scarecrow to tip the balance in a few states. Ah, but your one of those “moderates” who rants against liberals and says (his quotation marks) “gay marriage” comes from the far radical Left.
Way to love yourself, Michigan-Matt. It’s the Log Cabinette Way. And congrats on the loving of others, such as when you told the people who protested the attempted murder of four people in a gay bar to put away the victim/pity card.
And have some of that fabulous carrot cake, natch.
posted by Jorge on
Almost any removal (and everything afterward) of a child from a parent’s home is messy and disturbing in practice. Rights tend to get trampled in emergencies. It is safer for the authorities jobs overestimate the danger than to underestimate it.
I am of the opinion that there was enough of a chance of current or impending sexual abuse to remove the children en-masse and enough risk of future sexual abuse to justify keeping them in the custody of the state.
I do not believe any parent who would allow their child to enter this kind of underage “marriage” is a fit parent, and by subjecting their children to the same environment as other adults who sexually abuse children, they are placing their own children in danger. Even being a part of this community is enough evidence to me at this point. Each parent is perfectly free to show how they personally are a fit parent, but I’m not giving any of them the benefit of the doubt. I am hardly unbiased on this subject.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As usual, North Liar Forty doesn’t tell the whole story. There is Arkansas, whose Republican administration had a ban on gay foster parents until the courts there struck it down, and where a wingnut group put a gay adoption ban on the ballot until that one was struck down.
Charles Wilson, you said that “many states” had a legal ban on gay adoption. But as usual, when facts were presented, especially facts that made it clear that you were wrong, you spun and tried to change your story.
Of course, there is the matter of your blessed Republican Party fag-baiting in the ’04 election, where it put your relationship out there as a scarecrow to tip the balance in a few states.
And where the Democrat Party fully endorsed and supported same, in fact bragging that they had the “same position” and that their platform says “marriage is between a man and a woman”.
And of course, Charles Wilson gushes that that is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, and that the gay staffers who worked for Kerry and fully supported his stances were heroes.
Isn’t it amazing how Charles Wilson and Democrat gays like himself support, endorse, and give vast sums of money to people who brag about doing the same thing as the people they scream are “fag-baiting”?
posted by Bobby on
“If the breakup of these families is based on the prejudice/contempt that both left-liberals and religious conservatives feel toward fundamentalist Mormons who practice polygamy,”
—No, it’s based on an FBI informant and other witnesses, including former members, who will testify of abuse not only of girls but boys as well. I can’t believe indegayforum would be debating this. Child abuse is NOT an alternative family. Parental rights aren’t absolute, if you’re a pot smoker, you don’t have the right to give your kids pot, and if you like to drink, that doesn’t permit you to buy your kids booze for their parties.
Moreover, poligamy is not a valid alternative family. Those children are victims, they don’t even know who their fathers are. I also think polygamy is sexist, sure, men like having many wives, but why don’t they allow a woman to have many husbands?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX notes: “Isn’t it amazing how Charles Wilson and Democrat gays like himself support, endorse, and give vast sums of money to people who brag about doing the same thing as the people they scream are “fag-baiting”?”
Exactly right, NDXXX.
That’s what half a dozen threads on this site alone have been saying that exact thing to the deafened, plugged ears of Democrat-apologists like ChasWilson. But they don’t get it because, for them, it would require admitting to a failed strategy of the last few decades. And, one thing that is true about GayLefties like ChasWilson, they never ever admit their error -it’s almost a pathological condition to them… like stalking.
You and others here point out where ChasWilson makes stupid, unfounded comments and then -when proven wrong- he resorts to personal smears and his favorite ploy: the politics of personal destruction ala the Clintons.
It’s a shame because if ChasWilson could just learn to debate the issues, he might be able to work through all the emotional baggage that he carries to each issue, each thread, each blog site stalked.
And then we could learn what kernel of wisdom he cares to cast out to us swine… ooops, that’s BarryObama’s line. My bad.
posted by Jimbo on
Hey, Michigan-Matt & North Dallas, I’d like to ask you two a question. Since we’re talking about gay adoptions I want to see your take on this. Here in Maine, the Christian Civic League (a fundy group) is proposing a citizens’ initiative. It comes in four parts: all same-sex marriage will be banned. All civil unions will be banned. All gay adoptions will be banned. The crowning glory is the repeal of the state’s civil rights law for gays & lesbians (which was passed by the voters in November 2005 55%-45%). It also strips funding for the civil rights teams in high schools. In short, every single right that gays & lesbians have will be stripped away in one fell swoop.
posted by Charles Wilson on
But they don’t get it because, for them, it would require admitting to a failed strategy of the last few decades.
