Children of the cult

"A recurring theme on this blog is the possibility of taking the 'Benedict Option' -- that is, dropping out of the mainstream, and retiring in some capacity to living in a countercultural community. How much counterculturalism, especially religious counterculturalism, is the state prepared to accept? How much counterculturalism should the state be prepared to accept?"

This, Rod, is the reason why I'm sceptical about your "either-or" on culture and politics. I just don't think the state will let us drop out. State power likes to grow and likes to control. For this reason, I feel we need to be involved in politics at the same time we build our institutions, our little platoons. We need to support politicians and parties who will work to preserve our religious and cultural freedoms in the face of those who would take it away. The libertas ecclesiae and her members should matter to us, and we happen to live in a system that allows us to work and vote to preserve it.

>>>
It's weak to say, "Because 14 year olds can't meaningfully consent." That's not a moral argument, it's a legalistic way of avoiding the argument. There has to be a reason why 14 year olds can't meaningfully consent to sex and marriage, despite the fact that their bodies are capable of reproduction, and they live in a society -- e.g., the FLDS compound -- that supports early marriage.
>>>

You are overthinking this point, Rod. The age of consent is an arbitrary age. Some individuals may be able to give meaningful consent earlier, some might not be able to for several more years. Society has to pick an arbitrary age of consent just as society has to pick an arbitrary legal drinking age.

If a sub-group really finds that law onerous, they can work to change it or they can move to a place where the law suits them better.

Note that the same logic applies to gay marriage.

Regarding the Branch Davidians, if they hadn't shot at Federal agents, but instead had let the search warrant be served, David Koresh would be alive today and in charge of his oddball cult.

>>>
All of us who are, or who can imagine ourselves as outsiders -- especially cultural and religious outsiders whose lives and beliefs run counter to the prevailing social order -- will have lost something.
>>>

Bah, Humbug!!!

Don't break secular law and you can be just as culturally and religiously outsider as your heart desires.

Based on what we know -- they are in polygamous marriages, which are against the law. Even if no young woman married until the day of her 16th birthday at the YFZ Ranch, the need for pictures, hard drives, and DNA is because there is abundant evidence that men have multiple wives, reasonable grounds for concern that young, if not illegally young women are being pressured into entering polygamous marriages, and the entire community is conspiring to hide the fact of polygamous marriage.

If i wasn't sure of that before, after hearing the women only, interviewed on the "Today" show, it was perfectly clear that they cannot or will not answer any question on plural marriage, even as they are articulate and no doubt truly pained on any number of angles having to do with their children. But they are all actively conspiring to hide the fact of multiple wives and how these marriages are made.

Based on what we know -- even if it could be proved that no under 16 year old entered into marriage or sexual relations with an older partner, there would still be grounds for the state's actions.

If fringe/marginal/minority groups can defend any standard of behavior simply on the basis of being small and oppressed . . . really, i don't see the injustice here. The FLDS women, under orders, are trying hard to change the subject, but the laws of Texas and the USA say you can't marry multiple partners, or enter into such a state with intent to defraud the state for receiving benefits. That's the hook. Add in what sound to mean like reasonable grounds for concern that under 16 year olds are coerced and added to polygamous marriages, and what's the injustice here again? I'm not seeing it.

>>>
What an absurd statement.
Posted by: Jennifer | April 17, 2008 5:22 PM
>>>

Brava!!

I am very suspicious of the whole thing.

Yes, if girls (or women) are being forced into marriage against their will, they should be protected.

The child abuse moral panic, however, has been converted into an industry, that goes far beyond those cases (baby placed in oven, child locked in closet, stepfather rapes stepdaughter, and the like) where state intervention is not merely jutified but desirable.

It's often in the name of a seemingly just cause that state oppression arises.

If sodomy is constitutionally protected and not merely prudentially tolerated, I can't see why the state can outlaw plural marriage, at least for those who reach the age of consent.

Perhaps the authorities, having received a legally sufficient complaint from some as-yet-unidentified 14-year-old girl, had to intervene in some way. Apparently, they've now gone hog-wild, creating misery and a procedural morass.

>> "Is it really so difficult to see how easy it is to get lost and lonely in America, to feel sapped of significance by its scale and speed, and housed, and diminished by its indifference? Must it really be said again that many of its citizens do not experience this country as a land of opportunity? In a state this huge and frantic, in a society this byzantine and technological, the self is no longer secure, and longer the certain master of its situations; and it is inevitable that there will be individuals who will wish to withdraw."
---

Um, this is off topic but... didn't Barack Obama just get in trouble for saying this?

Erin: There is every difference in the world between this situation and the unjust interference by governments into the lives of families on such issues as homeschooling or free speech. It is not unjust for societies to determine that polygamy is, at its core, an attack on the family, the fundamental unit of society; it would be more unjust to consider it merely some tolerated, though not condoned, alternative lifestyle.

Well, I pretty much agree with you, but -- and I think you and I would agree here -- how does a society decide that the traditional family is a malleable concept when it comes to same-sex couples and marriage rights, but decides that polygamy is out of bounds?

I'll repeat it: I think the government did the right thing here, based on what we know at this point. I certainly believe polygamy should be outlawed, and it is outlawed. Anyway, this wasn't about polygamy, but about sexually abusing minors. Even if we accept that what the government did in going in to break up those families was necessary and just, the whole thing raises questions that ought not be lightly dismissed. Don't you think?

