digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at msnbc.msn.com —

How Texas town became polygamists' refuge

msnbc.msn.com — He wanted land — lots of it — for a corporate hunting retreat. Said he might build a lodge, to entice some big-roller clients of his in Vegas. North of town, the old Isaacs ranch — rocky and dotted as it was with rusty oil rigs, cactus and gnarled mesquite trees — caught his eye. It was plenty cheap, he said, and plenty remote.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • celkin, on 04/20/2008, -18/+6MSN? On my Digg?
    • digitalarcanum, on 04/20/2008, -6/+2MOAR MOTHERFUKKIN LIKELY THAN YOU THINK
    • celkin, on 04/20/2008, -7/+3I should've just said "FIRST!!!1" like I originally planned.
  • SuperJimmyJimbo, on 04/20/2008, -21/+10let Mexico have it back.
    • kingsaliva, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2I live in Texas, believe me, in 20 years they will have it.
  • Owwmykneecap, on 04/20/2008, -16/+10Hey! She said she was 13....
    • Owwmykneecap, on 04/20/2008, -4/+3This comment went -4 to +3 to -8.

      Swings and roundabouts eh?
  • jdaniel284, on 04/20/2008, -25/+14The way that the government handled this case is an absolute disgrace. We resemble a Red China police state much more than the original vision of our forefathers. If someone is suspected of breaking a law, passed by elected legislators, then go in front of a judge, let him determine probable cause, serve the warrant, set a reasonable bail, and then let him defend himself in in a court of law by his peers.

    There is absolutely no excuse to break apart an entire community of fathers, mothers, and children with a paramiltary SWAT force. This is what a police state looks like. Taking forced blood samples of citizens of the United States to determine the biological parents is outrageous.

    This is not justice and it certainly is not liberty.
    • Owwmykneecap, on 04/20/2008, -5/+40Children were being forced to *****....

      I dont think it was an overreaction.
      • jdaniel284, on 04/20/2008, -16/+7And where is the proof of this? Is a simple anonymous accusation enough for you now?

        This country is in trouble.
        • Greyscale88, on 04/20/2008, -2/+22Are you retarded? Hmmmm 14 year old girl pregnant? I wonder how she got that way!
          • petrodollar, on 04/20/2008, -2/+7Anonymous?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs#Sex_crim ...

            "The girl, known as "Jane Doe IV" (Elissa Wall)[24] testified that she begged "Uncle Rulon" to let her wait until she was older, or choose another man for her. Rulon Jeffs was apparently "sympathetic", but Warren Jeffs was not, and she was forced to go through with the marriage. The man that she was to marry was apparently her first cousin. The 14-year-old alleged that her new husband raped her repeatedly, starting on their wedding night."
          • roflganker, on 04/20/2008, -2/+4The same way Mary did.

          • WilliamDavis, on 04/20/2008, -9/+4If you're 14 and preganant, you should be stripped from your family. No if, ands, or buts. If god wanted 14 year olds to be preganant, he would have made them that way. If the state wants to decide how and when you get pregnant, then they should. All I can say is this. If there's a pregnant 14 year old in your neighborhood, it justifies removing over 400 children from families in close proximity or people who might agree with you on many other issues. Either kill them, or break up their families. Also, believe everything you hear from every 14 year old you meet. They're very stable, and understand the consequences of anything they might say on any occasion.
          • petrodollar, on 04/20/2008, -1/+3"If god wanted 14 year olds to be preganant, he would have made them that way."

            What's God's take on being forced to marry a guy four times your age who repeatedly beats the ***** out of you and rapes you?
        • petrodollar, on 04/20/2008, -3/+3Listen to Michael Savage much?
        • kayala, on 04/20/2008, -2/+4Um, pregnant 13 year old girls are a pretty good indicator that teh secks has been going on. Unless, of course, you're a believer in the rival Stork Theory.
    • kurtwinter, on 04/20/2008, -16/+15Breeding girls just to rape them is every ***** reason you need to bust a cult open. ***** the Mormons and their candidate.
      • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -5/+20Nice generalization...these people hardly represent mainstream Mormons...idiot. .
        • aak4, on 04/20/2008, -5/+11This was mainstream mormonism until mormons decided to change their doctrine. The guy who started mormonism in the 1800's had several wives.

          Speaking of several wives, Mohamed had several as well. I guess offering men multiple wives on earth and 72 lovers in heaven helps spread a particular religion.
          • Civilizationist, on 04/20/2008, -2/+3Polygamy /= Child Rape.
          • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -3/+4That was 117 years ago!! I would be more accurate in saying all Germans are still Nazis...and that is 100% wrong. I guess you insulting other religions and making fun of their oddities (even if they were 117 years ago.) makes you feel better about yours.