A failed strategy of the last few decades? Interesting choice of words for a Log Cabinette, who’s well-scrubbed suburban white boy-white boy club was founded in 1977 and whose results have been a Republican Party that grows more hateful toward gays with each passing year.
Made possible, I note, by the efforts of self-hating closet cases like Larry “Tap-Tap” Craig, Matt “Rod Majors” Sanchez, David Dreier, Lindsay Graham, Mark Foley, Ed Schrock, Ted Haggard, Terry Dolan …
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Well, one thing I will give you credit for ChasWilson, you are persistent. To the deteriment of yet one more blog, one more issue, one more thread, one more idea. You really got to move out of your Mom’s basement and get a life.
posted by Richard on
The Log Cabin Republicans have probably had little success in changing their party’s philosophy.
That is an objective criticism, but it is probably not going to persuade them to stop being Republicans.
Party ID, like religion, is something that tends to not change once a person gets to a certain age. Especially with our weak party system.
The GOP MIGHT change its policy as younger Republicans grow up and have less interest in homophobia.
Of coarse, why we should have a two-party system is a valid point that too few gays ask.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Since we’re talking about gay adoptions I want to see your take on this. Here in Maine, the Christian Civic League (a fundy group) is proposing a citizens’ initiative. It comes in four parts: all same-sex marriage will be banned. All civil unions will be banned. All gay adoptions will be banned. The crowning glory is the repeal of the state’s civil rights law for gays & lesbians (which was passed by the voters in November 2005 55%-45%).
They are perfectly within their rights to propose whatever they choose and to raise a citizen’s initiative.
But given that one portion of it has already been rejected by the voters, as it were, are you particularly worried? I’d simply point out that these bundling strategies rarely if ever work, as the past attempt at Arizona’s constitutional amendment showed.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
jimbo, I thought the moderates & progressives in Maine defeated the best efforts of CCL-M at the ballot box in ’05.
I don’t know about Maine’s adoption laws or the political effectiveness of CCL-M in the wake of that defeat, but I remember Sen Snowe laughing about them when she was asked a question at a Senate press confernce I attended. It was a dismissive laugh.
One thing I do know, I don’t doubt the gayLeft in Maine will be using the CCL-M’s feeble efforts and will be working overtime to rake in some dough while waving around the bloody shirt of the CCL-M. That will happen irrespective of the real threat to gay civil rights.
Honest, you don’t think that the CCL-M is going to be effective on their agenda, do you?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Hey, NDXXX, you are MY sidekick -at least according to ChasWilson. As a sidekick, you’re supposed to go 2nd on the answer track.
Let’s keep your sense of protocol better tuned in the future.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Woof. Damn. Or so says Michigan Matt. How about you, North Liar Forty?
posted by Rob on
Ditto with Regan and Bobby. They’ve pretty much proved that this is apples and oranges. What’s more related is concerning the parental ‘right’ of sending a non-consented, and handcuffed gay teen to some fraudulent ex-gay ministry.
I think that pretty much proves it that Richard Dawkins point on religion being child abuse. Children’s rights should take precedence over parental rights.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Turns out that the latest news about the Mormon cult is that a bunch of the kids (who are also mothers) are being kept in foster care because they are under 18. They had told the authorities that they are over 18, but had lied about that.
When they grow up, they’ll make great Republicans. In the meantime, I’ll be waiting for the DNA results. They should be fascinating.
posted by Bobby on
Charles, those people aren’t republicans, they’re above worldly matters. They live in the ultimate gated community, women and kids are not even allowed to leave the compound. I doubt they even vote.
Rob, I agree with you, except on the Richard Dawkins point. Richard is just as bad as any crazy fundamentalist. He wants the entire world to be secular, he ridicules religion and religious people. Extreme narrow-minded secularism, the kind that gets pissed off if the president says “God bless America,” is not the solution.
“What’s more related is concerning the parental ‘right’ of sending a non-consented, and handcuffed gay teen to some fraudulent ex-gay ministry.”
—Well, parents do have the right to do that, including sending your kids to private military schools. Parents are responsible for their kids, there’s no such thing as children’s rights, in fact, sometimes when a child commits a crime, the parents are penalized.