I told you the Benedict option would not work. But at least it wasn't the FBI so no one got killed this time.

..how does a society decide that the traditional family is a malleable concept when it comes to same-sex couples and marriage rights, but decides that polygamy is out of bounds?

Because same-sex couples are a one-to-one relationship. This is a partnership. Polygamous marriages, by their practical nature, imply inequality and subordination of a number of parties (almost always female) to one party (almost always male). Yes, that happens in monogamous marriages, but not as necessary consequent.

Between 400 and 1,400 boys (some as young as 14) have been excommunicated from the FLDS church, sometimes abandoned in the desert, literally. Ostensibly for misbehavior, but from what I've read, the real reason is that they are competition with the elderly men for the sexual favors of the 13 year old girls.

Warren Jeffs before he was in prison also had all the pets owned by members of the FLDS church killed, many in front of the children. What part of "this is a sick cult that is becoming sicker year by year" is hard to understand?

Rod, I've just noticed that you put up this post with all the links; thanks for the kind words. I remain very perplexed and at cross-purposes over the whole matter. The FLDS cult under Warren Jeffs was a deeply disturbed and ultimately quite absusive and wicked place and way of life, and I believe that communities have the right, and ought to have the power, to--where appropriate--establish a moral order of things that puts an end to such abuses and wickedness, even if some individual choices continue to sustain that place and way of life.

And yet...and yet: are we always going to be confident that the precedents set in such cases will be reasonable ones? That they will truly only act "where appropriate"? That they will not turn on any way of life that someone, somewhere, thinks is predatory and wrong. (What would happen to all Christians if Richard Dawkins of Christopher Hitchens got make these decisions?) I know, from my own history, how complicated and potentially violent (with the violence going both ways) these decisions can be. So I remain watchful but tentative, hopeful, but worried. I hope the right thing is being done in Texas. I hope the damage they cannot avoid doing to the lives of believing people--people not that different from you and me--is one that, in the end, we can justify.

This matter is being discussed at length in this thread over at Times and Seasons, a Mormon blog, if anyone is interested.

Pedro: If you have a society (as we do) in which there is no general agreement on first principles and indeed fairly significant conflict over those first principles, then the moral judgments we collectively render can ring particularly hollow and we are often left with reliance on technical legality in the absence of a shared normative moral framework. (See, e.g., MacIntyre's moral language allegory at the beginning of After Virtue)

Amen. Probably the most important thing anybody has said on this blog all day.

"Even if we accept that what the government did in going in to break up those families was necessary and just, the whole thing raises questions that ought not be lightly dismissed. Don't you think?"

I think the biggest question is how we can trust the government of our culture to act in justice on these matters, given that polygamy is seen as a culture which frequently enables the abuse of minors and should therefore be stopped, but that a single mother with an endless stream of 'baby daddies' passing in and out of her life is merely viewed as an acceptable manifestation of the sexual revolution in action. What ought to be an act of coherent social policy carried out by agents of the government becomes, instead, an arbitrary rejection of only one form of sexual liberty while all others are upheld and celebrated by a social culture run amok.

Derek- Human sacrifice and cannibalism are not biblical. Our ancestors practiced slavery and it is biblical, though controversial. I am not sure why we let young girls decide whom they will marry. This a very modern thing. Clearly, our ancestors did not allow this. Parents love their children and want what is best for them. This tradition should be honored rather than letting the government impose some arbitrary age limits.

Steve

while all others are upheld and celebrated by a social culture run amok.

No need to do it now but please post at any time a citation where someone is celebrating the fact that some women are having multiple baby daddies.

If parents decide who their children are to marry, or even to have relationships with, this can be stopped.

Steve

On a related note, the author Robert Epstein once wrote a book called "The Case Against Adolescence," arguing that the vast labyrinth of restrictions on post-pubescent individuals creates a major source of modern societal strife. Thought-provoking, thoroughly non-mainstream introduction to the book and interview with the author here:

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070302-000002.html

Like Steve, I eagerly await citations of documented celebrations of multiple daddies. I have never, in all my liberal life, been invited to one and I'm feeling seriously out of sorts about it.

Truth be told, I have far less problem with polygamy among consenting adults than I do with unmarried parents who don't appear to have the first idea what is required to raise children. But that does not mean I don't have problems with polygamy.

For a peek inside some of the creepy realities of cults, read Rogue Messiahs by Colin Wilson, and Under the Banner of Heaven, by Jon Krakauer. What is done to followers in cults goes way beyond being different, outsiders or oppressed minorities.

I notice no one has responded to Alicia's repeated mention of the boys who get jettisoned by the FLDS, with no skills at all. They end up being addicted to drugs and depressed, kicked out of the life they knew and completely unprepared to meet the world. This hardly strikes one as just a little quirky group happily following their own vision of how to Get Right with God. Comparing these people to the Benedict Option may be great fodder for a blog, but does not have validity.

So drawing a moral distinction between consenting adults and children is a "legalistic way of avoiding argument"?

Are you arguing that you cannot understand a moral argument
that distinguishes between having sex with someone who is not capable of forming consent and someone who can?

Sig: This notion that it's both practical and morally righteous for young girls to be wed and bred as close to puberty as possible is one of the creepier darlings of perennial right-wing fantasy.

Please tell me more about this perennial right-wing fantasy. As I have been a right-winger for most of my life and have never heard of such a thing, I turn to those better informed than I for more information.

