“I don’t know what you mean by ‘bigamy,’” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously.
“Of course you don’t–till I tell you.”*
Evidence suggests that the Texas legislature enacted its bigamy statute, Texas Penal Code Section 25.01, in a special session held inside Alice in Wonderland’s Looking Glass.
To the untrained eye, it may seem that the statute is clear and concise. In fact, as illustrated by this initial survey, it is quite the opposite. It is a monument to the illogical absurdity that results when a state attempts to achieve an unconstitutional end - the eradication of a religion - through an otherwise constitutional tool like statute.
For this post, I’ve rearranged the statute** a bit - inserting my own A through D — to facilitate discussion. At this point, I don’t address marriages to non-adults and I assume that none of the women in these examples is married to any person other than the cad I will be using as an example of a bigamous dummy.
Section 25.01 says in part:
“An individual commits an offense if…he is legally married and he…(A) purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, (B) under circumstances that would, but for the actor’s prior marriage, constitute a marriage…or…(C) lives with a person other than his spouse in this state under the appearance of being married….(D) For purposes of this section, “under the appearance of being married” means holding out that the parties are married with cohabitation and an intent to be married by either party.”
Being married is the linchpin under (A) above. Obviously, by the plain language of the statute, an unmarried man can have as many women bear him children as can tolerate him, he can live with them communally or visit them at their homes, and he does not commit bigamy for so long as he does not “hold out” [see (D)] that he is married to any of them. That means he does not refer to them as his wives, nor they to him as their husband. It means none of them can have an intent that they be married in the present sense, not at some future time.
Being married is also the linchpin under (C). Here, the man is, let us assume, legally, formally married pursuant to license. He lives with another woman, IN TEXAS, and holds out, by the actions described in the first example above, that she is his wife. Dummy. He commits bigamy is he does that. If he does not do the holding out, he can live with as many other women and have children by them till he drops dead, and he does not commit bigamy. Notice also, that he could be married and live with his wife in the Texas section of Texarkana, and live in the Arkansas section of that city with another woman under the appearance of being married, and not be in violation of the Texas bigamy statute.
The language in (B) will produce loads of litigation, billable hours for attorneys, persecution, and reams of judicial opinions. What are the “circumstances that would, but for the [scoundrel's/cad's/sex fiend's] prior marriage, constitute a marriage”? Here are two that come easily to mind: He gets married to a second wife pursuant to a marriage license that is fraudulently or illegally obtained; or, he enters into a second, informal marriage and/or registers a declaration of informal marriage with the County Clerk pursuant to the Texas Family Code.
How about going through a marriage ceremony with someone not yet 16 years old (post Sept. 05)? Nope, that kind of marriage is void.
How about going through a marriage ceremony with an adult, conducted by a person “…who is an officer of a religious organization and who is authorized by the organization to conduct a marriage ceremony…” but without a marriage license?
There is at least one civil case opinion out of the 3rd Court of Appeals in which the Court said that the statutes which regulate the mode of entering into a marriage relationship, including the requirement of a license, are merely directory. That is to say, even without a license, the marriage is valid anyway, unless it is declared void by some other statute. Thus, in the hypothetical I set out above the second marriage would be valid except for the existence of the first, and the dummy has committed bigamy. On the other hand, according to the language of the Court in that case, he would not commit bigamy if he attempted to marry someone under the age of 16, because such marriages are void.
What if the officer of the religious organization has not been authorized by that organization to conduct a marriage ceremony? No help to the dummy, as the Family code says the validity of the marriage is not affected by lack of authority.
What if the religious organization means something by the word “marriage” and by the “marriage ceremony” that is not contemplated by the Family Code and the Penal Code? This is the really difficult question. It will probably be THE difficult issue in some of the bigamy prosecutions, if any, of FLDS people. A decent answer to this question will require a trial court and attorneys to create an exhaustive record of just what “marriage” means historically and in contemporary Texas. It will also require the same kind of record to be made concerning a defendant’s understanding of the words, and his religious organization’s understanding of the words.
If “marriage” does not mean to the religious organization and its members the kind of immediate joining together physically, as well as spiritually and emotionally, for the purpose of creating a family, in the way the words and ceremony seem to mean to most main-stream American religions, then maybe bigamy is not present.
What if the religious organization never uses the terms “marriage,” “spouse,” “husband,” and “wife”? Here’s a hypothetical to test that question:
Imagine parties to a ceremony as just a “Joining Together” and to each other as “Pumpkins,” not as “spouses” or “husband and wife.” They don’t “purport to be married,” - whatever this means — and they don’t hold themselves out to be husband and wife, or spouses. Rather, they hold themselves out to be Joined Pumpkins. And they don’t intend to start making babies immediately or even to set up housekeeping together. They may have in mind doing these things later on, but not right now.
The statutes, after all, speak in terms of marrying, and of spouses. If Pumpkin people do not use the language of the Code, because the Code does not contemplate or address the consequences of the Joining Ceremony, or even indicate any understanding of the Joining Ceremony, then to find a Pumpkin Person guilty of bigamy may imply a violation of due process of law.
Prosecution of the Pumpkin people could be extremely difficult if they use certain words to mean something the State of Texas does not mean by those words. Indeed, Texas prosecutors may have to cite Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word, it means just what I chose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
The issue will be made difficult in part because the State has not defined in detail the word “marriage,” much less “purporting” to be married. That is not surprising, since “marriage” undoubtedly means so many different things to so many Texans that a detailed definition cannot be formulated.
But the difficulty of all such cases is that they are so fact dependent: Some may be easier to decipher than others. I suspect that very soon the prosecution of the FLDS people for bigamy will get to be so legally technical that a lot of people will not understand what is going on.
Those who want to keep up with what really is happening — not just with the garbled reports of pundits - will need to pay close attention as Texas courts and prosecutors plunge headlong through the looking glass in pursuit of Pumpkins. Why they do it is anyone’s guess.
Kurt Schulzke contributed to this post.
* * *
* Adapted from Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll.
** Full text of the bigamy statute appears below.
Tex. Penal Code § 25.01 (2007)
§ 25.01. Bigamy
(a) An individual commits an offense if:
(1) he is legally married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry a person other than his spouse in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the actor’s prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with a person other than his spouse in this state under the appearance of being married; or
(2) he knows that a married person other than his spouse is married and he:
(A) purports to marry or does marry that person in this state, or any other state or foreign country, under circumstances that would, but for the person’s prior marriage, constitute a marriage; or
(B) lives with that person in this state under the appearance of being married.