“Children’s rights should take precedence over parental rights.”
—That can’t happen because the state can’t afford to raise the kids.
The current system is fine, parents do lose custody of their kids if they go too far. But I don’t accept that a spanking is child abuse as some people see it. And there are too many kids and teenagers running out of control.
Besides, the whole point of parenting is to tell your kids what to do so by the time they turn 18 they’re able to make their own choices. Letting your kid get tattoos, piercings, smoke cigarettes, and make his or her own decisions doesn’t really help them. Teenagers and kids hardly know anything about the world, they’re likely to face group pressure, do what others do. That’s why you have to set the rules and enforce them.
Of course, when you come out and your parents tell you “you can’t be gay.” Then it’s very hard and naturally, you rebel or start living a double life.
In spite of that, the more the state gets involved with families, the more harm they cause. That’s why the role of the state should be reserved for the most extreme circumstances.
posted by Rob on
“Rob, I agree with you, except on the Richard Dawkins point. Richard is just as bad as any crazy fundamentalist. He wants the entire world to be secular, he ridicules religion and religious people. Extreme narrow-minded secularism, the kind that gets pissed off if the president says “God bless America,” is not the solution.
I agree that Dawkins is radical, and over the line with his views, yet he still makes a point about parents forcing their children to believe in things against their will. And there’s a difference between forcing them to do reasonable things (e.g eating your veggies, brushing your teeth), and making them believing in harmful tings (e.g going to hell because you’re gay).
—Well, parents do have the right to do that, including sending your kids to private military schools. Parents are responsible for their kids, there’s no such thing as children’s rights, in fact, sometimes when a child commits a crime, the parents are penalized.
Well that has to change. Parents shouldn’t have the right to force minors into ex-gay camps, especially those with controversial histories. This is tantamount to psychological, and sometimes physical, abuse.
Would they also have the right to expose their children to other extremist factions? Then when kids like the lost boys, turn messed up, who gets to foot the bill? Such parents should be held liable if their children end up in the street due to domestic issues.
—That can’t happen because the state can’t afford to raise the kids.
It doesn’t need to raise them, instead they can give them gradual legal emancipation, and I’m sure a lot of gays and lesbians do adopt gay teens cast out of their homes. Some have actually succeeded in legally divorcing from their parents. I believe Regan has helped some of those kids a lot.
The current system is fine, parents do lose custody of their kids if they go too far. But I don’t accept that a spanking is child abuse as some people see it. And there are too many kids and teenagers running out of control.
That’s murky water I agree, but tormenting gay kids with religious fervour, and send them to exgay camps is going too far. Do you agree?
Besides, the whole point of parenting is to tell your kids what to do so by the time they turn 18 they’re able to make their own choices. Letting your kid get tattoos, piercings, smoke cigarettes, and make his or her own decisions doesn’t really help them. Teenagers and kids hardly know anything about the world, they’re likely to face group pressure, do what others do. That’s why you have to set the rules and enforce them.
Of course, when you come out and your parents tell you “you can’t be gay.” Then it’s very hard and naturally, you rebel or start living a double life.
Which causes a lot of social problems in general. Like I said, the parents should be held much more liable for the psychological welfare of their own children.
In spite of that, the more the state gets involved with families, the more harm they cause. That’s why the role of the state should be reserved for the most extreme circumstances.
There’s no perfect solution to this issue, but there’s still room for some serious improvement. The state can grant gradual emancipation, the community and NGOs can set up better safety nets for kids, and wonderful people like Regan should get a tax deduction for their contributions.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
ASHPENAZ!!!
Your question got answered already, unless you’re asking rhetorically.
This is why polygamy is unacceptable.
1. It’s mostly religious based in America. Religion is usually unchallenged, but used to ABUSE. Mostly in the case of females and gay people.
2. And because it’s religion based, it’s LIFESTYLE based. Being gay isn’t a choice that can be made the way religion is. Homosexuality has been around longer than most religions. No one is making up their own rules on being gay.
But all kinds of rules being made up within these polygamist situations creating separate states within this country, can’t be having that.
3. For every man who covets multiple wives, that leaves several men with NO wife and when they are young, boys who pose romantic rivalries are shunned and abandoned from the group.