            You know Christains wiped out entire cities and nations and most don't hold the christians of today responsible.
      • sovereign3, on 04/20/2008, -5/+6The denomination in question is a Mormon offshoot. Mormon's abandoned the practice of polygamy a century ago and have long disowned the group in Texas.
    • Pie4Weebl, on 04/20/2008, -3/+6"It came in late March, when a 16-year-old girl reportedly called a local domestic abuse hot line to report that a 49-year-old man had married her, impregnated her at 15, and beaten and choked her repeatedly, according to court documents. In one of several phone calls to the hot line, the girl said her husband had broken her ribs. But church members had warned her to not to flee — otherwise she would be found and locked in a room, according to an affidavit signed by an investigator for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services."
      • jdaniel284, on 04/20/2008, -6/+7http://www.keyetv.com/content/news/topnews/story.a ...

        Yes, and then we find out that this "16-year-old" was actually a 33 year old black lady living in Colorado that recently had been arrested for procession of crack cocaine.
        • sovereign3, on 04/20/2008, -5/+4Did you really find it relevant at all to mention it was a "black" lady?
        • mikhial66, on 04/20/2008, -4/+5Yeah, you can't describe people like that! Did you really find it relevant at all to mention it was a woman? You're a sexist ass
    • OriginalReplica, on 04/20/2008, -6/+10The only breech of proper Constitutional Law was in not charging every adult there with child abuse as soon as the authorities found the first pregnant 14 year olds and the records of their "marriages." Every adult there was party to the statutory rape of every child bride who's "wedding" they didn't stop by reporting it to the police. Jailing people without charging them is illegal, but so is failure to report child abuse. http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_polici ...
      • Russellk30, on 04/20/2008, -3/+4Thanks for improperly applying constitutional theory.
        • OriginalReplica, on 04/20/2008, -1/+3What is your problem with my observation? Are you advocating that people should be allowed to be held with out being charged? Or that people who have obviously committed a potential felony should not be charged when multiple officers of the law have probable cause?
          • petrodollar, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2Actually no, because you the decision to file a charge is made by the prosecutor, and prosecutors need a lot more than probable cause to get a guilty verdict. Any prosecutor who brings charges without reasonably believing that he has or can obtain admissible evidence that will convince a fact finder of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should be fired and probably disbarred. See e.g. Mike Nifong.
    • Spudster, on 04/20/2008, -4/+10Polygamy itself should not be illegal. However, abuse against children should. I think that's a fair line to draw for this case.
      • herkimer65, on 04/20/2008, -3/+2If you're against child abuse, you're against CPS. Take a look at their track record and then tell me it's OK to take children away from their mothers.
        • kayala, on 04/20/2008, -0/+6Mothers who would have their children married off at the age of 13 to be raped for about twenty years until a younger model comes along have no business being in custody of their children.
        • petrodollar, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5What's the track record for mothers who sell their kids off to abusive, dirty old men? Is it better or worse than CPS?
    • Russellk30, on 04/20/2008, -4/+3I dont know why you are being dugg down so much. Just about everything you said is true. Its not like the evidence of child abuse is going to disappear if the authorities take the proper paths to prosecute potential child abusers. This was completely overblown and the fact that Diggers cannot understand why we have checks and balances in our government including our judicial and enforcement system is beyond me. I have small hope for any type of true reforms in this country if so many people think the court systems can be bypassed when it suites there interests or opinion. Idiots.
    • Russellk30, on 04/20/2008, -6/+2Everybody so quick to proclaim guilt in this case should go and read the Constitution and take a cultural anthropology class. Again, ***** presumptuous idiots.
      • kayala, on 04/20/2008, -1/+3Yeah, because none of us believe in Sex Theory; we're all Storkists, right?
      • OriginalReplica, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5You sound like a ***** cultural relativist, yet you complain because we don't share relativist morality. A fair amount of guilt is obvious when you have pregnant girl that are under the age of consent and they are "married" to middle aged men. The polygamy and religion don't even factor into it, a 40 year old man impregnating a 14 year old girl is illegal in Texas. If they want to marry that young they should move to a country where that is legal, they could move to Puerto Rico (consent is 14 there) and keep their citizenship. http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
        • petrodollar, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4Yeah but if you rape someone in the name of Jesus you should go free *rolls eyes*.
    • KunalHS, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4Daniel ... ***** you .. these guys were giving their daughters to get other young girls. Its barbaric.
      If you want to trade your daughter with a nice young 13 yrs old. Go ahead and join. Bastard ..
  • bromac, on 04/20/2008, -7/+10Wow, polygamists are industrious people. I guess it comes from providing for all those wives.
  • aukxsona, on 04/20/2008, -26/+11It's a shame these people are being persecuted. The bigger shame is the media has pictures of their children without consent.
    • sponeil, on 04/20/2008, -4/+14BS (regarding the first statement). They knew what they were doing was against several felony laws in Texas (polygamy, adults having sex with kids under the age of consent, in some cases actual rape). Just because they're following a religion doesn't mean they're above the law, and when they break it, they aren't being persecuted if they have to face consequences. If they wanted to be able to marry and have sex with little girls, maybe they should've bought a ranch in a country like Yemen where there are no laws against that sort of thing. It's a Muslim country, so they have no laws against polygamy either.
      • Picer, on 04/20/2008, -1/+8BTW, contrary to some peoples beliefs a majority of Muslims have 1 wife as the conditions for polygamy in Islam are too hard (if you are religious, otherwise you can cheat the system) this is because each wife must be treated equally, eg gold ring for wife 1 then gold ring for wife 2 and 3 .etc

