Tuesday, May 06, 2008

The Bishops Record

Brooke Adams of the Salt Lake Tribune who has been very even handed in this whole matter, examines the "Bishops Record." Some key passages from her article.

"Texas officials focused on five girls who conceived when they were 15 or 16, all of whom then gave birth recently when they were 16 or 17. According to the bishop's record, three of those teenagers are in plural relationships with men who are 28, 35 and 40. One teenager, who is pregnant, is not listed on the records."

Again I repeat, there are no charges, yet. Texas is focusing on five girls the article says, who conceived when they were 15 or 16. Again Texas blurs the record in their favor and it may very well end up being in their favor, but what is "15 or 16?" Because we now know this for certain.

"Until 2005, Texas allowed girls as young as 14 to marry with a parent's permission; in September of that year, the age was increased to 16. In Texas, residents can legally consent to sex at age 17."

This is confirmed by a kind and knowledgeable Texas poster on this blog who thankfully commented and left me that information. Under the statute they CAN marry at 16 so which is it, 15 or 16? I'm still trying to clarify if they can marry informally, but it looks like they may not, despite what former Hamlin Texas Mayor Tom Avant says. But more important is WHEN a 15 or 16 year old girl GOT pregnant. If it was August 2005, it doesn't matter. So we come to the next variable phrase in murky Texas CPS lingo. They gave birth "recently" when they were 16 or 17. Was that a year ago? 18 months ago? If you're 17 when you gave birth in May of 2006 it means you were 17 or 16 when you conceived the preceding year and 19 now. Texas has historically given us ranges when they don't have much to stand on. Frankly, it's not important what ages they were when they "first conceived", it is important WHEN they first conceived and how old they are NOW. Everything else is a smokescreen.

"The bishop's records do not include marriage dates or information about whether the marriages are legally recorded and, in all but a few instances, do not match children's names to their mothers."

Since we know that legal marriages of 14 year old girls occurred in 2006 in Texas after SB6, this is a hugely important thing to determine. Personally, I think they're not recorded. But they could be and Texas STILL doesn't know if they are. That means there STILL is no evidence of a crime. They continue to dig, but they don't have the evidence yet.

"The wives' ages ranged from 16 to 39, with an average age of 21. There are two 16-year-old females listed as wives of men who were 19 and 22. Those two couples were among six young pairs shown as having no children. Most of the monogamous couples are close in age, with the biggest age spread being four years."

These are MONOGAMOUS relationships.

"The records for 24 polygamous families tell a different story: The age discrepancy between husband and wives is greater and most have a large number of children.
The average age of the husbands was 38, but ages ranged from 24 to 67. One 54-year-old man is listed as having six wives, including one who is 17. A 56-year-old man has four wives, including one who is 19.
Wendell L. Nielsen, now in his late 60s and part of the FLDS hierarchy, is listed as having 21 wives, who ranged in age from 79 to 24, and 36 children. That count does not include Nielsen's children who are older than 21 and not at the ranch."

Ok then, there are your old men bending over 13 year old girls. Um, they're my age, and the girls are of age. 17 & 19.

I think the FLDS dispute the age of the two 16 year old brides, but if their marriages are legally recorded, end of story there.

As near as I can tell the raid to stop an old man from raping and beating and imprisoning a young girls is going to end up with prosecutions of a 19 year old and a 22 year old man. Monogamous men. Men who could have gotten a piece of paper to solemnify their relationships yet now stand the chance of going to prison for life for not doing something that amounts to putting a license plate on the car they drive. That car being synonymous with their marriage.

One step further. 16 year old brides, two. Monogamously wed. 17 and 19 year old brides, polygynously wed. Four. Oh, hear she is.

"One teenager, who is pregnant, is not listed on the records."

Five. And the age of that "Teenager" is not given. Teenagers CAN be 19 you know. If the four brides who gave birth at 15 or 16 are these girls, and they pretty much have to be for it to matter, they are 16 now, so they recently gave birth but are in monogamous relationships. The ones in polygynous relationships are 17 or 19 and if they were 15 when they gave birth did so in 2004 and 2006, meaning they probably got pregnant in 2003 and 2005. The statute went into effect late in 2005. Hmmm...and we have no arrests.

Sphere: Related Content

No comments: