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.

[Ron]

Our Government is watching an offshoot of this sect in S.W. B.C. by the US border called Bountiful.

I have learned that the Government (without hard factual evidence of child abuse) is wary of a challenge to the Charter Rights of our Constitution will tie the polygamist sect in the cfourts for up to ten years (about how long it takes to get to the Supreme Court) and resolve it.

They are monitoring it closely.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ron

Our Government is watching an offshoot of this sect in S.W. B.C. by the US border called Bountiful.

I have learned that the Government (without hard factual evidence of child abuse) is wary of a challenge to the Charter Rights of our Constitution will tie the polygamist sect in the cfourts for up to ten years (about how long it takes to get to the Supreme Court) and resolve it.

They are monitoring it closely.

I'm sure they will watch what is going on here, for sure. lol

[Sister Alvear]

In the states are people required to have marriage licence issued by the state?

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I cannot identify this group with a sound family structure. Sorry. The men are the ones in charge of this thing. Men - marrying very young girls. They should be castrated and an end put to that junk.

I know they married younger women in times past because they could bear more children and their life spans were shorter. That is not so, today.

The men in this group have no excuse. They are selfish pigs.

Well, I'm on a rant. I should go to bed, probably. lol

I can just picture in my mind all the pedophiles and rapists in court crying but it's my religion, and besides it was ok with their mommy's............Because if the state of Texas loses think of the precedent that would set for child molestor's and rapist's. So no need to have laws governing sexual deviancy with children because we know that some mom's and dad's molest their children and even treat them like they were a spouse, so we would have to give them a pass too because they are the parents and all they would have to do is set up a room in their house as a temple. And voila this is my religion.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

In the states are people required to have marriage licence issued by the state?

Common Law Marriage or Informal Marriage:

Yes. Texas also refers to common law marriage as an informal marriage.

For a marriage to be declared an informal marriage in Texas, a couple has two options.

1. Sign a declaration of their marriage under oath. The form is available at County Clerk's office.

The Declaration and Registration of Informal Marriage asks for full names, woman's maiden surname, addresses, dates of birth, places of birth, social security numbers, and relationship information.

The Declaration states: "I solemnly swear (or affirm) that we, the undersigned, are married to each other by virtue of the following facts: On or about (Date) we agreed to be married, and after that date we lived together as husband and wife and in this state we represented to others that we were married. Since the date of marriage to the other party I have not been married to any other person. This declaration is true and the information in it which I have given is correct."

2. Live together as husband and wife in Texas
Represent to others that they are married.
Agree with one another that they are married.

Individuals under the age of 18 may not enter into an informal marriage.

This could be a stickler for the "spiritual marriages" - hopefully.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

I can just picture in my mind all the pedophiles and rapists in court crying but it's my religion, and besides it was ok with their mommy's............Because if the state of Texas loses think of the precedent that would set for child molestor's and rapist's. So no need to have laws governing sexual deviancy with children because we know that some mom's and dad's molest their children and even treat them like they were a spouse, so we would have to give them a pass too because they are the parents and all they would have to do is set up a room in their house as a temple. And voila this is my religion.

Exactly!!!!!!!

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

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

LOL
So if a man lived in a house with his wife and three daughters it would be polygamy? LOL

No seriously...it's only polygamy if the man attempts to legally marry multiple women. Shacking up with multiple women isn't polygamy legally speaking.

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!

Only those specific individuals who had sex with underage girls can be charged with a crime. It's not illegal to shack up with multiple partners, nor is it illegal to personally believe that polygamy is acceptable. We cannot go around using government to persecute religious beliefs we don't disagree with. There are numerous Patriarchal Evangelical Christian families and Muslims who believe that polygamy isn't a sin.

Well, that was very interesting!!!

Actually it is. Imagine if marriage were handled the way it was back in early America. Marriage would be a private contract between families, individuals, and faith communities and (as it did in early America) they could have whatever arrangements they chose. The question would be if those relationships would past the social muster. For example two men could openly claim, "We're married!" That's when everyone in town just says, "Riiiiigggght. Get a life ya freaks." And that's the end of it. LOL But as long as it's a previlidge issued by the state...it's a perceived "right" to fight for that it be legally recognized.

Government's involvement kinda creates the problem.

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

Is it illegal for a man to have "live in" girlfriends in the state of Texas? Legally that's all these women equate to. If so, can you show the statute? I'd be curious to read it.

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.

The problem comes when we authorize government to be the authorizing authority in the matter of marriage. If we allowed the community to decide if it recognized a union or not even some heterosexual marriages after unbiblical divorces would be denied validity.

[Sister Alvear]

I had some people from a community in Texas visiting us and if I understood them correctly they did not have marriage licence...I have often wondered about that. We feel we must do our best to help people fulfill the laws of the land unless the law goes against God and His teachings. I consider the group that visited us a cult however I have always wondered about things like this.
I am very glad this thread was started and even though I have had little time to post it has been very enlightening how people feel about this subject.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by ChristopherHall

The problem comes when we authorize government to be the authorizing authority in the matter of marriage. If we allowed the community to decide if it recognized a union or not even some heterosexual marriages after unbiblical divorces would be denied validity.

But we do have those laws and the government has the authority so we are suppose to abide by the laws of the land or get them changed. Which this may very well do, but I hope not in Texas. And of course then there is the Supreme Court (federal) which we all know is going to be looking at this eventually.
I would really like to see these children and their mother's together and the women be educated about how to keep their children safe and let the children decide when they are adults who they want to marry and how many children they want to have. Not for religious purposes by the "prophet".