        I disagree with my religions stance on polygamy as it means situation like in the article can arise where religious prostitution occurs.
  • Quicksilver4648, on 04/20/2008, -4/+10I just thought they were running out of minors in Utah.
  • Pillage, on 04/20/2008, -6/+44I'm glad that this cult is being torn apart. The people in it look brainwashed, the children have been molested, and the girls aren't allowed to leave.
    • faithfreedom, on 04/20/2008, -7/+3Not so fast, buddy. This is a classic excuse for government intervention. Remember 9/11, Iraq war and Al-quaida? Those seems as good reasons until everyone realize they're scams. This time is FLDS, who's next ? Our liberty is getting smaller and smaller everyday.
      • Pillage, on 04/20/2008, -0/+6Except it was these people who were denying liberty to the members of their cult. They forced children to bear children, they changed birth certificates, and they don't allow members to leave.
  • matschig, on 04/20/2008, -11/+0What kind of two-faced arrogant ass hole would pull a stunt like this?
  • mrzack, on 04/20/2008, -25/+4This Fascist US Regime need to leave people alone. Not only does it suppress other nations, it also suppresses its own people.
    • weeFred, on 04/20/2008, -5/+17Yeah it's really terrible how the government won't leave people in peace to rape underage girls anymore. Idiot.
      • WilliamDavis, on 04/20/2008, -8/+2Back it up with facts, and most everyone will agree. If someone finds a pregant 14 year old in your neighborhood, maybe they'll take your kids without due process. Or if someone at your church or raquetball club has a pregnant 14 year old, maybe they'll take your kids without due process. They didn't take over 400 kids that had been raped. This was guilt by association, pure and simple.
    • BassMastr, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4Yeah it's amzing we have lines of people trying to get into our country. While we aren't perfect I would take an imperfect US regime over any other option and judging by our immigration lines...most people would agree with me. Show me a perfect system and I'll take up arms to change to it. Yes it was heavy handed, but the US govt hardly surpresses their own people.
  • spyd3rweb, on 04/20/2008, -11/+18What exactly is wrong with polygamy anyways?
    • Greyscale88, on 04/20/2008, -16/+8Hmmm it might stem from it being against the law?
      • solid12345, on 04/20/2008, -5/+9So if I have two girlfriends who live together with me am I breaking the law?
        • CaptEnder, on 04/20/2008, -0/+13That's purely hypothetical, right? Since you're on Digg...
      • NachoBusiness, on 04/20/2008, -3/+14That's a very low level of morality... "it's wrong because it's illegal". Why is it wrong enough to be illegal?
        • WilliamDavis, on 04/20/2008, -2/+1If you make "right" to be illegal, you'll see a lot of exploding heads around here.
      • jameskong15, on 04/20/2008, -5/+6Yeah and damn interracial marriage, it was "against the law" after all, right?
        • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1You don't see the difference between "interracial marriage" which is based on the myth of race, and men raping little girls?
      • jolifam77, on 04/20/2008, -2/+6That's circular logic.
    • sovereign3, on 04/20/2008, -2/+35I find it a valid question. Polygamy in and of itself need not necessarily be illegal-- as long as all parties involved consent to it. However, polygamous relationships with girls who are 14 or 15 years old is just plain wrong.

      • chaosium, on 04/20/2008, -2/+7Exactly. In and of itself I have no problem, but there are externalities and linked issues, especially with child brides and a charismatic leader that turn it sickening.
        • jameskong15, on 04/20/2008, -6/+1Nobody is the leader of polygamy; that's like trying to say someone was the leader of terrorism. You could say the leader of the largest practitioning groups, but not the leader of the act itself.
      • FLarsen, on 04/20/2008, -3/+6But then it's not polygamy that is the problem.
        • jameskong15, on 04/20/2008, -1/+6Polygamy isn’t the problem; it’s how some people have applied it to their religion/beliefs.
        • chaosium, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3It's a concern tied to polygamy that gets revisited time and again. While it's not the DIRECT cause, it leads to those effects under certain circumstances.