(b) For purposes of this section, “under the appearance of being married” means holding out that the parties are married with cohabitation and an intent to be married by either party.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1) that the actor reasonably believed at the time of the commission of the offense that the actor and the person whom the actor married or purported to marry or with whom the actor lived under the appearance of being married were legally eligible to be married because the actor’s prior marriage was void or had been dissolved by death, divorce, or annulment. For purposes of this subsection, an actor’s belief is reasonable if the belief is substantiated by a certified copy of a death certificate or other signed document issued by a court.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the lawful wife or husband of the actor may testify both for or against the actor concerning proof of the original marriage.
(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree, except that if at the time of the commission of the offense, the person whom the actor marries or purports to marry or with whom the actor lives under the appearance of being married is:
(1) 16 years of age or older, the offense is a felony of the second degree; or
(2) younger than 16 years of age, the offense is a felony of the first degree.
{ 113 comments… read them below or add one }
rikitikitavi1 08.09.08 at 2:27 pm
There are a lot of people across the state of Texas committing bigamy right now & many family law attorneys committing malpractice on this issue. Why? Because many married people decide to split up, form new relationships, move in, have kids, etc, call the new person their “husband” or “wife” to the new neighbors, and THEN file for divorce. But you don’t see CPS & DPS & law enforcement knocking down those doors & invading those properties with tanks & paramilitary forces, taking women & children at gunpoint, do ya? IMO, this statute creates a “thought crime,” which will not pass constitutional muster & the fact that it was made a felony is laughable. This is in addition to the legislative history that is filled with references to the FLDS & how this new law is targeting them & only them. Should have called this statute the ” Criminal Defense Counsel Full Employment Act.”
Hugh McBryde 08.09.08 at 3:42 pm
If Texas claims that someone is committing “Bigamy” without the benefit of a formal registration of marriage, isn’t Texas recognizing that marriage can be accomplished without the participation of the state? Otherwise, how could it be bigamy?
Granted they are trying to frame a statute that addresses people who essentially “pretend” to be married without benefit of the law so as to close loopholes, but the unintended consequence seems to be that they declare people CAN get married informally.
What then? Are bigamous FLDS members who have a younger bride married and guilty of bigamy but not molestation of a child? If they purport to be married to that child, are they then cleared of that crime? Are the monogamously “married” but not formally registered older males married to younger girls actually married and guilty of no crime?
It would seem Texas wishes to have it both ways.
Doran Williams 08.09.08 at 4:18 pm
Hugh, informal marriages were previously referred to as common law marriages, and have been recognized in Texas since the days of The Republic, as far as I know. But it is a mode of entering into a marriage relationship that is available only to people 18 years of age and older.
Kurt Schulzke 08.09.08 at 4:28 pm
Georgia, however, no longer recognizes “common law” marriage.
TxBluesMan 08.09.08 at 4:31 pm
Doran,
You are hilarious! You’re still wrong, but it is funny.
First, you are clearly aware (we talked about this, remember?) that the elements of the offense for Bigamy in Texas have not changed in over 35 years, since they read exactly the same now as they did when they made the 1973 Penal Code revision. So where is the State attempt to eradicate a religion?
Are you saying that the State had the power to predict the future? That they wrote the laws over 35 years ago to target the FLDS, which weren’t even then in Texas? Wow! That’s impressive. Are you sure that you want to upset people that have such powers of prognostication and prophecy?
Second, all bigamous marriages are void, so your defense that the underage marriage is also void won’t support the conviction is ludicrous. According to your logic, no bigamy charges could ever be prosecuted since, according to FC §6.202, “A marriage is void if entered into when either party has an existing marriage to another person that has not been dissolved by legal action or terminated by the death of the other spouse.”
Uh, Doran – that hasn’t stopped any other prosecutions for Bigamy… The fact that the underage marriage is void makes no difference – all bigamous marriages are void.
Finally, your convoluted reasoning that it depends on what the FLDS considers the word “marriage” to be has got to be the longest stretch so far. That sets statutory construction on its own head. It is clearly established (i.e., black letter law, Kurt can explain that to you) that “When construing a statute, we give effect to the plain meaning of the text unless the text is ambiguous or the plain meaning would lead to absurd results that the Legislature could not possibly have intended.” Williams v. State,No. AP-74,391, ___ S.W.3d ___ , 2008 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 692 (Tex. Crim. App. 6/11/2008).
Here, the text is neither ambiguous nor such that the plain meaning would lead to absurd results. The statute is clear. If you marry more than one person, you go to jail, and if one of those persons is under the age of consent, you go to jail for a long, long time.
Your post was entertaining though.
Kurt Schulzke 08.09.08 at 4:48 pm
But TBM, this text is highly ambiguous. No one can tell what it means. Example: What does it mean to “purport to be married”?
Beowulf 08.09.08 at 4:51 pm
“What if the religious organization means something by the word “marriage” and by the “marriage ceremony” that is not contemplated by the Family Code and the Penal Code? This is the really difficult question.”
I think you’re being disparately sophistic in this. Marriage is common to human society and and usually involve the engendering and raising of children. Perhaps we should just limit the term to couples intending to have children and that way we could get by some of the semantic sophistry going on.
As an example of different term for marriage that clearly means marriage in the statutory sense, Pagan groups regularly use “handfasting” as a term for marriage and this is a formal relationship with license and the whole enchilada. You may be correct that the Lege needs to be explicit in its definition of “marriage”, but this hasn’t been done yet, and, in the end, will probably be dealt with by the courts. At any rate, the zoo will be back in town on 3 January, and no doubt all of this will come up, one way or another.
Doran Williams @ 418 mentioned the common law marriage statue, and I would suspect that this is where the “purporting to be married” language comes from.
TxBluesMan 08.09.08 at 5:23 pm
Actually, “purport to marry” is used in numerous states, all construing it in the same plain language way, meaning intending or claiming to marry. Very simple actually. You may want to read United States v. Dedman, 527 F.3d 577, (6th Cir. 2008) for a Federal decision on it. It’s out of Arkansas, but the language is the same.
In addition to the Arkansas statute, Utah, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, etc all use similar language, either in their bigamy or incest statutes.
Don’t worry though Kurt, there is sufficient case law in Texas on it to assure that it is clearly defined…
Chai Tea 08.09.08 at 5:43 pm
I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem that ‘intending’ to marry and ‘claiming’ to be married are two vastly different concepts, so ‘purport’ cannot possibly mean both.
Someone please enlighten me.
If it is a crime to ‘intend’ to be married…lock up all those engaged girls!
Jeny 08.09.08 at 6:30 pm
I know two gay guys who have been living together in Texas for 20 years. They “purport” to be married.
Are they?
Hmmmm.
cheese 08.09.08 at 6:44 pm
The only problem arises when the state “purports” that you are purporting to be married. It’s all about public opinion polls!