4. Women have very little say in the power structure or workings of who gets to be the next wife. Jealousy, having their needs or that of their children is also a problem. How attentive can ONE man be to five wives and almost 30 children? Remember the stupid theory that the ex gay industry is always saying causes homosexuality. Inattentive father, overbearing mother. WELL, aren’t these polygamist societies just the ripest of situations for a fresh crop of gay children? If one were to believe such a theory?
5. Who has primacy in the event of an emergency? Who has the power of custody for whom?
6. Females in that culture are inculcated with the idea that breeding is their HIGHEST calling. Well, what about those that can’t for whatever reason? What about those that shouldn’t? Some of these polygamists are extremely isolated, but some aren’t.
The children are under such utter control of just a few people, it’s not healthy. They DON’T always know who their fathers and mothers are, and have to share with so many other children or compete for attention, it takes sibling rivalry to insane levels.
7. And most of these families are incestuous. Girls are married to uncles, first cousins, sister sets marry one husband and all this half brother, half cousin, double first cousin once removed from great uncle is DIZZYING in the concept of how can these people keep from becoming seriously inbred if they are so isolated within a single community.
It’s not wrong because we WANT it to be Ashpenaz, it’s wrong for the sheer breadth of how difficult it is for anyone to form a STRONG, attentive bond to a single wife and their own children.
Serial divorce and remarriage is the closest to polygamy. Ask someone, anyone who is progeny from such a situation and see how hard it was for these families to have any privacy, primacy…or even financial and creature support.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Rob,
“yet he still makes a point about parents forcing their children to believe in things against their will.”
—But that’s what all parents do, with the good and the bad. Distinguishing what’s good and what’s bad is where it gets harder. But I don’t think “forcing” religion is bad, I certainly had to attend religious services when I was a child, and go to a private religious school, but when I grew up I’m glad I had those experiences, even if I live a mostly secular lifestyle.
The irony is that most secular parents and committed atheists also raise their kids with their values. One of those Truelife segments from MTV featured weird people in a family. A good example was a family of hippies and radicals that had a normal girls, and all the hatred and discrimination that girl experienced for wanting to be a cheerleader and doing normal things.
“making them believing in harmful tings (e.g going to hell because you’re gay).”
—As horrible as it sounds, it’s completely legal and within a parents rights.
“Parents shouldn’t have the right to force minors into ex-gay camps, especially those with controversial histories. This is tantamount to psychological, and sometimes physical, abuse.”
—The thing is, you have to prove that real physical abuse and perhaps sexual abuse took place. I knew an organization that dealt with gay runaways and kids who can no longer deal with their parents. There are options available. Besides, all christian camps are ex-gay camps to an extent, they all greatly discourage gays.
“Then when kids like the lost boys, turn messed up, who gets to foot the bill?”
—It’s no different from rich parents who have their kids raised by nannies while they vacation in Europe, or from single parents with latchkey children. By the time you’re 18, you’re own your own and responsible for yourself.
“That’s murky water I agree, but tormenting gay kids with religious fervour, and send them to exgay camps is going too far. Do you agree?”
—It’s hard for me to say, my parents almost wanted to send me to one of those places, but then they found out it was run by religious nuts, so they didn’t. If it had been a secular ex-gay camp, full of homophobic psychologists, I would have been sent there.
My own personal hell was high school, but I don’t blame my parents for it and by the time they offered me to go to a smaller school, I rejected their offer.
“Which causes a lot of social problems in general. Like I said, the parents should be held much more liable for the psychological welfare of their own children.”
—That’s where it gets subjective, there’s no school of parenting, how to raise a child is very dubious, every parents has different approaches.
And I don’t think we should undermine outside influences. For example, it’s being discovered that the reason so many people hate exercize is because of the horrible experiences they had in physical education classes. The name calling, the coach ridiculing you, the pain and humiliation, always being picked last.
But things have gotten better, look at this story, now schools are censoring homophobic parents, I think they go too far, however.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62485
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But Regan, liberal gays and lesbians and their organizations like NGLTF and HRC have already stated that they fully endorse and support polyamorous relationships and demand that these be given full legal recognition and support.
The reason these are “conflated” is because the same organizations and people who are agitating for gay marriage are also advocating for polyamorous benefits and protections.
posted by Amicus on
Fascinating to watch the reactions to this unfolding story, including Stephens.
It’s amazingly telling about people’s unexamined biases and prejudices.