          It's not a polarized "POLYGAMY, GOOD OR BAD?! sort of situation.
          • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Yes, it is. Multiple wives ends up being a misery for the women and children. I've never met two women who would share a pair of shoes, much less a husband. Polygamy is always bad for women and children.
      • Dohko_Xar, on 04/21/2008, -1/+4and illegal
        • intangible, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1So is gay marriage in most states. Legality has nothing to do with morality.
    • petrodollar, on 04/20/2008, -2/+19I have no problem with polygamy, but this dude was arranging for pedophiles to "marry" and rape little girls.

      That won't stop the fundies from screaming "persecution!!!" though. Just goes to show you how straight thinking they are. Michael Savage has been going on about how this is based on nothing more than an "anonymous phone call," when in fact prosecutors have all kinds of testimony from kids who were raped and the hands of Mr. Jeffs and his associates. No prosecutor worth his salt would ever bring a case based on nothing more than an anonymous phone call.
      • jolifam77, on 04/20/2008, -5/+1If those kids have testimony, why didn't they provide it the court that convicted Mr. Jeffs of performing a wedding ceremony between a 14yr old and her cousin.
        14 years old was the age of consent in Texas until 2005, btw, I don't know but this should probably be taken into account when examining the evidence in the El Dorado ranch. But maybe everyone's too stupid to think multi-dimensionally like that. Why do I feel like I'm living in that movie 'Idiocracy.'
    • donkeyshow, on 04/20/2008, -3/+14raping children is my main problem with that sect.
      • spyd3rweb, on 04/20/2008, -8/+3that has nothing to do with polygamy.
        • petrodollar, on 04/20/2008, -2/+9It does when polygamy is raised as a defense against accusations of kiddie rape.
        • jameskong15, on 04/20/2008, -2/+3@petro
          There is no legitimate argument (defense) that polygamy itself allows for child wives and just because someone makes that argument doesn't mean it's right (obvious bs to anyone with a brain). Polygamy is just the practice of having multiple wives - not that complicated.
        • jameskong15, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4Actually polygamy isn't even just limited to wives, it's spouses in most dictionaries (my bad, that was the idea anyway).
    • pintomp3, on 04/20/2008, -2/+13child brides aside, you cannot sustain such an unbalanced ratio, and must eject the extra males from society:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Boys_of_Polygamy
      in islam it was supposed to be permitted only in times of war, when the ratio of men to women dropped because of the men dying in war. of course with any religion, people will twist the rules and clauses to suit their own desires.
      • jameskong15, on 04/20/2008, -8/+1The problem is you are taking an example from the small portion of practitioners and acting like it magically applies to the whole populace. You would need to show that legalization creates a significant influx in membership that ultimately hits a tipping point (unbalanced ratio) in our general populace. Goodluck in that one though (One could easily argue that gay marriage could create some magical unbalanced ratio using your same logic, but obviously that logic is faulty).
        • pintomp3, on 04/20/2008, -2/+4you seem to forget that with gay marriage, you would also have women marrying women. that would balance out the men marrying men.
          • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1It wouldn't be balanced. You can google for those who applied for same sex marriage certificates in the US. It was no where near balanced. I'll let you guess which sex was much more likely to apply to marry someone of the same sex.
        • jameskong15, on 04/20/2008, -5/+4@pin

          You would also have women marrying multiple men since that would obviously be legal as well (under the same basic logic that applies to gay couples).
          • pintomp3, on 04/20/2008, -2/+4that tends not to happen in religious communities. there are very few cultures in which polyandry happens.
          • chaosium, on 04/20/2008, -2/+3Yeah, there are very few cultures where that's encouraged. Same with aged women bedding younger males.
        • jameskong15, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Ohes noes, people can't accept the reality without going into fallacy land.
      • jolifam77, on 04/20/2008, -7/+1It's actually a real problem in modern day exclusive sects. The young guys nearly always get bored and start breaking rules. Eventually, most leave, leaving behind the girls. I believe the plural marriage practice started to take care of the excess women.

        Think about it, in terms of our society: with polygamy legalized, so many uncared-for women in our society wouldn't be forced into prostitution, like they are.
        • Flummoxer, on 04/20/2008, -0/+6Women can care for themselves, they don't need a man to be their master.
        • vagarach, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3Not according to those insane FLDS leaders.
        • chaosium, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5"The young guys nearly always get bored and start breaking rules. Eventually, most leave, leaving behind the girls. I believe the plural marriage practice started to take care of the excess women."

          There is something seriously wrong with you.
      • rootneg2, on 04/21/2008, -3/+1Who says that polygamy is restricted to multiple wives, rather than multiple husbands? (yes, *technically* that is referred to as "polyandry", but generally people use "polygamy" as the generic term)

        Also, even if it's legalized; I don't see it being widely adopted. I don't think that it would really be a problem.
    • faithfreedom, on 04/20/2008, -5/+2The real question is: was the marriage fully consented ?
  • ultraelite, on 04/20/2008, -2/+16I'm suprised people are defending the FLDS, what they do is not condoned by the church of later day saints and it was illegal. I'm sure that the police were afraid of another Waco Texas situation so they decided to go in force. People have been trying to stop Warren Jeffs for years and when they got the opportunity they went for it. Had they not broken laws I don't think it would have happened like this.