Jeny 08.09.08 at 6:51 pm
“cheese { 08.09.08 at 6:44 pm } The only problem arises when the state “purports” that you are purporting to be married. It’s all about public opinion polls!”
Purportedly!
Chai Tea 08.09.08 at 6:56 pm
Also…my understanding is that Texas recognizes common law marriages - so…. how does that meet the law quoted above?
Here’s a link: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage
Not sure if that link is the most updated chart, but please note some of the marriage ages. Particularly Massachusssetts - 12 and 14 (with the proper consents)! A couple states say 15 and Mississippi sets no age limit as long as the kiddies have parental consent. NY - no younger than 13/girls or 14/boys (with permission from a judge).
Crazy, huh?
TxBluesMan 08.09.08 at 7:30 pm
Common law marriage may be used to prove Bigamy in Texas, for either the 1st, 2nd, or both marriages.
kbp 08.09.08 at 10:25 pm
Some are hoping Common Law is used in “both marriages” to prove Bigamy in Texas.
Pliggy 08.09.08 at 10:56 pm
O what a tangled web we weave when we first attempt to decieve.
It is NOT about religion, right? B stinkin S. This is only an issue for those who take responsibility for the mothers of their children.
Same garbage, different state.
eldoOtis 08.09.08 at 11:28 pm
Y’all don’t forget the grand jury meets the 21st and there is more to come. Hope something does go to trail, gets a conviction on anything, its appealed and the high court somewhere decides once and for all what can and cannot be done by the state of Texas. Then y’all can shut the hell up.. Either way, we still live in Eldorado unlike most you.
Kurt Schulzke 08.10.08 at 12:12 am
TBM –
I’m not worried. I also don’t think that “case law in Texas” has “clearly defined” any of this in this context. You talk about how the bigamy statutes have been enforced against non-FLDS. If so, the facts here are likely so different from any prior cases that whatever has been said in the past won’t apply now.
K
Thomas Forguson 08.10.08 at 6:04 am
Eldootis those who live in ElDorado need to tolerate your neighbors.We will not forget the mistreatment of the women and children of the FLDS
Chai Tea 08.10.08 at 6:23 am
EldoOtis…living in Eldorado is not anything to be proud of at the moment. Texas will go down in history as the state that mistreats women and children, forcing them into concentration camp style living while leaving the alleged perpetrators in their homes. Your own Supreme Court said that Texas and CPS did not follow written procedure nor have evidence (obtained illegally) to act as they did. Texas has been branded as idiotic by their own hand.
None of us that have been following the case have been surprised that there are indictments - we’ve seen Texas style justice before - remember Waco? But, not being blind, we who are distant and more objective, see the INJUSTICE being done to these people…all because of their cloistered living - so, who ya gonna arrest next? All the nuns that claim they’re ’spiritual wives’ of God? The PURPORT to be married to God and even wear wedding bands….
Ya gonna hang ‘em from the nearest tree?
Good grief - Get a grip. Leave these people alone. They haven’t hurt you - they’re not out banging on your doors and forcing their religion down your throat…
Sheesh.
Bill Medvecky 08.10.08 at 9:15 am
Otis is proud of what CPS did to those children.
That alone speaks volumes as to his bigotry and his ignorance.
Bill Medvecky
SKK 08.10.08 at 11:31 am
No one is being prosecuted for bigamy other than if there is a child involved. How is that religious persecution? If Texas really was only interested in destroying the FLDS, they would be prosecuting 99% of the adults for bigamy. They’re not. Every indictment so far has a child victim. Why is it so difficult to believe they are trying to protect children, whether or not you agree with their methods or rationale?
Chai Tea 08.10.08 at 11:56 am
When Texas and CPS begins rounding up all the fathers of unwed underage mothers and charging them with crimes, and carting the pregnant teenagers and her siblings and mothers off to house them in San Angelo’s Colliseum without adequate bathrooms, showers, or water, THEN I’ll believe that the FLDS folks have not been targeted and are not victims of religious persecution.
I don’t see that happening any time soon, SKK - do you?
Those underage girls have beem ‘victimized’ - haven’t they?
What makes the difference?
SKK 08.10.08 at 1:09 pm
What makes the difference is a report of suspected abuse. Outside of the FLDS …take, for example, a family practice doctor who has a 15 year old girl come in for a pregnancy test which turns out to be positive. The good doctor has a statutory duty to report the underage pregnancy as a case of suspected abuse. CPS then has a duty to investigate and law enforcement also has a duty also to conduct a joint investigation. If it turns out the girl is the sixth informal wife of a 40 year old man, there should be an indictment and the fifteen year old will be called to the grand jury to testify. Even if the ionvestigation reveals the girl is shacking up with a 25 year old, the result should be the same. Even if the 15 year old is living at home with mom and going to high school and making straight A’s and captain of the drill team, if the baby daddy is a 25 year old (or 19 year old or 50 year old), the result should be the same. If the 15 year old’s mother allowed the sexual relationship and refused to take minimal steps to protect against it, CPS should remove the child to a safer environment. Do you have any evidence or data to suggest that such crimes are not investigated and prosecuted outside of the FLDS? As far as CPS taking steps to protect that 15 year old, I think it’s a crapshoot .. have yet to figure out any rhyme or reason to CPS’ actions or inaction ..but I dont believe that CPS is acting out religious bigotry or trying to persecute the FLDS, although I do understand why it looks that way to their community.
Thomas Forguson 08.10.08 at 1:18 pm
SKK before the FLDS srrived in Texas marrying a 14 year old was legal. The FLDS arrive in Texas and it becomes illegal and that makes it religious persecution. Plus, there have been no illegal marriages since 2006. Finally, the reluctance of these young mothers to testify before the grand jury indicates that they dont consider themselves to be victims.
Thomas Forguson 08.10.08 at 1:23 pm
SKK the reason they are prosecuting bigamy where only adults are involved is they are afraid that laws against bigamy might not withstand a constiutional challenge.
SKK 08.10.08 at 1:30 pm
No doubt the young mothers don’t consider themselves victims ..that is why the sexual assault statute is written the way it is, it takes the decision_making away from the child completely and places the burden squarely on the adult’s shoulders where it belongs. It is an adult’s obligation not to engage in sexual relations with children, it is the adult’s duty to protect against harm to children because children cannot protect themselves. The age of consent has been 17 for a good long time. The change in marriage laws I agree was directed at the FLDS, but that law has not had an impact on any of these cases, nor will it because none of the underage marriages meet with the statutory requirements anyway ..i.e. parents may have consented to underage unions, but there is no marriage license, there is no judicial approval, and there is no legal marriage.
I think the fact that there have been no illegal marriages since 2006 should be heavily weighed in assessing the real risk to teenage girls. There is nothing guarding against it, however, if the prophet commands it, right? I think that safeguard is what CPS is looking for.