Imagine how things would be different, if this compound were all-gay, and there were men having temple-sex with 17-y.o. boys.
Imagine how things would be different, if we were talking about a polyandrous cult, rather than a polygamous one.
Consider how sex-acts immediately are elevated to the level of “family”, just because a 56 y.o. man with 20 “wives” gets a new one pregnant. Consider also how the world “responsible” to describe this is stretched to fit a desired outcome… Consider just how much “abuse” is emptied (or the standard for it set high, if you prefer that perspective), so that “parenthood” that denies kids a birth-record and basic health care is winked at.
Seriously, it’s astounding.
I keep snipping as many tidbits on a weekly basis as I can. One could write an entire doctoral thesis on the sociology of how we “excuse” what went on at YFZ ranch (and continues, elsewhere…).
posted by Charles Wilson on
Imagine how things would be different, if this compound were all-gay, and there were men having temple-sex with 17-y.o. boys.
Here’s how things would be different. First, there’d be no children involved. Other than the 17-year-olds, natch. Second, they’d have better haircuts.
Third, North Liar Forty would be giving birth to a cow right about now and coming up with all the reasons why it was perfectly reasonable for the government to have tested that tactical nuclear weapon. Fourth, Michigan-Matt would be saying, “Woof. Damn.” Ha!
posted by Charles Wilson on
Imagine how things would be different, if this compound were all-gay, and there were men having temple-sex with 17-y.o. boys.
Here’s how things would be different. First, there’d be no children involved. Other than the 17-year-olds, natch. Second, they’d have better haircuts.
Third, North Liar Forty would be giving birth to a cow right about now and coming up with all the reasons why it was perfectly reasonable for the government to have tested that tactical nuclear weapon. Fourth, Michigan-Matt would be saying, “Woof. Damn.”
And the Log Cabin Society would be saying that it was regrettable, but understandable in light of the failure of everyone in the compound to be straight-acting when they went out to the hardware store in town. Ha!
posted by Bobby on
There’s nothing wrong with polyamorus relationships, s/m, porn, as long as it involves ADULTS. The case with the crazy mormons involves CHILDREN.
As far as I know, liberal gays don’t advocate having sex with minors.
Why are we fighting within ourselves? This is a great opportunity to gloat. A bunch of homophobic mormon separatists who think we’re all a bunch of hellbound sinners have gotten in trouble.
This is just as wonderful as the day Mel Gibson got caught driving drunk and made anti-semitic rants. Or when Eddie Murphy got caught hiring a tranvestite hooker.
I feel sorry for the kids, but I know they’re gonna be better off away from those nutcakes. A foster home is better than any cult.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As far as I know, liberal gays don’t advocate having sex with minors.
Indeed they do.
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today.
The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass ? no political party has opposed it ? but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
posted by Amicus on
Why are we fighting within ourselves?
—-
uh, because of those who say, “If we [the courts] pass gay marriage, you guys are just waiting to say you must have “polygamy”, too”, etc., etc.?
posted by Bobby on
North Dallas, the age of consent for gay and straight sex should be the same. If you raise the age of consent, you have to raise it for both groups, otherwise you don’t have equality, and that’s what liberal gays where advocating.
The testimony of Richard Hudler only shows the bias created by his own experiences. I don’t think it’s common.
posted by Pat on
Indeed they do.
NDT, how does this prove your point?
posted by Craig2 on
If there is intervention against cases of polygamous paedophilia, then surely statutory rape charges would be the best way to proceed, as one Vancouver New Democrat Party MP, Dawn May, has suggested – they’re worried that British Columbia’s schismatic Mormonoid outpost, Bountiful, might also have similar cases of child sexual abuse waiting to be uncovered.
By the sound of it, the US compound raids were justifiable on the basis of paedophile rape of female children, so I cannot see why statutory rape charges are not the way to proceed.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Regan DuCasse on
NORTHDALLASTHIRTY: The webpage you offer isn’t FROM the NGLTF or HRC. Nor is if from any of the marriage equality advocate groups, several of whom I work for.
This page is the opinion of something more on the fringes that doesn’t want ANY governmental, neither state or federal business involved in marriage.
It is deceptive of you to say this is endorsed by HRC or NGLTF when it definitely is NOT.
And they DON’T support the obvious results and situations that THIS polygamy situation represents. A RELIGIOUS one, unchallenged by the state.
