28 April 2008
Texas Will Not Tolerate Different Lifestyles
Posted by Joy Bischoff under: Constitution in Peril .
This won’t be ‘another Short Creek’
SAN ANGELO, Texas — A Texas lawmaker who helped pass legislation strengthening the state’s marriage laws in response to the Fundamentalist LDS Church presence in his state said he believes criminal charges will result from the Eldorado raid earlier this month.
“I don’t think this will be another Short Creek,” Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R- Kerrville, told the Deseret News.
The controversial Short Creek Raid of 1953 in Arizona rounded up polygamist wives and children and jailed the men. No criminal charges were ever brought from the highly publicized event, and all the women returned to their community. It was widely regarded as the political downfall of then-Gov. Howard Pyle because of persecution overtones.
It is 2008, however, and this is Texas, and a lot has changed.
“We didn’t invite them here, but by God we are going to make sure they follow the law,” Hilderbran said. “This violates Texas values and our lifestyle and the way we see traditional relationships. We are not going to tolerate it.”
In the article below, Peter questions why I mentioned homosexuals in relation to this problem. There have been laws against sodomy for ages and they are not being enforced. Prostitution is often given a free ride as is pornography. To equate polygamy (if of age) to many other things going on today is ridiculous. These are people who have different beliefs but are trying to live good lives in their own way. Because it is different than Texas values and lifestyle, they are trying to destroy a whole religion they refuse to tolerate.
In 2005 Hilderbran ran legislation, ultimately passed under a broader bill, that was modeled after Utah’s polygamy laws in direct response to the members of the FLDS Church acquiring property for the Yearning for Zion Ranch near Eldorado, where more than 400 children were taken into custody April 3. On April 18, a judge ruled that they would remain in state custody because of allegations of young girls marrying older men.
Hilderbran said Texas had enough authority under the criminal laws already on the books for statutory rape and sexual assault of minors to justify its raid and believes those provisions “really boxes them in.”
What about all the children from parents who aren’t practicing polygamy and haven’t married off under age daughters? Why were those kids taken?
He stands by his state’s decision and said FLDS members should have realized that Texas doesn’t have the cultural history of abiding by polygamy that other states — such as Utah — did back in the 1800s.
Texas doesn’t have the cultural history of abiding by polygamy…at least they are admitting it is the culture that offends them. If it was strictly the age off the girls and that was the only focus of the removal, at least they would have a leg to stand on.
“We’ve never had anything like this,” he said. “There’s been some low-profile polygamists — but not really organized.”
When the FLDS moved in, it raised eyebrows and caused local concern, he said.
“I think they were fleeing the heat of what was happening in Arizona and Utah,” Hilderbran said, referring to criminal investigations into FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs. Jeffs was recently convicted in Utah of rape as an accomplice for arranging an underage union between a teenage girl and her cousin.
Utah did it right. They went after the people involved in under aged marriage and didn’t go after the religion or persecute the women and children.
“They should have reviewed our history. … I am surprised they didn’t check it out here. We’re tougher on crime and a little no-nonsense.”
The marriage laws were fourteen-years-old when the FLDS began their move so the only history this could be referring to is intolerance to religious freedom.
Although the raid’s methods, extent and seizure of more than 400 children have raised controversy nationwide, the state’s child protective services agency, he said, will be proven right in the long run.
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695274455,00.html
36 Comments so far...
Jan W. Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:02 pm.
Don’t even pretend this man wants to help these kids and young women. He hates them all. If he wanted to punish someone he should go after the men instead of taking young children away from there poor mothers. This is so twisted.
Irritated Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:19 pm.
These children will be better off in the long run for taking them away. What chance do they have for a normal life in that compound? We have to think of what is right and how these children will be brain washed. They deserve the things the rest of us have.
Matt Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:22 pm.
Irritated, then you are the one who decides how these kids should live? Is this still America? Do we still have freedom of religion? It is their lifestyle that bugs you most isn’t it? Because it is different than ours we demand they conform? Where will this end? Who are you to decide what is a normal life? This is opening the door to a whole mess of trouble.
Irritated Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:25 pm.
Come on, anyone living in a compound is nuts. Nothing good will come from that. That isn’t America.
Jan W. Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:26 pm.
That’s right. Normal to who? This is so intolerant and spits on the Constitution.
Jan W. Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:27 pm.
Okay, Irritated, what about all the hippies living in communes in the sixties? Are you okay with the Amish? Where will it stop? Not until all the Christians are persecuted but then again we know from the book of Revelation that that will happen.
Matt Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:30 pm.
Texas needs to round up all the kids of unwed mothers living on welfare and take them away. They are being raised with the same mindset and the same pattern will happen again. Oh, I’m sorry, how stupid of me. Those kids aren’t being raised in a compound, just a nice, safe slum. How uplifting.