SKK 08.10.08 at 1:41 pm
TF - I think that’s probably a good guess about why there will be no idictments for bigamy when only consenting adults are involved. I think the law would pass constitutional muster, by the way.
If religious persecution were the motivator here, you would see indictments for bigamy, notwithstanding any potential constitutional challenge. Just getting the indictments and subjecting nearly all the adults to the criminal justice system would be devastating to the community financially and would be the perfect tool for a state driven by religous persecution. I predict that will not happen, and I dont see any evidence that persecution is the driving force behind the indictments or CPS recent motions to remove only 8 children
rikitikitavi1 08.10.08 at 1:45 pm
SKK, then why doesn’t the AG’s office turn over to CPS & law enforcement the cases of undeage mothers/adult fathers in the child support cases that it files EVERY SINGLE DAY across the State? I’ll tell you why (since I got this from the DA & the AG’s office): NO COMPLAINING VICTIM, so it would be a waste of time & money to prosecute those cases of statutory rape.
Yet the AG’s office & CPS insist on pursuing the FLDS cases, even though NONE of the “victims” have made criminal complaints. That, in addition to all the other storm-trooper tactics used, proves that Texas is persecuting the FLDS because of their religious beliefs.
kasha 08.10.08 at 2:09 pm
SKK
This is one h#!! of a way for CPS and Texas to go about protecting children. Children that MIGHT be abused sometime in the (not necessarily near) future.
Chai Tea 08.10.08 at 2:56 pm
So, SKK…you’re telling me that Planned Parenthood and other clinics are reporting every underage pregnant girl to CPS, turning over DNA samples to CPS and the parents of the girls as well as the baby’s father are being prosecuted for child abuse and/or neglect.
I
Don’t
Think
So.
SKK 08.10.08 at 3:16 pm
Dont misunderstand .. I am not saying CPS has gone about it the right way or that they will win their cases. That will depend on their evidence and whatever defenses there are. I’m just talking about their motivation ..I think they are doing what they believe is in the interests of the children and not out of religious persecution.
kasha 08.10.08 at 4:13 pm
SKK
Let’s take away their bonus money, and then let’s see how much they are really interested in the interest of the children. Their motivation WAS $$$$, NOW it’s in trying to save face. They need to quit hiding behind the “best interest of the children” lie. It is NEVER going to be in the best interest of these children to remove them yet again, from their parents. We all know that. Texas is just trying to put so much mud on themselves that nobody can tell who they really are. But Texas is a big state, and it is going to take a lot of mud, but I have to give them credit, they are gathering it up quite rapidly.
SKK 08.10.08 at 4:44 pm
Chai Tea -
Yes Planned Parenthood has the same reporting requirements, and they maintain that they comply with mandatory reporting of suspected sexual abuse. There has been quite a bit of litigation on the issue. Do you have data or evidence that they conceal instances of sexual assault? Do you have data or evidence to suggest that law enforcement or CPS fails to investigate such reports or prosecute such offenses?
SKK 08.10.08 at 4:53 pm
kasha - your argument seems largely emotional. I see a series of conclusions without any supporting facts. Can you be more specific about the bonus or why you think the recent motions are improperly motivated?
Chai Tea 08.10.08 at 6:09 pm
SKK, since you believe that they - Planned Parenthood - report every underage pregnancy and that CPS is involved with little Suzie Q who is now p.g., then…where is the documentation that that happens? Is Suzie Q going to deliver like Louisa Jessop - with CPS in the SAME room - waiting to snatch the baby?
What if Suzie is hispanic? Does CPS even hear about it? Puhleeze.
Planned Parenthood is dispensing birth control to many underage girl with neither their parents permission nor approval. They are ACCOMPLICES in these underage girls being invovled in sexual misconduct - i.e. breaking your sexual legal age of consent law - and NO ONE is prosecuting them or even attempting to shut down their ACCOMPLICE - Planned Parent hood. As a matter of fact, I think if you look closely enough, you will find that Planned Parenthood received funding from Health and Human Services - the parent agency of CPS.
hmmm….?
And CPS turns a ‘blind eye’ to it and does not prosecute it.
SKK 08.10.08 at 6:21 pm
Chai - I agree with you that if that is happeneing it’s against the law and it needs to stop. I did not say Planned Parenthood reports all underage pregnancies, I said they are legally obligated to and they say that they comply. Part of the problem is, the identity of the reporter of suspected abuse is kept confidential by law so how would you or anyone ever know if PP has made mandatory reports?
But anyway ..PP’s non-compliance does not excuse instances of sexual assault among the FLDS community. Nor does it make a case supporting the argument that CPS is motivated by religious bigotry.
Thomas Forguson 08.10.08 at 6:38 pm
Skk until the FLDS moved to Texas, people as young as 14 could get married.
ho 08.10.08 at 7:32 pm
SKK, you talk like you are Angie Voss or Barbie yourself. I know what it’s like to be abused by TEXASS! and it’s not enjoyable. Maybe you haven’t had any experience.
ho 08.10.08 at 7:33 pm
I can’t believe that SKK would agree to wholesale kidnapping.
SKK 08.10.08 at 7:46 pm
Oh I see, only one view is tolerated. I am a bad guy or bigot unless I agree that every action taken by CPS is wrong and bad and unjustified, and unless I agree that no crimes were committed and no children are or were ever in any danger at home with an FLDS parent, and unless I believe FLDS should be exempted from the Texas Penal Code. Wow.
Who are you guys calling intolerant?
TF - yes, until 2005 there was a way for a 14 year old to get married. With or without the FLDS move to Texas, I’m glad the law was changed because 14 is too young to get married even with parental consent.
R 08.10.08 at 8:18 pm
I’m glad the law was changed because 14 is too young to get married even with parental consent.
Too bad Texas law still allows it in circumstances.
Otis 08.10.08 at 8:55 pm
I
Otis 08.10.08 at 9:20 pm
I see where the FLDS monkey, “Bill Medvecky ” has posted a picture of the big bad gun toting Apache helicopter that was scaring little children on his website that he has claimed in the past As in much of his posts, they have all been wrong. I wrote him and told him that they were neither Apaches or guns hanging out and it was routine plus they were not as low as the pic looks or the tree and bird would be similar in size. But I guess someone from Florida, can see what is in my back yard better than I can. This will really chap him, talked to the local pilot that takes the pics from the air. Asked him why we have not seen any new pics from his website. He told me nothing changed at the YFZ so why take pictures and the local airport is doing a re-surface. He is sure that US customs and Del Rio flight training will be using it more after the new install as it will be gravel free and has always been a complaint in the past. He said that the airport should be finished by October and they are going to have some kind of fly-in get together to celebrate the new runway (an extra 50-100 site seeing aircraft that may just happen over the YFZ) Just in time for deer season ( a holy time in west Texas). Thought Bill should know this in advance seeing this is a a red neck conspiracy from Eldorado and we have so much power that we can call the US customs or US air force any time we want to just to harass some neighbors that we could care less about. “Keep Sweet Bill”.