    While I don't personally find polygamy that offensive (if the women agree) but having sex with children typically evokes a fairly strong emotion in most people I know.
    • jdaniel284, on 04/20/2008, -14/+3"I'm sure that the police were afraid of another Waco Texas situation so they decided to go in force."

      The police "decided to go in force" in Waco too. That's what CAUSED the standoff. If they simply handed Koresh a court summons while he was in town, none of those people would have been executed by the government.
      • petrodollar, on 04/20/2008, -1/+9No, the problem was that they didn't "go in" at all at Waco but merely stood outside and lobbed tear gas canisters through the windows.
        • jolifam77, on 04/20/2008, -3/+2debatable. I believe that it's possible the agents put on gas masks, entered and shot the folks inside.
          • petrodollar, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4Watch "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." The ATF dudes were huge pussies who were afraid of going into the building and getting shot at, so instead they pumped it full of teargas. The fumes from the gas built up inside causing the whole place catch on fire and burn to the ground. ATF guys were shooting into the building from outside but they never actually entered the premises until after everyone was dead.
          • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Is it possible you are wrong?
    • jolifam77, on 04/20/2008, -9/+2Ripping babies from their mothers breasts and placing them into statistically dangerous foster care should also evoke fairly strong emotions.
      • petrodollar, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6What are the statistical dangers of being forced into marriage with a 50 year-old at age 14 and being repeatedly beaten and raped by said 50 year-old? Take a wild guess. Would you say the likelihood of harm is higher or lower than being placed in a foster home?
        • jolifam77, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1Last I heard there's no evidence they married babies to older men. Upshot: There's no immediate danger of leaving the baby with mother.
          • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1"Last I heard." You apparently are not listening to the women and children who have escaped the horrors of the "ranch." One reported that babies were held under water to teach them not to cry. Would you want to give a mother back a child knowing she may drown that child? Did you see the infant graveyard?
      • ferrite, on 04/21/2008, -1/+5No, it's ripping babies from the salivating mouths of men who beat and rape them.
        I'm sorry, but there's plenty of evidence from records kept by the cult that underage "marriages" including the consummation of said marriages were taking place.
        It's also been proven that many boys who grow old enough to be competition are kicked out of the Sect's camps and forced onto the streets where they fall victim to drugs and end up homeless and in most cases dead.
        Sorry, even if CPS was this horrible monster, it's better than FLDS.
        • jolifam77, on 04/21/2008, -4/+1Quit projecting your perverted thoughts on to folks you don't know. Sex plays a much smaller part in the FLDS folks lives then in the larger society. They actually relegate procreation to the dark and don't fully unclothe even. Quote from FLDS expert textimony: "Most FLDS men never see their wives naked."
          • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2One of the scaries posts I have ever seen on digg. Just because the men didn't see their wives naked (according to you), it's OK they raped young girls?
  • theviceroy, on 04/20/2008, -3/+16way to make a kiddie-***** ranch, warren jeffs! you sir are one magnificent soul!!! truly a saint in these latter-days!
  • rlh1, on 04/20/2008, -4/+29What's wrong with polygamy?
    Not a good social order. It 40% of the men have 2 to 3 wives, 60% of the men have none....not good.
    This group regularly turns out the young men of their religion. When the old geezers have 4 or 5 wifes, that leaves all the young men with no one to marry, they are just told to hit the road at 17 years old or so, no education, no family. Great group. Their prophet of God ... Mr Jeffs, decides who will marry and who doesn't. He gets the best for himself. His daddy, Rulon Jeffs, called the beautiful girl that lived a few blocks from me to be his wife. She was 19, he was 91 at the time.....
    Great group.
    Never trust a Prophet of God who has more then one wife and demands your money to be saved.
    • NachoBusiness, on 04/20/2008, -1/+3That's only one form of polygamy/polyamory though. I agree that a polygamy system where only the men get to have multiple partners is very screwed up and essentially only can exist where women accept being second-class people. But that's not the only form of polyamory.
      • irinotecan, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5Except it never works like that in practice. Tell me, can you name a single group that allows women to take multiple husbands? Polygamy is, and has always been, an excuse by men to have multiple women, which leave other men disenfranchised and without wives or kicked out of their community.
        • campigenus, on 04/21/2008, -1/+0Google "polyandry" and you'll find the answer for yourself. As common as polygyny? Nope. But, not quite as unusual as you'd think.
    • jameskong15, on 04/20/2008, -3/+4The problem is you link the troubles coming from this specific group to the practice of polygamy as a whole. Polygamy is not wrong when practiced between adults; just like homosexuality is not wrong between consenting adults.
      • rlh1, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2Depends on what type of society you want.
        It may not affect much if it is very limited. When it is very prevalent then their is a big imbalance....only a small percentage of the men will have wives.
        I don't believe that it is a good way to raise children either. When daddy wants to boink another women, other then your mother, it probably doesn't have a good psychological impact on kids. Women become possessions instead of partners.
        • jameskong15, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2You once again applied the limited practice to the broader populace. It’s like claiming that gay marriage would magically become prevalent and it would affect our society to some extreme extent. If you support the same potential problem argument you present now against gay marriage, then sure, fine, go ahead and believe both gay marriage and polygamy should be unrecognized.
        • roflganker, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1This guy's obviously having trouble finding a date and is relying on the 1:1 ideology to increase his odds.
      • rlh1, on 04/20/2008, -1/+4It currently is limited because it currently is illegal.
        Gay marriage is not part of the equation here, throwing it in does not add anything to either of our arguments. Besides, the majority of gays are born that way so it will always be a small percentage.
        One can come up with all sorts of arguments on the validity of multiple wives, multiple husbands, beastiality, porn, pedophilia, etc. etc. I heard good arguments on all of these.