Joseph: So drawing a moral distinction between consenting adults and children is a "legalistic way of avoiding argument"?

You're confusing things. I was only asking for a moral reason for drawing the line at 14, or 16. I believe the line should be drawn, but saying that 14 year olds can't get married because the law says they can't get married doesn't tell us much. Why shouldn't 14 year olds be allowed to get married, if their society is constructed in such a way to support 14 year old marriage?

(I'm not saying they should, please understand; I'm only trying to figure out what kind of moral reasoning is behind the assumptions we as a society are making.)

14yo girls marry older men so the men can have sex and the girls can start having children does not represent the kind of consent to marriage we expect in our society.

Daniel- You are missing the Crunchy Con POV. It is the parents consent which is needed. Tradition doesnt allow for the girl to make marriage decisions on her own. Not honoring tradition leads women to have multiple baby daddies. The parents should choose the husband and, ideally, there should be no divorce.

Steve

Unless the authorities are keeping a lot of information close to the vest, this whole fiasco is going to end with a big Federal Court smack-down against Texas for violating due process on an unprecedented scale. There was no legal basis for separating the young girls or any of the boys from their mothers, as the state has presented no evidence that the younger children or any of the boys were in danger. The proper (read: Constitutional) course would have been to investigate the allegations from the 16-year-old's phone call, conduct interviews, gather evidence, and make arrests as necessary.

I know that Texans believe they have legal right to secede from the Union, but it would be wonderful if they would learn to read and understand the US Constitution in the meantime. The former Texas governor has proven he can't comprehend it, and now we see his incapacities are contagious. Last time I misunderestimate Texan stategerific legally braining.

Notwithstanding Matt's opinion to the contrary, it's pretty clear from the Texas Family Code that Child Protective Services did what they are statutorial required to do in cases of alleged neglect. Which is where the problems begin. Texas law in this area, as I suspect is the case for just about every other jurisdiction, was written to handle normal run-of-the-mill (not that there are such things) child abuse allegations: an investigator receives credible evidence that a child is in imminent danger; then CPS moves in and takes the child; the agency then has to defend that decision in front of a judge by the 14th day after. Pretty simple procedurally in normal circumstances. But that law was not written in contemplation of something like this. The law put CPS in a damned-if-you do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Whether CPS made the right call is going to get sorted out by the district court in San Angelo (it's just going to take a loooong time because of the number of kids involved). But I don't think anyone should fault them for erring on the side of caution.

And just as a lesson on the Texas governmental structure for those interested, the governor does not directly control any of the state agencies (a weak executive is a result of Reconstruction). The governor, with the consent of the Texas Senate, selects commissioners to oversee agencies, but he has no legal authority (except in emergency situations) to directly dictate an agency's actions. And at the moment this mess is firmly in the hands of the Texas judiciary, not the executive.

"it's pretty clear from the Texas Family Code that Child Protective Services did what they are statutorial required to do in cases of alleged neglect . . . an investigator receives credible evidence that a child is in imminent danger; then CPS moves in and takes the child"

cb, that is exactly the problem. No evidence was presented, credible or otherwise, that any of the boys or young children were in danger. Imminent danger? Good grief!

It's a tragedy that parents and children have to suffer the trauma and fear of this fiasco until the Federal Courts smack down the Texas judges and acquaint them with the 14th Amendment's due process clause.

(And to wonder that my jaw hit the floor reading Harriet Myer's legal arguments, flabbergasted that she was head of the Texas Bar or Bush's legal counsel. By Texas standards Harriet's a dam legul jeanus!)

"There has to be a reason why 14 year olds can't meaningfully consent to sex and marriage, despite the fact that their bodies are capable of reproduction, and they live in a society -- e.g., the FLDS compound -- that supports early marriage. We should think about this." Rod Dreher

I have. Children at 14 do not have the mental development or judgment that a 16 or 18 year old does. They've done studies on this and it's part of why juvenile execution is now illegal. In addition these girls are living in a world where infant mortality and maternal mortality are relatively low. In earlier eras a woman could easily lose as many babies as she birthed, so an earlier start allowed for more kids. Likewise the "reproductive window" could be shortened by death in childbirth. Now a 22-year-old woman who gets married could have over 20 years of potential reproductivity with minimal risk to her life or the baby's.

Also forced marriages are essentially like rape. It is forbidden in most faiths. In many of the modern age societies that arrange marriage generally allow the woman to say no. It's more like having a matchmaker. Although enforced "kidnap marriages" are still practiced in parts of Central Asia and the Himalayas.

On another matter the FLDS is not like traditional polygamous cultures. In most societies that allow polygyny plural marriage is limited to a small, essentially elite, group. (In polyandrous societies it's usually a group of men sharing a woman so the land gets less divided. This is because four men sharing a woman will, usually, result in less kids than each having their own wife.) Among the FLDS polygamy is per-capita far more common than would occur in any "natural" polygamous society. Because of that there's the excommunicated "Lost Boys", which in some ways is just as much of a crime. The FLDS is also highly racist against blacks.

Sherry-If we follow the Crunchy Con view that our ancestors and tradition should guide us in our decisions it won't be perfect but better than what we have. Parents know best. Marrying off girls at 14 and not allowing divorce will provide a stable family life and lots of children. Marrying your daughter to an older man means he will better be able to provide for her and protect her.