TxBluesMan 08.10.08 at 9:41 pm
I knew that Bill would Photoshop it - what do you expect from a convicted felon that has already posted Photoshopped pics (in Rosita we believe or some such crap) on his website.
In addition, that AH-64 appears to be unarmed - you can’t even see the chain gun, which indicates altitude, and if you look at the shadows on the tree and the shadows / glare on the helicopter, they don’t match.
It’s not even a good Photoshopping job…
Thomas Forguson 08.10.08 at 9:46 pm
Txbluesman you have no shame
Thomas Forguson 08.10.08 at 10:01 pm
its the reason why the law was changed. The only reason the law was changed was because the FLDS moved to Texas. That makes it religious persecution. The bottom line is the beginning on the third of April a horrible injustice was perpretrated against the people of the FLDS. The CPS and its stormtroopers abucted under the color of law every child irregardless of age or gender.
Then they threw the women and children into the Fort Concho concentration camp. Yes, I am intolerant of those who make excuses for the CPS and its stormtroopers.
Thomas Forguson 08.10.08 at 10:04 pm
Txbluesman it is inescapable fact that these stormtroopers put their trust in a woman who has a history. This hoax is the only reason we are arguing.
TxBluesMan 08.10.08 at 10:27 pm
Thomas,
What in the Bigamy law was changed?
The elements of the offense are verbatim from the elements of the offense in 1973. There is absolutely no change in what actions it took to commit Bigamy. None.
Again, ask Doran - or look it up on this blog in a previous thread where it was discussed. So if the same acts were Bigamy in 1973 as in 2008, how is it religious persecution? The FLDS weren’t even here in 1973.
If we are going to talk about stormtroopers, why not talk about the Mormon stormtroopers? Weren’t they called the Danites? Their stormtrooper tactics were reported in the NY Times as early as 1859.
If I recall correctly, the Texas officials had a warrant. The Danites never did.
Doran Williams 08.10.08 at 11:09 pm
SKK, how can you, or the State prosecutors, know for sure that Dr. Barlow did not make reports of child abuse? After all, he could have made them anonomously, and the names of reporters are confidential. In addition, he is not required to disclose to CPS and law enforcement interrogators if he made the reports. If I’m incorrect, let me know.
Doran Williams 08.10.08 at 11:35 pm
Contrary to what one of the commentors has suggested, our post does not state that the bigamy statute was passed in its current form for the purpose of persecuting FLDS. Please read the first two paragraphs of this post immediately following the revised quote from Humpty Dumpty to refresh your minds as to what we actually wrote.
Those of you who do not live in Texas, or who do but do not follow closely the workings of the Texas Legislature, will not understand how appropriate it is to suggest that ALL legislative activity of the Texas Legislature could be said to have the appearance of being “… a special session held inside Alice in Wonderland’s Looking Glass.”
We also wrote that:
” It is a monument to the illogical absurdity that results when a state attempts to achieve an unconstitutional end - the eradication of a religion - through an otherwise constitutional tool like statute.”
There is no question that the State is using the bigamy statute in an attempt to rid Texas of FLDS. There is also no question that the Legislature “revisited” the bigamy statute in 2005, found it to be sufficient as a tool for that effort, and increased the punishment.
kbp 08.10.08 at 11:55 pm
I’ve read of cases against Planned Parenthood on not reporting, and the end result was that they did not know IF the father of a child was of an age difference that indicated it was a crime.
They took it to SCOTUS here in Kansas a few years back (KS AG Phil Kline) searching for more records, with no luck.
Not sure if that applies in Texas law the same way. It must if the FLDS are the ONLY targets in this type of case.
How many teen pregnancies are there per year in Texas?
kbp 08.11.08 at 12:07 am
ANYONE WHO…
kbp 08.11.08 at 12:07 am
…CLAIMS TEXAS
kbp 08.11.08 at 12:07 am
…DID NOT PASS
kbp 08.11.08 at 12:08 am
…THE NEW PENALTIES TO
kbp 08.11.08 at 12:08 am
..PERSECUTE </A
kbp 08.11.08 at 12:08 am
…THE FLDS RESIDENTS
kbp 08.11.08 at 12:08 am
…OF THE
kbp 08.11.08 at 12:09 am
…YFZ RANCH
kbp 08.11.08 at 12:09 am
…ARE FULL OF
kbp 08.11.08 at 12:10 am
$H!T
cheese 08.11.08 at 2:41 am
To SKK on post 24
Oh really! And what if it’s an abortion clinic? With all of that kind of garbage going on there should be a lot of doctors indicted, right?!
SKK 08.11.08 at 7:08 am
cheese - abortion is legal
Doran - there would be no way for me or you to know if Dr Barlow made the mandatory reports, but law enforcement or CPS would know because that is who he is mandated to make reports to.
Bill Medvecky 08.11.08 at 7:19 am
Looks to me like Harvey’s big mouth is going to make a “Mess outta Texas” with the Federal Court’s.
Maybe barbie did the FLDS a big favor after all by opening up this little can of worms to the scrutiny of the REAL Supreme Court.
Doran Williams 08.11.08 at 8:04 am
SKK, I’m not familiar with the reporting requirements of doctors vis a vis child support. Are they any different than those by which the rest of us are required to report? Is a reporting doctor required to identify himself? Must he report to a specific agency, or just to law enforcement, generally?
Doran Williams 08.11.08 at 8:06 am
kbp. Everyone involved with the continuing YFZ story owes you an immense debt of gratitude for acquiring and posting the material that you have on this thread. I”ve heard all the accusations against Harvey Hilderbran, but I’ve not seen the proof until this morning. Thank you so much for your work.
TxBluesMan 08.11.08 at 8:52 am
Doran,
A minor correction - the change in 2005 was an enhancement to the punishment if the subsequent spouse was a minor or related to the actor. The basic penalty was merely returned to the 1973 level.
Unless the bigamist did one of those two things to enhance punishment to a 1st Degree Felony, there was no difference between the current statute and the 1973 statute.
Since you claim it is an otherwise constitutional statute being used for religious persecution, does that mean that you agree that the Bigamy statute is constitutionally valid?
R 08.11.08 at 8:56 am
// cheese - abortion is legal//
You missed the point.
