For one thing very young women below the legal age of consent are being married to men that are considerably older... So the young women do not have the opportunity to be say growing up and choosing a mate later in life by themselves and they miss having an education so this becomes a kind of exploiitation of very young women..
Its good to hear from you, Arthra, its been awhile.
To me, this is a smoke screen. That is the problem with family services across the country...there is no accountablity. Legally, according to several state constitutions and other state laws, family services are above the law...a law unto themselves. In complete defiance to the US Constitution, which grants the right to face one's accuser, among other things.
It wasn't all that long ago, perhaps 100 years, women routinely married and gave birth young; 14, 13, even 12. And this was accepted social norm, by no means limited to Mormons or any religious group. It was the way it was, and people thrived well enough that the US expanded west and filled in the gap between the Mississippi and California.
Things are different now, I get it. Women's rights, suffrage, education and employment, modern conveniences; I understand. There are mitigating factors. But we come back to cultural allowances and religious rights. I don't see anybody conducting a mass kidnapping of Amish children because their parents won't let them drive automobiles. I don't see a move afoot to re-educate Amish children (yet!) of their backwards ways and beliefs.
Hiding behind "underage marriage" is more smoke. To this point I have seen little to support any accusations of plural marriage. Underage marriage is again very limited in scope (only a handful). Besides, how many *unwed* teen mothers are there in inner cities? In my mind I find it more honorable to be married young with child than to not be married young with child, if a young mother is with child. And we're not talking rape either, to my knowledge none of these "young mothers" is so by rape.
The other thing is that the young men who normally might be attracted to the young women are also ostracized and cast off fromthe community..so they are abandoned by the community. All in all it becomes a very exploitative kind of community where children are not allowed to grow up normally and make the choices they should have as they mature..
I'm sorry but, to me, this sounds contrived in a sorry attempt to cover tracks. It is grasping at straws. The main legitimate argument was founded on an anonymous phone call to assist *one* young woman who claimed she was being forced against her will. In order to satisfy that one complaint, how many innocent and otherwise not indictable families are being torn apart over trumped up charges? When the trumped up charges began to unravel, all kinds of baseless accusations and groundless justifications began to shoot through the air. Kind of like the difference between a sniper rifle and a machine gun...if you have a legitimate complaint, you use the rifle to hit the target on the mark. If you have no legitimate complaint, you just throw up enough lead in every direction in such a hailstorm that you hope and pray something hits and sticks.
The state doesn't have a choice if young children are at risk of being exploited...similar if you will to the exploitation that occurred at Waco a few years back.
Devil's advocate for just a moment here: is it exploitation if the person is willing and amenable to the situation?
Besides the similarities with the so-called "victimless crimes," if a child grows up with a set of social norms different from our own, yet still within a supposedly open, "free" (Constitutionally guaranteed!) and accepting society; who are we to demand change? We aren't talking about subversive activities to overthrow the government. We are talking about the right to raise our kids as we see fit, to cherish the moral values we deem important, to appreciate their heritage and to promote their family. Without government interference. Or, if government in a worst case scenario must interfere, accusers must make themselves available for cross examination *and* be held liable for false accusations and slander and contempt.
See, this is the whole bit with the legalization of tolerance thing. Everywhere I look I see people talking about "why can't we all just get along?" The trouble is, they want everyone *else* to do as they do, and that's what they mean by "get along." Uh-uh, that's not how it works. That's not tolerance. Anybody who thinks it is, is in for a rude awakening. One day it will be their own value judgements at stake.
Personally I think this is a long overdue challenge to the unchecked power granted to family services. It really is about time a situation came about that forced the courts to examine the abuse of power and authority by family services. I hope it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and an end is put to the nonsensical abuse of authority. I hope a check and balance is finally established for family services, that they are made accountable for their actions.
)