Steve

You guys do know that Steve is putting you on, that he's trying to say that tradition requires polygamy, early marriage, etc. Well, the Christian tradition does not, nor does the Western tradition.

Can 14-year olds have abortions in Texas?

>>>>
(I'm not saying they should, please understand; I'm only trying to figure out what kind of moral reasoning is behind the assumptions we as a society are making.)
Posted by: Rod Dreher | April 17, 2008 9:54 PM
>>>>

What is the moral reasoning behind a minimum drinking age of 21?

There is none, just the pragmatic observation that less harm derives from that arbitrary selection than from a lower drinking age.

Same with the choice of age of consent.

Polygamy is a more "traditional" form of marriage than the romantic, marriage-of-equals we have now. Even marriage extremists like Maggie Gallagher acknowledge that. Our current form of marriage is not really part of the Christian tradition, since it is a product of modernity and can be traced back to maybe 1850.

Monogamous marriage of equals can only be traced back to 1850? Were George and Martha Washington pledged to each other at age 4? Did Henry VIII's many wives get along? Your historical interpretation is nothing short of daffy.

The modern notion of romance is just that modern but monogamy is hardly a new concept. It has been a time-tested institution and backbone of stable society. Polygamy is no more a solution than no fault divorce for the problems of modern marriage.

Alicia, ex-members are seldom disinterested or objective in their reporting. I imagine you don't believe I should rely on disgruntled members of your religion, whatever it is, as the primary source for information about your faith.

The religious persecution against the FLDS is tolerated _because_ it's an apostate Christian sect. Were the fundie officials of west Texas investigating a Muslim or Hindu group, they wouldn't have removed all 416 children when their evidence (which now appears to be a hoax anyway!) indicated only teenage girls were being abused or at risk.

The Texas officials' religious certainty that the sect is apostate colors the way they see and understand the group. They KNOW it's evil and that's why they haven't worried too much about legal evidentiary requirements. This, even though the greatest evil we've so far seen is that Rozita Swinton bore false witness against the FLDS families.

Matt, there are multiple sources for the information about this cult. The Utah Attorney General, a Mormon himself, compared them to the Taliban. In Utah and Arizona, the authorities have tried diplomacy -- they had what they considered an understanding with the FLDS leadership that they would not crack down on polygamy if the FLDS didn't practice underage marriage. Result of diplomacy: the construction of Jonestown in Texas.

Additionally, Matt, I have a very bad reaction to people who accuse so-called apostates or heretics of "being disgruntled" or "just doing it for the attention." Perhaps only a mass suicide is spectacular enough for people who choose to ignore the evidence in front of their noses to face reality. Doesn't the abandonment of teenage boys, the coercion and rape of women and children, and the murder of dogs and cats constitute sufficient evidence?

Alicia, we have even less reason to trust the Utah AG's opinion of polygamous life than we have of ex-members. During Utah's territorial period it was widely assumed that the Mormon women were being oppressed into polygamy, and some of the women who left polygamous families did report that they hated it. But the public statements and diaries of most of the polygamous women attest to their own commitment to polygamy. Utah even gave women the vote, before any eastern state did, to show that Mormon women were free and that the men had no fear of the women rising in rebellion.

It's probably a Freudian slip revealing your preconceived ideas about the FLDS, but Jonestown is not in Texas and had nothing to do with the FLDS.

The press accounts of the Texas raid have shown that the FLDS have cooperated with the state's requests. The suggestion that they have a suicidal compact is a fiction of their religious oppressors.

John E: "What is the moral reasoning behind a minimum drinking age of 21?
There is none, just the pragmatic observation that less harm derives from that arbitrary selection than from a lower drinking age.
Same with the choice of age of consent."

I don't really agree.

Most Western, and many non-Western countries, have ages of consent in the 14 to 17 range. That seems to me about right, being puberty plus a few years as a safety margin.

The age for drinking alcohol varies much more widely, and may be pragmatic (although wouldn't pragmatism require evidence?) or merely cultural. For example, although the age in the USA is 21, in England it is 18 in pubs, 14 in restaurants, and 5 in private homes.

Were George and Martha Washington pledged to each other at age 4?

But they weren't equals, and arguably not monogomous. Even though Martha had significant financial wealth, she was dependent on George to use that and couldn't inherit any property. So much for equals.

Other Jim, Can 14-year olds have abortions in Texas?

Zing!

Jeff, there is no reason to co-mingle the questions of gay marriage and polygamy.

Certainly there is good reason to. Homosexuality and polygamy both hurt the society, one for health reaons (on spreads AIDS) and the other for family reasons (parenthood issues).

K Street, The new rich men there are re-adopting the old Chinese paradigm of concubine harems, vying with each other to see how big and varied their stables can be.

True, but let's not ignore the post 1960s invention of serial marriages among the wealthy West, which is really the same thing. It's now common for rich and powerful men here to "marry" a woman for 20 years (her prime breeding years), then dump her and grab another one once she hits 35yo, and then finally a third or even a fourth later on. They merely rotate their stables rather than add to them.

Wow, you seem pretty wishy washy about a pretty clearcut issue. Same sex marriages are between consenting ADULTS. That is not the same thing as forcing powerless girls to have sex with old men. These girls live in a world where they have no right to control their own destinies or even the sanctity of their own bodies. They have no choice. And it is NOT healthy for 13 year olds to have babies. This is a horror on a grand scale. If we're talking about religious liberty, let's talk about liberty for individuals. Let the girls grow up and become women before we allow old men to violate them.