And even over at TownHall, their conservative writers are defending parent’s rights and what they see is the overstepping of the state into a family’s established structure.
They’ve said virtually NOTHING about the suspected abuse of females and forced marriages and rapes and premature parenthood for these girls.
I haven’t received ANY articles, read any or seen ANY support by GAY specific orgs or marriage equality supporters.
There ARE some orgs that are heterosexual that support polygamy, gay marriage, and polyamory.
But again, they are not the prominent authority that anyone goes to, to speak on the marriage equality issue for gay couples.
posted by ReganDuCasse on
BTW, North Dallas Thirty, I get DAILY information from EQuality CA, I worked for the NO on Knight campaign here in California back in 2000. I have been volunteering for EqualityforAll marriage pledge drive for the last several months. I am a member of the HRC and GLAAD…and I also volunteer for the NGLTF when I have the time. But I receive their newsletters.
Not EVER has any of these groups endorsed polygamy or supported it. Especially under their own banner. You might meet an individual who says they think the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all. But that’s STILL not an endorsement of polygamy.
All of us who are members or volunteers would have been made aware of these groups intentions of supporting it. They ask for funds and donations. I doubt that, if they endorsed polygamy, they’d get any donations at all.
Especially since the abuses that go on in these polygamist societies is WELL documented.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“On the fringes”, indeed.
In addition, the statement clearly says, and I quote, that it seeks “legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families”, including, again quote, “Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”.
That is not “getting government out of the marriage business”. It is mandating that the government legally recognize and support polyamorous relationships.
Finally, read this quote from Matt Foreman, erstwhile head of NGLTF:
“Of course we share its values, and I think it?s values and its aspirations are something that gay and straight people can embrace, because our nation needs to find ways to protect the reality of the America family, which is far beyond one man and one woman, or two men or two women,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “This really isn?t a gay issue, it?s an American family issue. Yes, we deserve marriage equality for hundreds if not thousands of reasons, but we also at the same time can be working to protect other forms of family relationships.
It?s not an either/or situation and it never has been.”
Meanwhile, the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights is claiming that it is “imposing conservative moral values” to ban sex with children as young as the FLDS brides.
In short, what should be obvious is that the gay and lesbian leftist organizations for which you work see nothing wrong with polygamy or child sex — as long as they are the ones practicing it.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
That’s only Matt Foreman, that’s not ALL of the organizations for which I work. Which are not leftist.
And if it’s true about the CLGR, then again, I already mentioned that even the conservatives who write for Townhall haven’t exactly criticized this situation in Texas EITHER.
So, perhaps Matt Foreman and TH conservatives DO share similar values in that regard.
That still isn’t the overall, or even majority opinion of gays and lesbians who support marriage, and it’s not right for you to talk as if it is.
One could argue then, that even more heterosexuals endorse polygamy and polyamory…and they’d still be wrong.
All the reasons I already have mentioned are why.
And even mores the point, these polygamist sects exist at the expense of the freedoms of the females.
A two man or two woman household would be far more egalitarian or confusing to the state regarding primacy of custody.
So you’ve proven there are some gay people that agree with polygamy.
Lots of heterosexuals do too.
But the negative impact of such arrangements ARE on record.
Whereas there is no record of adverse affects from gay marriage and parenting that are out of proportion to that of heterosexuals.
So your point is pretty moot there NDT.
posted by ReganDuCasse on
Grammatical error…I meant more egalitarian, and LESS confusing to the state regarding primacy and custody.
posted by Rob on
Bobby,
Like I said before I agree that child rearing isn’t a black and white issue, especially on defining what’s reasonable or not in society. But I think we can all agree on this forum that some religious nut handcuffing their gay offspring, and driving them to an exgay camp is tantamount to abuse, and that such abuse should be criminalized. What makes sexual minorities different from other ones is that many of us sprout out in shithole families, and I do believe we all have a duty to help those out.of these terrible situations.
Society should make a stronger example out of those who abuse their children. Look at what happened to a woman who was imprisoned for 24 years of her life by her subhuman so-called father? None of the neighbours suspected such an atrocity could occur in their neighbourhood. The mother didn’t even bother to check what the hell was going under her house. Shouldn’t she bear some of the responsibility? Absolutely. What was going on into her subcounscious mind for over 24 years?
I can come up with a few solutions to this issue, but what’s important is that the local community should have held that monster accountable, and so should people of the LGBT community held up anti-gay parents accountable.