Tuesday, August 19, 2008

CPS and "Marriage Porn"

Now that the FLDS have shown some backbone (in truth, they did so in April when the put Rozita on the witness list), the odd "train wreck" sort of entertainment value returns to the court room between witnesses and CPS attorneys. The Deseret News;

"Is it wrong for a girl under 17 to marry a man more than 21 years older than she is?"


This is one of the questions, to which Barbara Jessop took the fifth. Asking the questions was CPS attorney Jeff Schmidt. Is it WRONG for a 17 year old to marry a 38 year old? Marriage Porn. Because it is legal in a lot of places for him to have SEX with that 17 year old. It's legal for him to even marry that 17 year old and I know of NO state where it is illegal for her to marry if she has parental permission to do so at that age.

What the state suggests is that even though it is not illegal it's clearly not the intent of the law to allow such unions and parents who teach or believe a doctrine of marriage between such disparately aged persons teach a great obscenity. Marriage Porn. For teaching this heinous doctrine, they make unfit parents out of themselves.

Again I call on all of you (after the laughter dies down) to WAKE UP. Schools rush to teach sex education to our children, at increasingly young ages. They now raise across the country both ages of consent to sexual relations (with a catch) and ages to marry. Usually the age to marry in these new laws are ages older than that of consent to relations.

First. The state teaches your child HOW to have sex and how to prevent pregnancy. Do so before they even reach puberty.

Second. The world bombards them with sexual imagery. I was watching the ABC "Family" channel the other day and some unnamed drama had kids disrobing entirely as a prelude to sex. The family aspect I suppose was that they "loved" each other and "consented" to the relationship and while they got naked, we never SAW "what counts" and while they embraced closely, they were interrupted just before they "did the deed." Family fare I guess. Drop trow, rub uglies, but stop right before anything irrevocable happens. I guess it provokes family discussion. By the way, I DIDN'T see a condom anywhere in the scene.

Third. While the age of consent may be 16 or 17 in a given state, the age of consent between minors below the age of consent is a moot point. Thus, kids are educated in sexual behavior, thus encouraging them to have sex. Kids are bombarded with suggestions that they HAVE sex (with one another) and feel terrible pressure to do so above and beyond the normal dictates of biology.

Last, in the "no harm, no foul" zone of mutual teen sex, you CAN'T get married but you CAN have all the sex you want with birth control being dispensed for instance TO YOU by the State (California) even without your parents permission, and without their knowledge.

OK, I'm a broken record about this but I have to say it again. In my view, "child sex" and all, the FLDS way is clearly better. FLDS men do not abandon their "child brides" and the children of those unions grow up with a father and a mother. In terms of practical effect, there's no argument, only our horror and revulsion that the next door neighbors father might start "boinking" our own daughter in such a world. After all, the man has a big house, lots of room and can feed her. Horrors. Better that she go for a roll in the back seat of the car with his 16 year old son, right? Bring condoms?

There is also this exchange;

"(Barbara Jessop's attorney Gonzalo) Rios successfully got photos of FLDS leader Warren Jeffs kissing underage girls kept out of his case, but Child Protective Services introduced records that detailed at least nine marriages involving underage girls to older men.

Concerning Barbara Jessop's 14-year-old daughter and 11-year-old son, CPS workers said they have exhausted efforts to avoid placing them in foster care. Efforts to find others to care for the children haven't worked out.

'How many am I supposed to contact?' CPS investigator Ruby Gutierrez asked a lawyer representing Jessop's daughter.

Gutierrez acknowledged that the 11-year-old boy has shown no signs of abuse but said his sister being married to Jeffs at age 12 no doubt had an effect on him. She testified that two of Jessop's adult sons took underage brides, and three daughters were married underage.

But with Jeffs in jail, Rios asked her if she had any evidence to show marriages are happening now. She said she did not have any beyond Aug. 2, 2006 — weeks before Jeffs was arrested."


We're supposed to take CPS workers word for it that they can't find someone suitable to care for Barbara Jessop's children? Their definition seems to be that no one who is FLDS would do and of course all the family available are, FLDS.

Strangely though, they are sure that the 12 year old son has been "effected" even though there are no signs of abuse. Clearly to have children, you must have beliefs that conform with state standards.

Sphere: Related Content

3 comments:

kbp said...

The state is stuck on "beliefs" still. The argument on the 12 YO son tends to show that his knowledge of acceptance in any under age marriage is an improper belief.

Seems terribly difficult to show that his "knowledge" of such acts, which can not be verified, is evidence of a danger.

The state claims they blindly follow the church, until the church says "NO, we will not do that", and then it doesn't count.

CSurge said...

You know what? If this girl really is married to Warren Jeffs, she's safer right now than she could ever possibly be in any other circumstance. He's in prison, and I can guarantee that absolutely NO ONE in the FLDS or anywhere else in the would be allowed anywhere near this girl with improper intentions.

The Pharisee said...

You got that right.