Alicia, this whole charade has been guilt-by-association. They remind you of Jonestown so you imagine a suicidal compact, a fraudulent phone call reports rape, so officials assume everyone is guilty because a 33-year-old loon in Colorado says she's 16 and being abused by the FLDS.

Due process is not hard to give. People don't need to prove they live on the grid or have marriage certificates before the 14th Amendment requires state officials respect their constitutional right to due process.

So basically, the whole question comes down to the fact that it is girls being raped here and this is traditional? I mean, if it were the boys being made possessions of the older men for "man-boy love" as part of their tradition or old Greco-Roman pagan religion, we might have to get upset. But it's only girls, therefore traditional, excusable and maybe even better for them?

Matt, I have a few questions for you.

Do you believe that any religious organization in the U.S. has the right to form a state within a state?

Should the individual members of a religious organization be held responsible if they abandon teenage children?

Does the government have the right to prosecute those who commit welfare and social security fraud?

Should individual members of a religious organization be held responsible if they force underage children into marriage, or for that matter, if they force anyone into marriage?

Since polygamy is illegal, does the government have the right to recognize that de facto polygamy is occuring even if most of the marriages aren't civil marriages and prosecute?

Regardless of how screwed up the situation was behind those walls in El Dorado, we are tearing young children from their mothers, brothers and sisters away from each other and thrusting them into a world most of us agree can be a very harsh one. Suffice it to say that they do not all face a bright future, statistically speaking, when they hit foster care, en masse.

There's an argument that these mothers have failed to do the basic thing that mothers are expected to do: protect their offspring. Because the mothers are so coopted by the community and have willingly placed themselves into coercive situations (and allowed the same thing to happen to their daughters), there is an argument they are no worse than the drug-addicted mom who offers their children up as prostitutes.

You said "But shouldn't we at least ask ourselves on what ground we stand to criminalize the practice, when many of us are perfectly willing to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples."

Don't even go there comparing what is happening in the FLDS church to same-sex marriage. There is a world of difference between two consenting adults entering into a relationship and child and adult entering into a "relationship". Our society says a minor is not capable of really knowing what they are doing when entering a relationship (as many adults, too). Besides, a 14 year old girl with a 50 year old man? Ewww.

The Jewish tradition is not opposed to polygyny as such. The rabbinic decree that banned it in the West just expired, as a matter of fact. Yemenite Jews still practice polygyny, anyplace where it's legal. But the Tradition restricts polygyny in precisely the same way the Koran does--any man who want to have more than one wife at a time must treat them all equally with regard to money, housing, and sex. Since most men can't manage this, and since, in addition, polygyny is expensive (unless a fudge factor is introduced by applying for welfare), the result is that most people, even where it's legal, don't do it. In addition, the Jewish tradition is very strict about requiring a woman's consent to establish a marriage. (Dunno about Islam.)

But the FLDS situation seems to violate all of these restrictions, and in addition, to expect the taxpayer to subsidize the consequences.

As a divorce lawyer, I am not ecstatic about the current system of marriage and divorce in the US, OTOH. I believe that any divorced person who remarries should be required to provide the new spouse with references from the previous ones, as well as complete disclosure of any child support or alimony obligations left over from such relationships. Imposing these requirements, plus the traditional Jewish/Muslim ones, on polygyny, would produce a reasonable system that I wouldn't object to, one that would make plural marriage, in the immortal words of Plain Bill, "safe, legal, and rare."

Matthewes-Green has been advocating early marriage for years, but her argument is not fully supported by the facts. The average age of marriage has fluctuated greatly throughout history. In modern Europe was about the same as today, and while that was a less prosperous age than the twenty-first century, it was not a time of constant famine. In colonial and early national America, not at all a world of famine, it was somewhat lower than today, but still early twenties, not teens, and especially for men, marriage in the late twenties or even later was far from unheard of. (See examples below.) In fact, the average age of marriage in the 1950s was an all-time American low.

George Washingon, to take a person mentioned above, was 26 when he married (and for that matter, John Adams was 28, Thomas Jefferson was also 28, and James Madison was 43, although that last is a true outlier). Think also of the men in Jane Austen novels, who are often bachelors at thirty or older. (I believe Mr. Darcy, Colonel Brandon, and Mr. Knightley all were.) It is notable that most of these men married younger women - the fear of being an "old maid" has always been greater than fear of the supposedly carefree life of a bachelor - but that shouldn't necessarily be a model for today.

REALITY CHECK:
What you are witnessing is organized sexual exploitation. When committed by the usual scumbags there is no question in our minds that this is heinous and inexcusable. Girls are forcefully pushed into use as sexual objects and in the best of scenarios are bribed with gifts or money to ply them into accepting their lamentable fate.

However, using religion and bribing them with the fate of their eternal souls (falsely) is even more detestable. Instilling the terrifying fear of eternal damnation if one does not submit to the sexual appetites of those pretending that this is God's will, an act of purest holiness, is beyond a transgression of our society's shared sense of morality. It is to spit in God's eye as these men use His name to exploit the most vulnerable and innocent members of their isolated community.