        My main argument is that when men have multiple wives, women become possessions.
        A few men control lots of other men's sexual lives, that is, if it is wide spread.
        I feel the best way to raise children is with a good strong father and mother who are equal partners.
        I don't think that it is a good environment to have daddy or mommy boinking lots of partners.
        • jolifam77, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2"women become possessions" - an argument like that would never be allowed in court. I myself have trouble understanding what that means. We've already been through the whole "brainwashing" argument, it never held water (see patty hearst). The women are free to leave and many have. I'm not FLDS btw.
          • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1The women were afraid of loosing their kids if they fled. The whole "brainwashing" arugument does hold water in this case since the women and children after generations had little to no contact with the outside world and did not know they could escape. The children were told that the outside world was not to be trusted ever. The women and children were beaten. If you know any women who were raised in an abusive home, only to later marry an abusive man, you would know they feel they cannot escape.
        • jameskong15, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Actually the same argument for and against gay marriage apply to polygamy; making it add to the conversation.

          Arguing that it should be limited because it is currently illegal is an appeal to authority fallacy. You must show us why it should be illegal.

          I could claim women become possessions thru marriage in general, but that wouldn't make my claim any more valid than yours.

          Of course your whole claim depends on men controlling the women when women can make their own choices as adults. So when a women chooses to become part of this type of relationship you need to butt the ***** out of her life and let her choose.
    • faithfreedom, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3Man, I just thought about Mohammad the ***** Prophet.
  • wshwe, on 04/20/2008, -3/+18I call adults having sex with minors rape. The so-called marriages should be voided because they're illegal.
    • faskippy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Since polygamy is illegal, and they performed their own marriages, they aren't technically considered recognizable by the State. Or so they say...
  • Daiken, on 04/20/2008, -4/+11Although I think people should be left alone to practice and believe what they want, these people overstepped the line. You can't start forcing little girls to get married to old men. I skimmed through the article (don't have time). I'm just curious, where did all the money for this come from? Were they selling food or things?
  • magamiako, on 04/20/2008, -14/+3Certainly those girls didn't seem like they were hating life. Nobody called in, it was a hoax. The woman that called in was actually some older black woman.

    There was no abuse, there was no "Sarah", there was no beating or blood or cages or anything of that nature.

    The reality is just because you "think" it's wrong to wed 14 year olds doesn't mean it is. And we do allow for it in this country as long as the parents consent to it.
    • NachoBusiness, on 04/20/2008, -0/+8Well there's no nation-wide law on marriage age, that's decided by the states. Pretty sure in Texas 14 year olds can't legally marry even with parental permission.
    • kolinkoolface2, on 04/20/2008, -2/+3your sick. They are just kids. They don't know any better. Go to hell.
    • amirman, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3i hope you also understand that there are plenty of first hand accounts of children being forced to have sex by women who've been lucky enough to escape from that hell hole.
  • solid12345, on 04/20/2008, -10/+3The issue here is not that there isn't some shady business going on down at the ranch, the issue is what LEGAL authority does the government have to swoop down into a small town one day and take away 400+ children based on an anonymous phone call. And separating from their mothers no less. So many civil libertarians bitch about the patriot act and the monitoring of mosques and shutting down of entire charities because a few members may be plotting terrorism, but why aren't they here to defend this case?
    • SoulGrub, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Because there's credible suspicion of mass child rape?
      • solid12345, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1But if you have credible suspicion of terrorism and raid a Mosque everybody decries that as stamping on civil liberties, why is it not the same in this case?
  • petrodollar, on 04/20/2008, -5/+18Michael Savage has been lying for the past few days about how prosecutors have nothing more than an anonymous phone call as evidence of any wrongdoings.

