Texas seizes polygamist group's secluded ranch

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Or maybe it'd be better if they took marriage more seriously and did it for their children instead as a social conformity. Because really, what's the point if not for babies?

I have a hard time believing anything the government says about that YFZ ranch. Remember how all this went down.

Texas officials say they got a call from someone claiming to be an abused teenage girl at the ranch. Turns out it was a “mentally disturbed” middle aged black woman in Colorado. Apparently, Texas law enforcement didn’t have caller ID to show that the call was from out of state. No charges were ever filed against the woman, and she was given FBI protection.

Texas CPS used the bogus call as an excuse to come in with APCs full of men armed with automatic weapons to take over 400 children away from their unarmed mothers. CPS placed them in foster homes throughout Texas. For those not aware, look up the statistics for children drugged, raped, and abused while in foster care in Texas. My mind went right to the Franklin Scandal in Nebraska. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was some pedo network working in conjunction with Texas CPS that would be drooling at the chance to get some unspoiled, drug-free kids.

Imagine if that had happened in different circumstances. Imagine if New York City cops had gotten a call from someone in Ohio claiming to be an abused child in a NY synagogue. Imagine if those cops went into a Jewish neighborhood and took all the children at gunpoint and stuck them in foster homes. Imagine what the backlash would be.

Even after the court ruled that the CPS was wrong for taking the kids, CPS wanted to make the parents jump through hoops to get their children back. When all was said and done, the only thing to come out of it was two men charged with interfering with the agents kidnapping the children.

And the media kept trying to link YFZ to Warren Jeffs. If I recall correctly, Jeffs may have visited YFZ twice, but he was mentioned in every story about YFZ.

The whole thing seemed very fishy to me.

a reply to: AnteBellum
I can think of a major reason why Texas is wrong. Its called the first amendment and freedom of religion.
What is going on in Texas is that you have the infiltration of Southern Baptists into the Texas bureaucracy in departments like child protective services, alcohol beverage commission and others. These people are waging a religious war against the FLDS.

Fact is, if gays can get married and that's constitutionally protected, then religious polygamy is a protected right too. What Texas CPS did when it stole those children from FLDS parents is a form of cultural genocide.

That being said, you can still outlaw pedophilia. But one bad apple in a church is not enough excuse to destroy a religion.

a reply to: stirling

isn't it common practice to seize property in other crimes, such as drug running, money laundering, fraud, etc.? perhaps there are laws on the books allowing the state of Texas to make use of ill gotten goods?

a reply to: searching411

In Texas, they seize your property if you happen to be driving through the state.

Police Seizing Cash and Property without Charges/

Perhaps the worst case involved Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson, a couple from Houston. When the two drove from Houston to Henderson’s hometown on the Texas/Louisiana state line, they made the mistake of bringing all their savings in cash. They wanted to use the money to buy a used car.

The couple was pulled over by the local police in Tenaha, Texas. The officer, Barry Washington, searched the couple’s car and discovered the cash. Once he saw the cash, Washington took the two to the police station on the pretext that they were smuggling marijuana (there was none in the car).

At the police station, the local district attorney, Lynda K. Russell, told Henderson and Boatright that they faced charges of money laundering and child endangerment. The two would go to jail, and their children would be turned over to social workers. Then Russell made the couple an offer they couldn’t refuse; if they turned over all of their cash, they could stay out of jail and keep the children.

a reply to: dieseldyk

I agree with your first paragraph from a distant standpoint. I have no way to back your statements up with proof but I have seen this type of religious 'war' in many other places and have no reason to doubt it is happening.

Fact is, if gays can get married and that's constitutionally protected, then religious polygamy is a protected right too. What Texas CPS did when it stole those children from FLDS parents is a form of cultural genocide.

Marriage by definition is a union between a man and a women. With GLBT, though not a man and woman anymore, it is still One on One. I can agree or understand the exception of that.
When more then 2 people are involved in a union, the legal definition of marriage cannot be used anymore. It is something else. If a man wants to have 5 wives it should be allowed, for religious reasons or not. As long as it's not called marriage anymore, again by the definition of the law. This is where it gets a bit foggy also, if in analogy a marriage is like a corporation a polygamy would be a business partnership. Legally these are different and I think the legal definition is what the state has an issue with not the religious tie-ins these groups possess.

That being said, you can still outlaw pedophilia. But one bad apple in a church is not enough excuse to destroy a religion.

Your right it is no reason to destroy a religion, just the apple! And if that apple is in charge. . .

a reply to: AnteBellum
I guess I'll make three points

First, the government has no authority to regulate marriage or define it in any way. So I would throw out "legal" definitions if there is a religious practice that runs counter to the official "legal" definition. To permit the state to define a legal definition is to trump a constitutionally protected religious practice, in effect it is the regulation of a religious practice.

Second, the Bible does state in many places where a man had two wives, but has never mentioned any place where there was a same sex marriage. Now, if an individual believes that its ok for a same sex marriage, then I cannot see why another individual having a believe that polygamy or polyandry is acceptable should be denied. Its really trying to split hairs to draw a difference and it looks like a failing progressive-moral socialist rear guard action. The constitution should be embraced for the protection of individual liberty and these lines in the sand need to be dispensed with.

Third, the reason why pedophilia can still be criminalized is because at its center of outlawing pedophilia is the idea of protecting individuals who are immature and incapable of consent. When the exercise of one person's right actual causes harm to the rights of another person, then that person causing harm no longer has the right to act. Jeff's may be a pedophile, and his religious practice cannot be an excuse for his pedophilia, but other individuals capable of entering into consensual relationships should not and cannot be barred by the state if they choose to enter into relationships with multiple people. The state has no legitimate interest in regulating these individuals beyond the illegitimate attempts stop individual activity to promote a common singular moral ethos.

We are a nation of laws that protect individuality, our laws are not meant to regulate individuals, but instead are meant to free them from progressive state paternalism. We can see how progressives are destroying the rule of law in their attempts to regulate society as they see fit. They have been at war with the Constitution for sometime now, and the people are slowing beginning to realize it.

As an aside, marriage and sex were regulated so that heirs to property could be known. but today we have DNA testing and can match child to their biological parents. We are fully capable of passing laws to determine parentage, visitation and child support without resorting to regulating marriage. The old reasons why regulation of marriage was necessary no longer exist and therefor, the state has no valid interest in regulating marriage. What the state is attempting to do is enforce one belief system on all individuals, and that is unconstitutional and beyond the authority of government.

That being said, Southern Baptists being progressive-moral socialists, are using their positions within the Texas government to wage a religious war.

a reply to: dieseldyk

Sorry I have to be quick.
The rights and laws that are associated with a 'one on one' marriage should only apply to just that. They actually don't work any other way.
A man/woman should be allowed to 'marry in-spirit' with as many people as they want to, as long as everybody consents. But the laws and rights of such a thing, should not apply. It is different.

my understanding is they had to file that this was church property every years or pay taxes.

no one filed after there leader was thrown in prison.

no one else wanted to be a target by becoming the new leader.

my understanding is they had to file that this was church property every years or pay taxes.

no one filed after there leader was thrown in prison.

no one else wanted to be a target by becoming the new leader.