Take it from someone who has seen a loved one exploited sexually by a group who found religion/spirituality a very convenient means of justifying thier behavior. Those women who remain with the group will lead a life of shame that is excused by the socio-religious brainwashing which informs them that it is part of God's plan for them. Eventually, they will age and their husbands will find little use for them sexually. They will then serve rather usefully as maids for the menfolk and do their duty until a new pubescent girl is chosen as then next wife. At this point, they will be handy as they explain to the new victim how the system works, why they should accept their fate, and guide them in the ways of how to be acceptably subservient.

Those who manage to leave will be poorly educated, socially inept in the larger society, and endure years of shame as they fight an uphill battle to make sense of what happened to them. Many will find it nearly impossible to function outside of the group for years, and may return in desperation. Others will wander into another psuedo-Christian fundamentalist group that provides the rigid thinking they need but avoids the sexual expliotation in exchange for some other form of service to their new masters.

A very small number will find their way to a life where they are independent and function reasonably. They will always have lasting effects from their experience such as phobias, bouts of terrible guilt and shame, and triggers from their formal life that can be rather distrubing. They will rarely find somebody to speak to about their experience openly and try to compartmentalize their former self in an exhausting exercise of will.

I could say so much more, but keep in mind that this is organized sexual exploitation done in God's name. Nothing more or less.

Mdavid, while wanting to avoid a blanket rejection of the anecdotal, the inclusion of John Adams as an exemplar is flawed, from his own words (paraphrasing from a direct quote of Adams' writing, in the McCullough biography): I was well advised by my (lawyer) mentor, that choosing a career in law, I must postpone marriage as long as possible. Further, while Washington and Jefferson are accurately described as wealthy, Adams was not. Certainly middle class, and rich in property, but while his Virginian colleagues' families were comfortable, Abigail Adams had to work very hard to keep their children fed and their land properly maintained. Most of the battles of the war were fought in her back yard, so to speak. The Virginians had little of such hardship.

Franklin, the inclusion of John Adams as an exemplar is flawed...that choosing a career in law, I must postpone marriage as long as possible

You are making my exact point. How many run-of-the-mill Americans of the day were lawyers? Do you really think the Founders were average guys? No way. Jefferson's IQ is estimated about 160.

But this is always the case once you pass the Malthusian trap and have lots of resources: intelligent people seeking wealth will marry late (relative term) and thus have fewer kids (on average), while the less rich will let nature take its course (marry at 14-18) and breed to max capacity. In the bible, Jesus explained this as "The meek shall inherit the earth."

Not long ago a man's kids would flat out starve to death if he didn't at least shoot for the "good life," which was pretty much three hots and a cot. Different story today; nearly everyone of Western linage is well off, and thus are being genetically displaced at breakneck speed. Europeans should be down to 7% of world population soon, with no bottom is sight.

I'm struck

For the love of God! People, let's please get to the real point here; Organized sexual exploitation in a cult that is rather effective at using mind control. There is no situation more conducive to mind contol than isolating a person from society at large and enforcing an alternate worldview that condones all manner of abuses in God's name. With no alternative viewpoints allowed the only rules are those that the leadership decides upon. The FLDS is a prime example.

Those who are arguing the moral relativist position on polygamy:
Please spare me. We are talking about organized sexual exploitation.

Those who are arguing the moral relativist position on the age of consent:
Again, please spare me. See above.

And especially the commenter who tried to compare Jonestown, FLDS, and Obama's church (??!!?!?!?!?!!!!!). Who are you trying to kid?!

Jonestown and FLDS - living in an isolated community where every action is monitored and any deviation is punished severely.

Obama's church - free to come and go as you please and disagree with the leadership at any time you wish. Leave the church and find another if you are uncomfortable in any way.

I have never, ever in my life seen so many conservatives jump onto a bandwagon of moral relativism in my life as I have seen with this issue! Folks fume and scream in dismay at the slightest hint of so-called "moral relativism" on the part of liberals on any other argument, but here we see people offering multiple defenses of sexual abuse because the perpetrators claim to be devout "Christians". Your arguements are purely political and demonstrably hypocritical. For shame!!!

You should all be very glad that Romney didn't win the nomination now. This albatross would be hung about his neck and no denunciation of the actions of this group would be enough to separate him from their aborrant behavior. Start praying now that McCain is wise enough to cross Romney off his list of VP candidates immediately.

One last item: Those who are prone to see any criticism of people who are nominally "Christian" as another sign of government persecution should step back and take a deep breath. In the end, you will absolutely NOT want to look back on this episode and recall how you jumped to the defense of sexual abusers.

" I think you'd need to go a long ways back, in the West anyway, for 14-year-old marriage to be normal. "

I agree. My mother had me at 19, and her mother had her at 16. Otherwise, throughout various branches of my family history, some going back to the 15th century, I can find only one case of childbirth before 20. In England, at any rate, I think teenage motherhood is a post-1940 phenomenon - from the 40s to the 70s it was within marriage, since the 70s it's been mostly without marriage.

I'm sure other commenters have made this point but the age of consent is purely beside the point here since *consent* is never at issue. These girls don't *consent* to the marriage any more than the adult women who are "reassigned" to other husbands when their first husband's fall afoul of the local authorities *consent* to being reassigned. Or any more than rebellious sons who are thrown out *consent* to being thrown out. Its.An.Authoritarian.Patriarchal.Cult. There is neither free excercise of religion nor free excercise of consent.