Peter Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:31 pm.
Texas is trying to do the right thing for the kids. Nothing more nothing less. They are good kind people who are doing this.
Jesse Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:34 pm.
Isn’t that the state with a little place called “WACO”? Sure, just trying to do the good, kind thing. Such a tolerant place.
Jan W. Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:34 pm.
This is being done out of hate and intolerance. Read the article again.
Jesse Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:38 pm.
Right, Jan. If it was concern for the children, why is Texas one of the worst in the nation for teen pregnancy between ages of 13 to 17? I guess if you are a good Baptist it doesn’t matter.
Peter Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:41 pm.
I’m sorry but I don’t get why all of you are supporting the FLDS. Do you secretly agree with their lifestyle or what?
Matt Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:43 pm.
Peter, your comment shows you aren’t really trying to understand where we are coming from. Nobody here likes the idea of young girls getting married off young. We don’t agree with the FLDS beliefs at all. Since when are we supposed to agree with what a religion believes in order to give them the right to religious freedom? Is religious freedom only for the people who agree with us? Is Texas going to put in a state religion?
Peter Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:46 pm.
This isn’t a regular religion. They are doing illegal things. They need to conform to the laws of the land.
Matt Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:47 pm.
You decide what is a regular religion? Wow, scary.
Answer me this, why did they take away kids from parents who weren’t breaking the law? Lots of them were from people not living polygamy or marrying young. Please answer that.
Peter Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:48 pm.
That will all get straightened out with time. Let the court do their job.
Matt Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:49 pm.
It never was their job to take away these kids for absolutely no reason. The court is trashing the constitution. They will do whatever they have to to make sure they come out making Texas look like they did the right thing.
Jan W. Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:52 pm.
Peter, do you have any experience with the foster care system? It is so messed up. There are huge numbers of abuse going on. Lots of the families barely live above poverty and that is only because of the money they get from the state. Lots of them are in slums. The lifestyle in lots of the homes is very depressing and dark and promotes dangerous lifestyles. So you think we should give the state lots of time to straighten out their own mess and leave these children there when they are use to a lifestyle that is so different.
T. Fan Says:
28 April 2008 at 12:55 pm.
I hate the FLDS lifestyle but we need to uphold the constitution. Where was the threat of imminent harm with most of those kids? Texas has broken the law and if they get away with this we are all screwed. It is just a matter of time. It will come back to bite all of the self-righteous Baptists (and I’m a Baptist) who live there and hate these people.
Irritated Says:
28 April 2008 at 1:01 pm.
I think people are going a little over board about being afraid that this would spread to average religions. All we ask is that people uphold the law. Polygamy is against the law.
Jesse Says:
28 April 2008 at 1:03 pm.
Then you think we need to uphold all the sodomy laws? It is going to be a big job to arrest all the homosexuals then. Do you really think we should do that?
E.E. Says:
28 April 2008 at 1:32 pm.
As a Mormon, I do not want to be mixed up with the FLDS but I am tired of pussy footing around because I am so scared of people thinking I secretly want to be a polygamous or something. To heck with that, think what you want. I am going to say straight out for the record, polygamy for consenting adults of age should not be against the law if it is part of a religion. That law was unconstitutional. To have lawmakers who are sleeping with mistresses and prostitutes and doing all kinds of crap are so self-righteous to look down their noses at polygamists. There are people having sex without everyone under the sun without marriage. Get real. The day we decide to go after the homosexuals is the day we should go after polygamists of age. Homosexuality is wrong according to scripture. Some of the ancient prophets were polygamists but not homosexuals. Big difference. Do I want to live polygamy? Not a chance but there are lots of worse things out there. Come on Mormons, get over being scared of comparisons and stand up for these persecuted people. It’s only a matter of time until they come after us anyway. After all, it’s about religious hatred, not law.
Stumpy Says:
28 April 2008 at 1:42 pm.
Now that all y’all have finished trashin my state I hope ya feel better. We are the most tolerant folks around (cept Californians). We are lettin all them Mexicans come on in and bring there drugs right along with em. We are payin fer lots of little Mexicans bein born in our hospitals fer free. We arent lettin our big mean border guards pick on all these poor outlaws seekin freedom here since they got booted out of the jails down there and told to git themselfs up here so we can take care a em.
Who out there really cares if we pick on this little religion that we dont like? They dont got no lobbyists or nobody to take there part so whats ta stop us? They gots lots of cute little blond blue eyed babies that folks are buggin the system to get for em so the courts found a great way ta do it. An when they git old enough, 12 or 13, we will hand em birth control and condems jist ta lure em away from there video games and tv and facebook and texting. We will teach em ta get jobs where they tell us customers ta go to hell if we complain about there service. What a great life these kids will have here in Texas.