TxBluesMan 08.11.08 at 9:41 am
kbp,
One of the links you posted has this quote:
“I certainly support an individual’s right to religious freedom,” Hilderbran said, “but when those practices include forcing young girls into unwanted marriages with their stepfathers, that’s when we need to step in and do something.”
Do you object to the idea that actions can be against the law? Or that it is acceptable for the state to allow underage girls to be forced into marriages with their stepfathers?
Is it appropriate to amend laws to take care of potential problems? Or should we just wring our hands and cry ‘woe is me?’
kbp 08.11.08 at 9:45 am
Lets see…
Selective enforcement that looks to be limited ONLY to an individual in which the recently enhanced “penalty” would apply, while ignoring any they could charge that are NOT subject to it is certainly questionable.
I was hoping Texas would prove the law is being enforced in a manner all see as a move to make it pass any test that questions whether or not it was to be a tool for persecuting those it identified specifically when introduced.
We might then find out if groups of 3 or more gays that “purports to be married” and living in Texas could be convicted of BIGAMY.
kbp 08.11.08 at 9:53 am
TBM
Are we talking like a “Malonis hypothetical” here, or do you have evidence to show there is a case of “forcing young girls into unwanted marriages with their stepfathers” took place in Texas?
…and since you infer this makes the Code pass your constitutional muster test, can you point to any other cases in which this penalty was used on any of the thousands of Texas teens that became pregnant through intimate acts with s senior in age to them?
kbp 08.11.08 at 10:05 am
Thanks Doran.
I’ve had most all of these documents since April, but I’ve misplaced the links to the original source.
I would imagine they are still up on the state web site. It’s evident that they’d feel it is OK if there is a hint the law might someday apply to ALL others in Texas, and if not, they have certainly displayed they are never bothered with trivial ideas of others judging them to be above the law in Texas.
TxBluesMan 08.11.08 at 11:17 am
Darryl Yates was convicted for Bigamy in 2005 or 2006, apparently on the enhanced version since he received 15 years in prison (the standard, run-of-the-mill Bigamy punishment is 2-10 years).
Your comment on same sex marriages is a non-player, as those are not recognized by Texas, even when the ‘couple’ were ‘legally’ married in another state. For example, a Texas couple that were ‘married’ in Mass. were not allowed to file for divorce in Texas since they weren’t married.
TxBluesMan 08.11.08 at 11:19 am
kbp,
I also noticed that you didn’t answer the question.
txmom77 08.11.08 at 11:47 am
BluesMan
Darryl Yates is in prison for 15 years because of the death of a 22 month old little boy- not the bigamy charge. His bigamy charge was the misdemeanor type. I agree with that conviction because he legally married two women at the same time, that is fraud. Also wife #1 didn’t know about wife #2.
Doran Williams 08.11.08 at 12:47 pm
I asked tx over on his blog why he thinks an apparently bigamous marrige between a gay couple could not be prosecuted as such. His response has to be one of the most ridiculous, stupidest statements he has ever come out with, to-wit:
Art. 1 (Bill of Rights), Sec. 32 (Marriage) states: “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.”
Obviously you can’t prosecute someone for allegedly doing something that is prohibited by the Constitution.
What is he talking about? Can’t prosecute an act that is prohibited by the Constitution?????
I think it clear that even tx is starting to perceive some problems with the Texas bigamy statute.
SKK 08.11.08 at 1:04 pm
kbp - the marriages are illegal whether they are wanted or not. There’s nothing to suggest FLDS are selected out for prosecution of illegal marriages. Bigamy laws have been on the books for a long time. Sexual assault of children has been on the books for a long time. Age restrictions on legal marriages has been around forever. Parental consent to underage marriages have been around for a while ..and yes the age was changed from 14 to 16 but that aendment has no bearing oon these cases. Is it the bigamy enhancement that you’re saying is religious persecution? It’s facially neutral and generally applicable ..and that makes it constitutional. If the FLDS are the only people in the state of texas to engage in that particular offense, then they have selected themselves as a target but that does not make it religious persecution, and it does not make the law or theenhancement unconstitutional.
Besides ..isnt there a non-FLDS “prophet” of a polygamous, underage marriage practicing, and incestuous sect currently under indictment in Texas?
TxBluesMan 08.11.08 at 1:23 pm
Txmom,
There is no misdemeanor Bigamy in Texas, and he was charged under the felony statute.
In addition, he was not convicted of the Murder of the child.
Doran,
If you want to try the statute by marrying two men, be my guest.
There are no problems with the Bigamy statute, and you are trying to prop up a straw man since you know that there is no realistic basis for a Constitutional challenge to the statute.
txmom77 08.11.08 at 1:27 pm
How does a “common law” couple get divorced? Do we have “common law” divorce?
txmom77 08.11.08 at 1:38 pm
No it was injury to a child that he was charged with, which is a felony. So this man was involved with the killing of a child and they threw this bigamy charge in for good measure to get his a longer prison sentence. Also wasn’t bigamy a misdemeanor before 2005?
Thomas Forguson 08.11.08 at 1:41 pm
SKK you are right. There is a non-polygamous prophet under indictment. That would be the House of Yahweh also in West Texas. There were two deaths there. One involved do-it-yourself surgery on a child who died. A woman in childbirth allegedly because of a failure to summon medical care. CPS was so concerned about this they removed 4 children and left some 40 behind. Even you would have to admit this was a sharp contrast with how the CPS handled the FLDS
Thomas Forguosn 08.11.08 at 2:00 pm
In the above I meant non-FLDS polygamous prophet.
Thomas Forguosn 08.11.08 at 2:03 pm
The Danites did not exist.They were an invention of a 19th century version of BIll Fischer.
ho 08.11.08 at 2:03 pm
SKK, TxBluesMan, and Otis are all proud of their TEXASS! I think that they and their TEXASS are made out of the stuff kbp talks about.
ho 08.11.08 at 2:11 pm
People who persecute a religious minority are fighting the Constitution. They are the most unpatriotic of anyone in this country. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and scores of our Founding Fathers would think that they were living during the reign of Nero if they were alive right now.
If it were in the power of TxBluesMan, he would take the FLDS to the gas chambers.
kbp 08.11.08 at 3:48 pm
TBM
“Your comment on same sex marriages is a non-player, as those are not recognized by Texas, even when the ‘couple’ were ‘legally’ married in another state. For example, a Texas couple that were ‘married’ in Mass. were not allowed to file for divorce in Texas since they weren’t married.”
“…not recognized”!!!!
I guess we’re back to needing a couple to be “legally” married in the first place before it is illegal if ALL of them to “purports to be married”, and that “common law marriage” looks to be sliding by on that “one man, one woman” idea.
Would that make Texas laws open to selective enforcement for both religious AND sexuality, or do you just ignore the acts for a technical reason or two?