The fact that Rod doesn't get that shows that when you wave the word religion in front of an authoritarian they simply go weak in the knees and weak in the head. Rod ties himself into knots, essentially, defending the indefensible (even in his own terms). Child abuse and rape suddenly become more or less ok with him as long as it is done in the service of an angry god. What frightens Rod much more is actual mature consent--the consent of loving gay couples to marriage. The consent of mature adults to marriage or divorce. The consent of families to full and honest sexual education for their children. All of these actual forms of mature, open, honest, mutual *consent* are anathema to Rod. But when it comes to an authoritarian forcing of women and children, when it comes to a cult that empowers some males over others, Rod has to "wait" to "get more information" to "find out the right thing to do."

Really, its impossible to grasp how vile Rod is underneath all that crunchy con fakery until you go back to first moral principles and discover that he literally can't tell the difference between two adults who love each other and want to get married and a 50 year old guy forcing innumerable 14 year olds into sex slavery and forced pregnancy.

aimai

For me, the most distressing part of this post was the information that the author is an Eastern Orthodox Christian. It really upsets me that I share a religious tradition with this fool.

You contradict yourself in this article.

"I happen to think it's terrible to force a 14 year old to "marry" a 50 year old man who has five other "wives." I would put a stop to it. But shouldn't we at least ask ourselves on what ground we stand to criminalize the practice,"

You yourself supplied the grounds for criminalizing the practice, and in fact, there are two of them. First, the fact that the 14 year old is forced into the "marriage." Even if this were a case of "both parents sign a consent for an underaged girl to marry" the underage girls themselves are not entering into these relationships willingly. Second, the fact that these "marriages" are a sham (and become a vehicle for these cultists to defraud the welfare system) is enough of a reason to stop them. There's a defacto lack of good faith, the "contract" is broken through its inherent fraudulence.

You go on to say:

"There has to be a reason why 14 year olds can't meaningfully consent to sex and marriage..."

Yes, there does have to be a reason. But in this case it doesn't matter because the girls in question have no say in the matter. There is no consent involved, meaningful or otherwise. They are not asked. The women in the community are completely without voice; they must subject themselves entirely to the men, and without question, or they are punished, often gravely. They are shuffled from man to man, they are forced to give their daughters over to men old enough (in their society) to be their grandfathers, they are forced to turn their young teenaged sons out onto the streets without clothes, money, shelter or aid. Do a little research into the "lost boys" coming out of these groups. They're officially "banished" -- which is unlawful abandonment, as they are minors -- for "disobedience" but the plainer reality is that they represent an undesired "competition" for the adolescent girls coveted by the middle-aged elders. Plus, any society that has a 3+ women for every man rule plus a patriarchal household system must artificially decrease the number of men in the society or the burden for benefit becomes too great.

In your efforts toward religious egalitarianism and some backhanded stab toward equality under civil law for free, consenting adults, you've given succor and sympathy to raping, child molesting, misogynistic deviants. Poor show.

Jane Austen. That's a good one. Or how about baby daddies? And Mexicans - no, James Madison! Or wait, how about driving ages? In Europe! Yeah! Come on, people, any subject here but rape!

Ahem. Let me just add my bewilderment that you, Dreher, and so many other people are equivocating child abuse with such apparent ease.

"...why is it wrong for the members of this community to establish their own rules governing marriage? It's weak to say, 'Because 14 year olds can't meaningfully consent.' That's not a moral argument, it's a legalistic way of avoiding the argument."

Methinks the blogger doth protest too much. I want to know exactly why you DOUBT it's wrong for a "community" (or maybe just, you know, a cult) to enslave adolescent girls to middle-aged men, whether they will or no. And "if she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed" is not a moral argument; it's a meme for those who see women as livestock.

My guess - and I dearly hope to be proven wrong - is that most of your "argument" is based on the assumption that women ARE livestock, and we're just discussing halal.

You have got to be kidding?!! What if this cult was raping 14 year old boys - forcing them into "marriage"? That COULD be what their "God" tells them is the highest form of love. (It IS what the Gods told the Greeks.) How disgusting.
BTW - I am pretty sick of hearing the media refer to these women as "wives." Having more than one wife is illegal in Texas so the 40 year old second "wife" and the 35 year old third "wife" and the 30 year old fourth "wife' and the 25 year old fifth "wife' and the twenty year old sixth "wife" and the 15 year old seventh "wife" are either slaves, mistresses or consensual lovers. Well, except for the fifteen year old - she is a sex slave. Get a grip, pal. Your freaking love of slavery is showing.

I don't think we should lynch these men. Note, they haven't even been arrested. But, we do have a number of young girls who are clearly pregnant below the age of consent. I can assure you, if you had 10 pregnant 15 year olds living in your house, the authorities would be questioning - while you were under arrest. The men should be in jail - probable cause - child sexual abuse.

1. Not only are 14-year-olds legally unable to consent, it appears from some accounts that girls are forced to marry and have intercourse against their will (ie. they are raped).

2. Pregnancy at age 14 is significantly more dangerous for the mother than later pregnancy as the pelvis is not yet fully developed. The risk of maternal mortality is up to 5x greater than the risk to adult women. Babies born to young teenagers are more likely to be premature and underweight.

3. Girls married at 14 are poorly educated and entirely financially dependent as a result. This makes it very difficult for them to escape abusive situations.

4. It is incredibly offensive to compare systematic rape to marriage
between two consenting adults of the same sex who seek legal recognition and protection of their relationship to their partner and children.