Benjamin Says:
28 April 2008 at 1:46 pm.
E.E. I think you are right. A lot of us Mormons are overly sensitive and aren’t as careful about wanting to protect the rights of the FLDS because we don’t want the stink to stick to us. That is cowardly. Absolutely no one has come up with a legal reason kids of the FLDS not living in polygamy should have their kids taken away. The state of Texas has turned outlaw.
Stumpy, I love you man!
Stumpy Says:
28 April 2008 at 1:50 pm.
Well hell - maybe they should start enforcin them homo laws after all and they can start with ole Benjamin. Sorry dude I dont swing that way. 
Joy Bischoff Says:
28 April 2008 at 1:53 pm.
I liked how Stumpy showed the hypocrisy of Texas. His mention of the illegal alien problem made me think of this that I got from Peter Anderson. Off topic but dang are our priorities out of whack!!!
Question -
When you apply for Welfare
in Mexico what does that Government give you?
Answer -
A map of the United States
Hank Says:
28 April 2008 at 1:59 pm.
Can’t decide whose name to write in for president, Mitt Romney or Stumpy.
Joy, couldn’t agree more. Things are out of balance.
These screwed up polyg girls need to get with the program and start looking up to normal girls like Hannah Montana. Maybe these girls could get on Vanity Fair posing semi-nude to.
Nalvy Says:
28 April 2008 at 3:06 pm.
Hank in no way is Hannah Montana a good role model… she lives two lives and lies about who she is lol and she is a slave to disney. LOL
Priorities are out of whack Joy. I used to work at a place where Ploygamists came in and not once did I ever see an underaged wife. I know there are some who marry young but not all and I know their lifeatyle is…well disturbing I do know they are not all bad and evil.
Again it is all how we are brought up..I f i was brought up being taught a certain lifestyle was acceptable I wouldnt know any better…that doesnt mean you can take me away from the life I know and trust. It would send anyone’s mind down a spiral path of confusion and mistrust.
Anyone who says it is okay to just rip these kids away from their parents and then drop them into homes where they will constantly be hounded for their beliefs is just plumb outta their minds in my opinion.
Concerned American Says:
28 April 2008 at 5:28 pm.
Good points Nalvy.
It probably seems that most of us here all have the same mindset and that could be considered strange but it makes sense to me. This is a place where most of us feel very strongly about the Constitution. We don’t get as messed up with all the confusion going on with each issue because we are measuring them by the basic truths the Founding Fathers wrote about. They were very wise and their formula works. Even with something that may disgust us like polygamy we can filter the information through constitutional law and get past the emotional reaction enough to see when rights are being trampled on. That’s a pretty great thing.
avatar Says:
28 April 2008 at 7:39 pm.
The Constitution does not allow or prohibit polygamy, but we do have laws against polygamy in all the states, and I do not see how they can be called unconstitutional. The Constitution allows the free practice of religion, but courts have never expanded that to mean that adherents can ignore any law that their church does not like–there would be no end, if that were allowed.
There is an understandable tendency to see the FLDS church in terms of its most radical characteristic–polygamy–but, personally, I think that’s a mistake. It’s the cloistered community combined with absolute control over the personal lives of the members that strikes me as most dangerous. I also am made uncomfortable by the way that some people are willing to excuse government action against members of the FLDS that they would not excuse if the FLDS did not practice polygamy. For me, if due process rights mean anything at all, they must be extended even to people who belong to weird groups who believe strange things. Otherwise, the rights aren’t really there.
E.E. Says:
28 April 2008 at 9:38 pm.
There wasn’t any law against polygamy until the Mormon Church began the practice as a part of their religion. They weren’t ignoring any laws to do it. Other churches were in an uproar and many crazy stories were told to get the people in an uproar. Only 3% of the men were living it. The law was past making it illegal which, in my opinion, crossed the boundary of freedom of religion. I’m glad there is no longer polygamy and I certainly do not want to live it but that doesn’t mean I think it was constitutional for it to be made illegal. It isn’t as bad as a lot of other practices that are tolerated out there.
Still, Avatar, I like the things you have to say in the second paragraph. It is logical and you see the problem of using prejudice to excuse taking away a plethora of rights.
Cavetrollhead Says:
29 April 2008 at 1:10 am.
Peter, you are so wildly off on this, I can’t believe it- even from you. I hope that if you are LDS, you are able to say also that it was right for John Taylor to be imprisoned, and wrong for the LDS church to defy the federal government in the mid 1800s.
This is a case of punishment preceding a trial. Any of those mothers would probably rather spend year in jail rather than endure this awful anxiety of the last few weeks.
I think that reuniting these children with their families would be worthy of violence, if it would do any good- but it won’t.