    He neglects to mention this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24216507/page/3/

    "According to other affidavits, investigators saw numerous underage girls who were pregnant, and took statements from others who told of entering into polygamous marriages in their early teens."

    Still, dumb right wingers continue to maintain that the entire case is based solely on an anonymous phone call. Will someone PLEASE TEACH THESE PEOPLE HOW TO READ?

    Or do these idiots think these girls are just undergoing immaculate conception? Honestly, jesus freaks, help me understand your thought processes here.
    • amirman, on 04/20/2008, -2/+6i honestly wonder what all these savage nation scumbags would be saying if this was a fundamentalist separatist muslim sect instead of a fundamentalist christian one.
      • petrodollar, on 04/21/2008, -3/+2Well right now they're saying if it was a muslim sect it would have been left alone. The persecution complex is strong with these people.
    • kayala, on 04/20/2008, -1/+2Stork theory, man.
    • faskippy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Since polygamy is illegal, I say that every marriage after the first is null. (Not to mention, they perform their own marriages, which aren't recognized by the State). That being the case, any man in the group that has sex with an underage girl, "wife" or not, is breaking the law. It should be treated the same as if they were in the mainstream of society.
  • skews13, on 04/20/2008, -2/+10i personally think these places are nothing more than places to be used for pediophilia excused by religious dogma. apparently communities where polygamy is practiced,there is also child abuse,and sex. all of these things are illegal by federal or state laws. if this were a hippie compound where,let's say they were smoking cannabis,and other than that they lived normal married lifestyles. how long do you think it would have taken the government to kick down the door? how long will it take for the first charges of child abuse or sex to be filed?
    • jameskong15, on 04/20/2008, -3/+4And apparently communities where the Catholic faith is practiced, there is also child abuse, and sex. 0.o
      • Jashobeam5, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Child abuse. . . as opposed to forced child marriage with the consent of the parents. No, I'm not Catholic, but there is no connection between the two.
  • tomaburque, on 04/20/2008, -6/+5The polygamists found refuge partly because Mormons are staunch Republicans and the Texas political establishment there looked the other way. At the federal level under Bush there has been zero interest in enforcing polygamy laws against these sects for no other reason than they represent Republican votes.
    • rlh1, on 04/20/2008, -1/+5I think that you are delusional.
      Polygamy has been practiced in Utah since 1847.........
      Nothing to do with Republicans, nothing to do with Bush.
      • amirman, on 04/20/2008, -1/+1welcome to history. ***** changes over time.
    • minox, on 04/20/2008, -0/+4If you think that polygamists are numerous enough to have political clout outside of their small towns, you have got to be delusional. If anything, the only influence they could have is to stack local offices with people from their own group. That hardly seems like it would be on Bush's radar.
    • faskippy, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Links, statistics, please? I was under the impression that they didn't vote, or support any political party. Perhaps wrongly. So, if you can show me where you got this information, it would be helpful.
  • terrillja, on 04/20/2008, -0/+5Very well-written article. Nice to have some background of the ranch.
  • bjalla, on 04/20/2008, -2/+8What a fiasco. Did anyone see the mothers being interviewed on Larry King Live? Scary.
    What does the state of Texas do when they suddenly discover that over 400 children (give or take) are likely being abused, possibly raped, fear-mongered, and certainly kept forcibly against their will? I wish I knew more of the legalities in relation to this case...the details of the days leading up to the state's decision to go in...
    I think they screwed up royally, the way it all came down, but there's no question in my mind they needed to burst the bubble.
    But now....now it's turned into a big mess, and the plain truth is that those children, who were meant to be rescued, protected, provided safe haven, are the ones who'll suffer the most from all this. There had to have been a better way...because they don't deserve any of this - not the sex abuse in the barracks and not the state traumatizing them, throwing them into foster care (if they're lucky).
    And I wonder....if this was a case of a seminary, a monastery of priests molesting young boys, and all the rest of the horror, would anyone here say things like "Leave them alone" or that the US govt "suppresses its people" or that we "resemble Red China"? I think not. What's the difference, except that this family somehow gets "sanctioned" in our minds? Why?
    Maybe we ought to start looking at how much and how often we (all of us) tolerate all kinds of things in front of our faces, in our communities, and even in our own families. These people didn't just move in.
    Polygamy is not the issue. Neither is religion. I just pray for the welfare of those kids, now, and in the long run, and for the women, too. They look shell shocked, and I'm sure that's the least of it.
    • faskippy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Did you really have a reasonable expectation that ANYBODY could go in and break up this crap, and do it in such a way that it wouldn't affect the children at all? I mean, kudos for caring, but wishing for a certain outcome and the possiblility of it happening are two different things. How could it not be a big mess? It was a huge mess before the State even knew about it, don't ya think? And while we're at it, what exactly would you do differently? You talk about the state traumatizing them. Those kids are brainwashed. Any outsider is scary to them. So how do you get them out without them seeing any strangers?
  • amirman, on 04/20/2008, -3/+3what would all of you who are defending the rights of the FLDS pedos say if this were an islamic sect isolating themselves in colorado city and raping children? would they still have the right to do so?
    • Russellk30, on 04/20/2008, -3/+3The same damn thing you presumptuous idiot. The issue isnt religion, as I am not religious. The issue is constitutional rights. The issues is taking the proper path before arresting a city of people. Ever hear of a warrant? Ever hear of innocent until proving guilty?
      • amirman, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2well the fact that they've been raping children is common knowledge and when you see pregnant kids on the ranch i'd say that follows probably cause. I'm all for constitutional rights but i believe they were intended more for individuals rather than cults or corporations.
  • kylere, on 04/20/2008, -0/+4Anyone know the address, I wonder if the area is Google Earthable.
  • j4nj1m3n3z, on 04/20/2008, -3/+1Duh, everything is bigger in Texas.....
    • faskippy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I was wondering when some moron was going to come on and say something ignorant like that *****. Thanks for not making me wait too long.
  • ForwardSlash, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1Well, good on the government and cops. They saw a huge potential for abuse, and they took action. It wasn't perfect, but at least it was something.

