Whoa! Polygamist solution is frightening...

[Pressing-On]

Polygamy is against the law...but technically this isn't polygamy as far as legality goes. Each man was only "legally married" to one woman...the other wives were "spiritual wives". So technically you have a couple who is legally married allowing multiple women to co-habitate with them. So as long as they are adults the law typically looks the other way and allows them to live the lifestyle they choose. This is also why the "spiritual wives" in this group qualify for welfare, legally they're not married. No marriage license or papers were issued.

I don't know how common law fits in in this situation. But co-habitating with more than one woman while not married is polygamy and it's against the law of the state of TEXAS!!! Get the Texas Rangers!!!!! lol

Many religious practices are both against the Word of God and legal. I do see how this is against the laws of your "state". Legally speaking, they are going to have to determine if the statute of the state supersedes their First Amendment rights according to the Constitution of the United States. So most likely this will go to the Supreme Court and the SCOTUS will have to determine if a state statute can challenge religious liberty. I personally believe that the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the state, citing how the state statute is set to protect minors. But with as crazy as America has gotten....there's no telling. I think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the plantifs who can prove that they didn't have relations with anyone under age. They can argue that their religious and privacy rights were violated when they were rounded up without having broken the law.

I don't see how they will get off. They were married to women under age and that is what represents who they are. It doesn't even matter if there are some families living there that have one husband/wife. They are still being represented as upholding the beliefs of this group. I don't see how they can go against the law and win. I hope they don't!

You might find it interesting to note that Abraham Lincoln never had a marriage license. Early America didn't see "marriage" as an institution governed or defined by the state. It was regarded as a private social contract. Most of the time all that was needed for a couple to be recognized as being married was a public affirmation of being married. State Supreme Courts recognized cohabitation as being the only evidence needed to legally define a couple as being married. The first marriage license in the US was issued in 1920's when 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved license. In short, the marriage license wasn't designed for moral reasons or definitions, it was institutionalized racism. However, I don't think the government will get out of the marriage business...it's become too politically popular to use it as a weapon in politics and it generates revenues as people pay for their licenses.

Well, that was very interesting!!!

True...but how far do we go with using "government" to control others? I can personally see using government to protect children....but as sinful as a relationship might be I believe that adults have the right to determine the relationships they choose to have.

Only IF they are not abiding by the laws of the state in which they reside. That would be my determining factor. I don't think this group was. I don't care how fun it was to milk a cow and grow corn. lol

Not sure how this is so. It could be argued that marriage was something considered of greater value before the government got involved. Marriage may have actually suffered as a result of the government's attempting to define what constitutes a marriage and what does not. One could say that perhaps private families, individuals, and faith traditions should be left to define marriage for their members, notarize the unions and file them within the community and the individuals involved. But again...I don't see us going back to that much freedom. The government has too much at stake.

I am saying that our First Amendment - FREEDOM of speech is allowing us freedom to the detriment of our moral lives and the decency of this country. That is what losing your freedom by your freedom means. Our definition of family as husband and wife because of procreation should stand. That leaves out the abnormal people like gays and beastiality.