Avatar, this isn’t a question of obeying the law, it is a question of punishment fitting the crime and the presumption of innocence. Go ahead and arrest the adults- make them pay a fine -whatever but is taking someone’s children away a fitting punishment for polygamy. Surely you don’t think that taking away someone’s child is a fitting punishment for adultery –as damaging as adultery is to society. Is tearing young children away from the bosom of their families necessary or appropriate in preparing a case? I can’t imagine why?
This is barbaric totalitarianism and it should serve as a wakeup call. It is time for the frog to jump out of the pot!
Down with TEXAS!!!! Shame on the Feds for letting this happen!
Cavetrollhead Says:
29 April 2008 at 1:13 am.
I guess after a more careful reading of your comment, AVATAR, we are not so far apart on our positions.
Joy Bischoff Says:
29 April 2008 at 1:59 am.
Cave, I think Avatar is very tolerant for a non-Mormon to tell you the truth. But I do agree with E.E. and not Avatar about the point of the law. When the Mormons lived polygamy, constitutionally, they should not have been prosecuted since they law was passed after they contracted the marriages and it was not illegal when they did it. Most of Avatar’s points are, IMO, very logical though and I enjoy reading his comments.
I was a little nervous about this subject as a lot of Mormons are but Cave, your fire and courage on the subject inspired me.
avatar Says:
2 May 2008 at 4:29 pm.
I guess I can see why mainstream Mormons would be particularly sensitive about the present FLDS news; but, I don’t think they need to be. After all, most established churches have their offshoots, and almost by definition some of those offshoots tend to be extreme. Everyone knows (or should know) that the Mormon church has not allowed polygamy for a century or so; and, if anything, today, Mormons have the reputation of being more law-abiding than members of most churches.
As for me, while I’ve made clear that I do support the Texas investigation of the FLDS for suspected crimes of child abuse, I also do not like the way Texas authorities were so quick to ride roughshod over the due process and other rights of the individuals concerned–they are, after all, citizens who have Constitutional rights, regardless of their religious beliefs or lifestyles–and I am hoping that some legal clarifications reinforcing due process rights in these circumstances will emerge. I do not think the religious beliefs of the parents, nor matter how outlandish, can possibly justify snatching kids away, so would argue that the focus should be only on the suspected crimes.
I certainly do not think 400+ kids should be summarily taken away from their mothers unless there is evidence they are in immediate danger of harm (and unless I’ve missed something, I don’t think we’ve yet seen that evidence made public, at least not for all the kids). I don’t know what is usual in cases where child abuse is suspected (I know it’s a sensitive area and handled somewhat differently than suspected crimes involving only adults) but even assuming it handicapped the investigation to leave the kids with their parents during the investigation (I believe I have seen that argument made in this case), I think the rights of the kids and their parents should trump the convenience of the investigators. It is a terribly traumatic event for most (all?) of the children, particularly the very young ones, to be taken away from their mothers and put into foster care, not to mention the effect on their parents; and even people here who believe that wholesale foster care really was necessary on the specific facts presented to the court (and I respect your opinions) should acknowledge that harm. Sure, it’s a balancing act: suspected harm of child abuse weighed against legal rights and probable harm of separation. I just hope all the “harms” are being properly considered.
As for whether historically it was constitutional for a state to outlaw polygamy in response to the early Mormons practicing it, that’s an interesting legal question. (I also don’t know the sequence; it could well be that many of the states in question already had the law; states have generally regulated marriage.) If making the argument, I would probably argue more from the perspective of individual rights than religious freedom, though. In theory, a facially-neutral law does offend the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if it is passed just to get at individual members of a particular race or religion. Yick Wo is one example, where the court struck down San Francisco’s facially-neutral laundry licensing law because it was enacted to target Chinese-Americans.
But, today, of course, state laws against polygamy are very unlikely to be challenged or overturned on equal protection (or freedom of religion) grounds. (I could, however, see political action at some future point convincing legislators to repeal the laws in some of the more liberal or individual-rights-oriented states, on the argument that people should be free to choose their lifestyles, as also in the case of gay marriages, etc.) In any case, as I understand it, FLDS members are not accused of committing legal polygamy here, so polygamy really is a red herring as far as the legal issues in this Texas case are concerned.
E.E. Says:
2 May 2008 at 5:23 pm.
.There were no laws in the United States against polygamy until 1862, well after the Mormons began the practice of polygamy. Legal experts have usually agreed that the courts overstepped their bounds, and grossly reversed the meaning of of the Constitution in legislating polygamy. I would rather not be involved in polygamy myself but that does not mean I think the practice should be illegal.
Avatar, you nailed it when you said polygamy is being used as a red herring with the FLDS. I think after all this terror, the FLDS would agree not to marry off their children until they are eighteen.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.