Texas could soon become the #1 Gay Polygamist state in the union, as it appears to be legal to violate such laws that regulate that act there!
****
As for answering your question, it was full of hypothetical qualifiers the way I read it. If I was playing the “suppose” game, I’d have to admit I do not approve of “practices include forcing young girls into unwanted marriages”.
If we run across such a crime EVER, there may be a benefit from that law passed to persecute a specific group of people. That does not alter WHY the law was passed.
*******
Now, add in the FACT that there were TWO laws passed for the same reason. Quite a record to read up on in that area Hilderbran serves!
******
SKK
You’re missing the ENTIRE point of WHY Hilderbran introduced the changes. Read up. If NOTHING changed, then why were they Amended in 2005?
Also read up on “incestuous ” while you’re at it
TxBluesMan 08.11.08 at 3:59 pm
Txmom,
Bigamy had traditionally been a felony in Texas, going back to the penal laws or codes of 1879 (3 yrs), 1895 (2-5 yrs), 1911 (2-5 yrs), 1925 (2-5 yrs), and 1973 (2-10). In 1993 it became a misdemeanor (1 yr and/or $4k fine), but was changed back to a felony in 2005 (2-5, 5-99/life if with child). Basically, except for a 12 year period, the rest of the 119 years it was a felony.
Once married, whether by license or common-law, you must go through the same divorce process in Texas.
Thomas,
If the Danites didn’t exist, then why does the FAIR “Defending Mormonism” website discuss them, Avard and Hickman? Why does LDS.Org discuss them (in “Church History in the Fullness of Time”)?
Ho,
Fortunately, the Constitution is on the side of those that believe in upholding the law. Challenges to bigamy / polygamy statutes are 0 for about 200, and there is yet to be a court to rule that polygamy was a valid exercise of religion.
Besides, Jefferson was against polygamy, and proposed a law that would have punished polygamy, rape, and sodomy by castration. Somehow I doubt the the others would be in favor of allowing polygamy either.
Thomas Forguson 08.11.08 at 5:01 pm
Txbluesman, I forget his name but this man formed a gang to raid mormon neighbors. When his followers discovered what he was up to, his followers turned him into Mormon authorities and he was expelled. In manner of Bill Fischer accusing the FLDS of what he was doing, this man accused the Mormons of Missouri of doing what he had wanted to do.
Joey 08.11.08 at 5:03 pm
Frankly, I don’t know what “marriage” or “divorce” is really. It’s not about child support. They can get you if they prove a DNA connection. It’s not about alimony since no fault divorce came about. It’s not about a “man and a woman” because now gays can get married.
What is marriage about? Particularly the legal trap of “common law marriage.” I’ve heard the only difference between common law marriage and cohabitation is “purporting” to be married. Does that mean if you think you’re married, you’re married? Can you say…thought crime?
Bigamists are thought criminals! Well well. 1984 finally here…or is it actually a return to the dark ages and the inquisition. BTW, thought you couldn’t get prosecuted for your beliefs, i.e. thoughts. I guess you can, seeing as how there’s no substantive, physical, crime when it comes to bigamy, and we’re talking spiritual, non-legally binding bigamy/polygamy here. Not the multi-marriage license fraud crime.
Doran Williams 08.11.08 at 5:14 pm
SKK, of course the 2005 amendments to the bigamy statute and the Family Code were aimed directly at the FLDS. Look at the documents to which kbp has linked in comments 53 (page 4 of the document), 57, 59, 60, 61, and 62 above. The latter 4 are all press releases by Harvey Hilderbran which explicity say his proposals are aimed at FLDS in West Texas.
The document to which the link in comment 53 takes you is an analysis of Hilderbran’s bill by the House Research Organization. It is stated on page 4 thereof that the bill “…would strengthen Texas’ laws against polygamy and election laws to protect communities from being infiltrated by fringe religious groups….[such as the] Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints…building a compound south of San Angelo….Local residents also are concerned that members of the group will run for public office and will have moved a large enough group of voters into the area to take over local government.”
The document to which the link in comment 57 takes you is also a legislative Bill Analysis. It states, in the very first paragraph of the very first page that “The ambiguity of current Texas law has allowed for alleged crimes to be committed under the practice of religious freedom….including bigamy, polygamy, child abuse…election and welfare fraud [which] are rampant in these religious sects, also known as ‘The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.’ ”
If you can read those documents and continue to assert that the changes in legislation were not aimed at eradicating FLDS from Texas, and that the massive, multi-million dollar attempt by the State to use the criminal law and child protection laws against FLDS, on a scale never before seen in Texas or any other State in modern times, is NOT a form of religious persecution, let me suggest that you read some history on the forms that religious persecution has taken over the past couple of centuries, and that you further acquaint yourself with the phenomenon of cognitive dissonence.
ho 08.11.08 at 5:40 pm
Thomas Forguson, his name is Sampson Avard. Dan Fisher is the 21st Century Sampson Avard.
kbp 08.11.08 at 6:07 pm
Doran,
Add to the mix that they also considered, in public records, to change how long you had to live here before you could vote.
Since that did not pass, I did not save any of those records.
Thomas Forguson 08.11.08 at 6:07 pm
Thank you Ho
SKK 08.11.08 at 11:26 pm
Doran –
There are amendments that were directed at alleged activities being practiced by FLDS. I never said otherwise. The introductory comments in the Family Code to some of the legislative changes specifically reference a West Texas sect. The age a parent can consent to a legal marriage was changed from 16 to 14.
So?
SKK 08.11.08 at 11:27 pm
Correction: 14 to 16, not the other way around
Doran Williams 08.12.08 at 6:37 am
So?
So if FLDS had not been in place in West Texas, Rep. Hilderbran probably would never have launched his legislative initiative to change the laws. As tbm has pointed out, the bigamy statute is almost the same as it has been for years: It was working; the Family Code provisions were working. They did not need “fixin.”
So, what problem do you have with recognzing that Hilderbran’s initiative was launched against a religious organization?
Let me posit a hypothetical: Suppose Hildebran’s initiative had targeted a mainstream Jewish sect, rather than a fundamentalist Mormon sect, based upon alleged child abuse practices of the Jewish sect. And assume Texas Rangers had obtained the same kind of search warrant allowing them to knock down the doors to synagogues and the homes of members of the sect and carry off their children and personal records. Do you think that would matter? Could you really, with some degree of intellectual honesty, brush-off the obvious anti-religious nature of the laws and the attempt to enforce them?
TxBluesMan 08.13.08 at 12:20 pm
It doesn’t really matter what the motivation was, the law is facially neutral and the government has a compelling reason to enforce the law.
Doran Williams 08.13.08 at 12:50 pm
Spoken like a Good German, tx.