Yeah, but it's okay to have sex with 14 year olds in the Latino community and it's common practice...

Taking the children was the only way to break up the cult, without having another Waco incident. If those people had ever read
Leviticus 18:6 to 18:21 it would have given them some clue on how they should live a better life. The women are similer to the movie The
Stepford Wives in there minds. Freedom of religion is alowed in this
country, but these folks are breaking the law and they are teaching
there children to do the same. Hopefully a solution will be found
soon.

To make a different point than my response to Chris above, perhaps we should now say "religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

There is a very great difference between religious freedom, and criminality hiding behind religion.

Ordinarily, I would find the idea of a government raid on a religious group's temple appalling. But if that religious group is hiding records that might show, among other things, that many of the men were in illegal polygamous marriages, that the wives in these marriages were pretending to be single mothers in order to collect welfare benefits, that some adult men were married to underage girls, that the group was planning to amass an arsenal of weapons and learning how to build bombs, etc., then I have to say that sometimes Federal authority needs to trump religious freedom.

Not disregarding due process, either, but not allowing those who commit criminal acts to hide behind their religion, either.

And, while we're about it, what ABOUT arranged marriages? They're different from IMPOSED marriages, which are universally a bad idea. But considering the prevalence of computer dating services these days, how can matchmakers and family arrangements be any worse? I lucked out against all the odds, finding a good spouse quite by accident. But if I hadn't, I wouldn't necessarily mind having a spouse selected by a relative, provided I got to choose the relative. I mean, I've got relatives I wouldn't allow to choose the toppings on my pizza, but some others would do a pretty good job. That's probably true for most of us.

I am a big-time liberal and a social worker and I think your observations about marriage are interesting and accurate. I am personally not a fan of statutory rape laws nor interfering with a culture where people marry young.

Sadly, the greatest damage in this community may done to the boys. In order to provide lots of young girls for the old men to marry, young boys are often "culled" out of the community because they represent competition. Thus, tons of young teen males are thrown away by this community and left to fend for themselves in a society they haven't been trained to live in. This is quite tragic, though arguably the community considers these young men to be responsible adults and they don't view this as child abuse.

The abuse was not just about underage marriage. Beating with broomsticks, waterboarding babies, raping young boys, and much more. Ask a Mormon or the young girls Joseph Smith raped.

You say, "But shouldn't we at least ask ourselves on what ground we stand to criminalize the practice, when many of us are perfectly willing to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples."

Let me first point out that even marginally educated individuals should be aware that that sentence should end with a question mark.

But let's leave aside the issue of your literacy. Perhaps the answer to your question is that the same sex couples to which you refer are consenting adults. Thirteen and fourteen year old girls are not. I have never heard anyone suggesting that same sex marriage includes a right to sexually abuse children.

There! See, it wasn't that difficult to answer your question. Maybe you should try putting equal intellectual effort into the rest of what you have to say.

Thank you for being one of the few voices of reason in this situation. My boyfriend was going on and on this morning about how, no matter how the raid came about, it was correct because "those FLDS people are freaky". His prejudice is abhorrent to me, and I told him this. I believe that this whole thing is happening due more to fear and prejudice than it is the concern for the welfare of the children. If this was an issue of the behavior of the men, why weren't they arrested? Why separate mothers from children? I see Texas trying to justify this more and more, and to be honest, only the Salt Lake Tribune (considered by many LDS to be an "anti-mormon newspaper) is willing to give both sides of the story on this conflict. CNN and other major news reporting agencies only post the sensational.

Texas CPS should be ashamed. We allow teenage mothers to thrive on the welfare system (my cousin is one, never required to take responsibility for her actions), but claim it's such an outrage for a 14-year-old FLDS girl to be having sex. Not to mention the bungles by TX CPS with regards to these peoples' age (the eyeball test? WTF??), the number of children they actually have...

This whole thing was started on a note of prejudice. When are they going to admit that they (TX) were duped by a sick woman who probably read Jessop's book (or was prompted by her to make that call so that Jessop could get more attention for her book), and took that shadow of a doubt so far that they have completely invaded an entire people's constitutional rights? Because face it, the FLDS aren't and never will be within this situation INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. There has been no trial yet, and all those mothers want are their children back.

People forget that those mothers are just as indoctrinated as those children, and to punish them like this is sick...especially while the men go free.

Bigots! Yeah, don't mess with TX. Look at where our president came from, and the shadow of a doubt that took us into the hell that is how many years in Iraq now?

Green Eagle, actually his first sentence as laid out in your post was grammatically correct. It's considered an ad hominem fallacy for you to start out like that, which proves the sturdiness of the foundation on which your post stands.

We need to check ourselves period or the government may decide are particular sect of choice is abusive. The various flavors of Amish and the Hasidic Jews have practices that most of us would find at least somewhat abusive towards women and children. Far right Chrisitians endorse the submission of women to men and place the man over the children. For main stream folks all the beliefs seem odd and out of thought with rational thinking. We however, do not choose to live apart. These folks do and we just justify their paranoid thinking when we go in with tanks and steal their children. I believe the family is sacred and marriage is sacred problem is the State needs to avoid defining what is "sacred" for all of us. The state needs to encourage with a small stick compliance with the Texas state law and make sure that girls, women, and men who want to leave the sect have a way to get out (make their desires known to the outside world) and a system of support when they leave.