    And with the expansive media involvement, I can only see this being good for the women and children in that community. If they liked their lifestyle, the women can go back and bring their kids with them, if not, they have a chance to get the hell out.


  • KunalHS, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2How the hell these daughter ***** are getting thousands of dollars in cash ? who supports them ? Thats the biggest question I have. Can anybody answer me please ...
    • karlhafen, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0There are several successful construction companys here in Utah owned by the plygs. They use hard working polygamist kids as employees and pay them little or nothing. They also bend every tax and labor law they can. They turn out good work for prices the legit competitors struggle to match.
    • faskippy, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2The women are all on welfare. They receive food stamps, AFDC, etc. So, the answer to your question, we do.
  • dreamlayers, on 04/21/2008, -0/+3Religious liberty? WTF? That's insane. If what they did to those girls is religious liberty then you might as well say priests deserve religious liberty to molest boys and islamic fundamentalists deserve religious liberty to perform terrorist attacks.
  • faskippy, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2I don't give a damn if they want to have 20 wives. If the wives are happy, so be it. Freedom, you know. But, when you start using, exploiting and robbing children of their innocence so that a sorry sonofabitch can get his jollies, well then, it's time to go spider monkey on those assholes. And, as far as where they get the money to do all of this? They put the women on welfare. They receive money from the government, food stamps, etc. that is being taken from us, against our will, and being given to these freeloaders, against our will. Again, want to start a compound? Fine. Don't involve children, and be self sufficient.
  • KunalHS, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Which industries are supporting these daughter ***** ? Can anybody list them ? Walmart ??
    Stop doing business at / with those industries. ANd how the hell these bastard getting SS, Welfare ? Daughter ***** - Stay on your own, if you want to ***** your daughters. DOn't beg money from Govt.
  • blackturtleus, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1How law enforcement can justify kidnapping over 400 kids over the possibility that some old guy MIGHT have broken an age of consent law defies explanation. I guess in Texas rumors are more important than facts... come to think of it... isn't that how we wound up in Iraq!!!
  • LessIsBest, on 04/21/2008, -1/+0 The thing that concerns me the most, is not the underage marriages (reprehensible morally), the sect's practice of polygamy (whatever your views on the subject, it is illegal in this country), but the fact that because the authorities have acted on and are excusing their actions using issues based more on emotion then on logic.
    It is a sad indicator of our knowledge of the constitution and law in this country, that we are ready to forgive the authorities when they break the law, just because the possible perpetrator has broken a "bigger" one.

    Consider the following:
    1) The authorities acted and raided the compoound on the word of an individual that has not come forward.
    2) In this country, BEFORE you are convicted by the JURY, you are INNOCENT (whatever the media may say)
    3) No one has been charged yet

    In order to protect our children (even if they are the most spoiled, undisciplined, and increasingly stupider then the rest of the world), we turn the blind eye to other infractions of the law. We pretend we want the government that is hands-off, but our words (forums, votes, and our money attest to this) show that we rather have an entertaining witch hunt then let personal freedoms stand.

    Again, I think that the sect is in the wrong here and deserve to be persecuted, but the question remains: why is it anyone who in anyway tries to bring up the point that the law could have been broken by the authorities in their process of persecution, those individuals are shouted down, called pedophiles, and in general reviled.

    Don't believe me, look at your own reaction.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.