I’m sure the same could have been said, and probably was, about the anti-Jewish legislation of Germany in the 30s.
The flaw in your position — and there is always a flaw in your statements/thinking on this subject — is that the law is not only aimed at a specific religious group, but it also is not being enforced equally. There has never been an attempt to pry a religious group from Texas like the one being made against FLDS, using Child Protective Services as the lever and the bigamy law as the fulcrum.
This is unequal administration and protection of the law. Baptist congregations can get away with bigamy and child sexual abuse in their churches with only the perpetrator being prosecuted. So have Catholics. As have most denominations in Texas.
You can revel in this unconstitutional action to your heart’s content. But even you probably acknowledge (at least to yourself), that this is a kind of pogrom, aimed at the entirety of the religious group, not just at a few bad apples.
Do you enjoy the prospect of all those parents going to prison? do you think prison terms are appropriate?
TxBluesMan 08.13.08 at 4:07 pm
Doran,
You may want to check how many bigamy prosecutions there have been - the FLDS aren’t the only ones being prosecuted for it.
Doran Williams 08.13.08 at 4:21 pm
Name one, just one, other Church or religious sect which has been treated as FLDS has been treated by the State of Texas starting in March this year.
I suspect you will have to look to China or some other police state to find one.
Chai Tea 08.13.08 at 5:18 pm
TBM… At one point the Supreme Court thought that slavery was legal, too. And that abortion was illegal. Our society and values are in a state of flux.
No one has yet explained to me why such hatred exists toward polygamists. I wish someone would at least make an attempt.
When I talk about polygamists/bigamists, I’m talking about those ADULT parties that CHOOSE to engage in a committed relationship with full knowledge of all parties involved.
Not the bigamists that lie and sneak.
Thanks!
Kurt Schulzke 08.13.08 at 5:42 pm
Doran –
Can please differentiate between “Germans” and “genocidal Nazis”? There were plenty of good Germans during WWII who contributed in many ways — some, like young Helmuth Huebner, giving the last full measure of devotion — to topple Hitler’s regime. The bitter irony is that in helping topple Hitler, they opened the door for Stalin and now Putin.
KS
Doran Williams 08.13.08 at 5:50 pm
You’re right. I should.
If you and your readers have not seen this movie, I recommend it: “Sophie Scholl, The Final Solution.” Made in Germany, with subtitles, and some archival film of some of the real events it depicts. Is is not, of course, about foot health.
TxBluesMan 08.13.08 at 6:37 pm
Chai,
I have no hatred towards the FLDS - they can believe that they will become Gods, whatever, and I’m fine with that.
I have a problem with people that feel that they can ignore the law and do what they please, and that there will be no consequences.
I have a concern that people do not understand the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause, which has been repeatedly held to protect beliefs, not acts.
I have a problem with those that, when logic and reason fail, resort to insults and racial/ethnic/national slurs.
Polygamy and bigamy are against the law in Texas. If you don’t like the law, you have several choices.
First, you can lobby to get it changed, which takes effort and may be a losing proposition.
Second, you can set up one test case, with a volunteer (in the same manner that Reynolds was handled in the original case).
Third, you can ignore the law and do as you please - but if you choose this option, be prepared for the consequences.
Doran Williams 08.13.08 at 6:52 pm
Polygamy is not per se against the law in Texas. If it is, please cite the applicable section of the Penal Code.
tx is saying that polygamy is illegal, because he has come to understand that because of the wording of the bigamy statute, some form of marriage is required. But polygamy does not require the parties to be married.
Lookin’ good for all those unmarried FLDS folks who are in polygamous, not bigamous, relationships, huh tx?
SKK 08.14.08 at 7:16 am
Doran # 97
I do acknowledge that Hildebran’s bill was directed specifically at acts being practiced by FLDS. It was not because they were a religious organization or because of any intent to criminalize thought or beliefs, however. The fact that the group engaged in socially reprehensible conduct all share the same faith does not make the legislation unconstitutional.
As to your hypothetical, if it were a Jewish sect that moved to Texas and they were engaged in routinely giving their adolescent daughters to adult men in spiritual marriages, I would expect the same result. Same if it were a Christian group. It’s the act that is targeted, not the faith or the people.
Doran Williams 08.14.08 at 8:07 am
Oh yeah, you would expect the same results? There is a religious sect in Texas, with branches in a number of Texas cities, which practices ritual genital mutilation of week old baby boys. And has been doing so for years. Nothing is being done about that. In fact, Governor Perry made a big deal last year of meeting with the leaders of those local branches.
If the distinction you would make is that they are not routinely giving their adolescent daughters to adult men in spiritual marriages, I would agree. Even though you cannot show that the people at YFZ did such a thing. But this distinction is corrupt. I suspect that CPS has not moved against the ritual mutilation of male babys sects because cutting off part of the penis of male babies is not in conflict with the extreme feminist ideology which informs, if it has not actually captured, CPS in Texas.
SKK 08.14.08 at 9:08 am
Is rhe “ritual genital mutilation” against the law? Are there health and safety regulations or laws about the manner in which the practice can be lawfully carried out? Are there public interest concerns that mught justify the practice under some circumstances? If there are health or safety regulations or laws, are theparents disregarding them and putting their children at risk?
Just curious.
Doran Williams 08.14.08 at 9:25 am
skk, I’m talking about genital mutilation carried out in the context of a ritual performed by a religious sect. I am not talking about a medical procedure carried out by a licensed surgeon. [Keep in mind that surgeons can cut on people with sharp instruments -- that is, assault people with deadly instruments -- precisely because they are licensed by the State to do so.]
Your comment and questions seem to imply that you are willing to countenance or tolerate the illegal aggravated assault of a child — because that is what genital mutilation of a week old male child is — if there are “… public interest concerns that mught justify the practice under some circumstances….” This means to me that you would be okay with the State of Texas making decisions about what kinds of child abuse by religious groups is acceptable and what kinds are not. That gets pretty close to favoring one religion and religious practice over others, contrary to the Constitution. Do you really want to go there?
SKK 08.14.08 at 11:54 am
Heck no I’m not wlling to tolerate aggravated assault on a child. That’s why I was trying to get more information from you …that’s why I wanted to know something about the context.
Kurt Schulzke 08.18.08 at 5:32 pm
Fascinated to hear more on this thread. Reads like a CSI episode.
Michael Ejercito 11.10.08 at 9:30 pm
If Texas claims that someone is committing “Bigamy” without the benefit of a formal registration of marriage, isn’t Texas recognizing that marriage can be accomplished without the participation of the state?
Yes.
That also means that same-sex couples could get “married” in Texas, and it is already legally recognized as such even without any sort of registration or license.