Monday, June 20, 2011

As long as it's SERIAL polygyny, it's OK, isn't it? (UPDATED)

She's 16, he's 51. Why isn't he sharing a bunk with FLDS men in Prison?
Because he has the "decency" to abandon previous spouses, before tapping a blonde 16 year old, that's why. From E!
"Doug Hutchison, a character actor best known for roles in The Green Mile, Lost and The X-Files, married aspiring country singer Courtney Alexis Stodden on May 20 in Las Vegas.

He is 51. She is 16."
Well, he's a YOUNG looking 51, and she's a MATURE looking 16, so I guess it's OK. Maybe we oughta ask Bruce Jenner about his step daughter again. You know, she LOOKS older.

The lesson? Plow the field with all the young girls you want. Make sure you MARRY them first, or make sure someone else has and make sure it's one at a time and then YOUR genitalia won't offend or damage HER genitalia. You might want check with your lawyer, but if I understand it correctly, you can bop all the 16, 15, 14 and whatever age girls you want, two and three at a time, as long as they're like Mrs. Hutchinson in that they're married to SOMEONE already.

No, really, it's magic! A marriage license takes all the sting away from your thing (and every other thing) and makes it (them) friendly!

If not and you have RELIGIOUS reasons for thinking plowing with a 16 year old heifer is alright, and if you use RELIGIOUS language in "marrying" her, you're worse than a murderer (in terms of prison sentences meted out).

UPDATE: They're now getting a divorce.

Sphere: Related Content


Chatelaine said...

Can't wait to see her pushing his wheelchair around in about 20 years. Let's see how long this marriage lasts.

Jam Inn said...

Gee, Hugh "0" comments I guess you really touched upon a major focus of most adults, Not! Three things for you to consider. The parents of this misbegotten marriage gave their consent and a lawful marriage license was issued. Unlike the 'hocus=pocus' FLDS wedlocks by bogus ministers and non-existant lawful licensing, pretty big difference. Updated Texas statutes require parental consent and Court approval, with the caveat that parents giving permission into bigamy constitutes a 3rd Degree Felony.
Lastly, Hugh you seem to have forgotten your viewpoint, is the comparison really accurate to equate unlawful and under-age celestial FLDS sealings to this sad circumstance?

The Pharisee said...

No Jam, a busy trucker doesn't always have time to review and publish comments to his blog, on a timely basis. My sincere apologies, but it's great to see you assuming once again. I'm afraid Chatelaine beat you to the comment punch.

To your first "Thing.."

Jam. I have always been for parental consent at any age. Basic facts seem to escape you, but then again, probably not. You are one of those posture specialists from over at the Anti FLDS Ranch that perpetually ignores qualifying remarks that I have made continually in public since before you even showed up on the scene, or there was a YFZ.

Second thing (whether it's your second thing or not): I could give a fig about "lawful" marriage licenses. I hate them. Marriage simply should not be a province of the state, or the church for that matter. This again is something I have stated ad nauseum, but something that no matter how pointedly I grind it into your forehead, you ignore. This only reinforces my belief that you're posturing to some crowd that you hope is listening. Tell it to the jury, when you have one.

Nevertheless, as noxious as I think state involvement in marriage is, I also believe that where possible the law should be followed. I have also stated this repeatedly since prior to the YFZ raid. Ultimately since you CAN follow the law with regard to sub 18 marriage, you ought to. This has been my perpetual position. I would at my first opportunity, overturn all such laws, but obey them until that unlikely event occurs. Again, this is no new position for me.

Indeed this marriage is comparable to the FLDS "Sealings." FLDS parents give their consent to the "Prophet" sealing their children in marriage.

Only two things make the above marriage different from FLDS marriages.

One: The FLDS militantly refuse for religious reasons NOT to register their marriages with the state. Indecently no matter how much the state blusters, they can only do something about that, if a sub 18 is involved.

Two: The marriages of the FLDS are frequently polygynous, preventing the registration of all but the first marriage of a man to one of his wives. That two brings the law down on FLDS sub 18 marriages like furious hell.

If polygyny was legal, our only complaint would be that the FLDS didn't do what amounts to registering a car.

Really, registering a marriage is no more complicated, perhaps LESS so, than registering a car.

Fail to register your car? Pay a fine.

Fail to register a marriage like the one above?

If you have religious reasons and are polygynous, you often go to jail for the rest of your natural life.

Jam Inn said...

Two things Hugh you have always given the mantra that you don't abide breaking or ignoring the law but you obviously lend some credence to lawbreakers. Secondly, you seem unable to grasp that a decided majority of monogamous voters simply are not ready to vote for any brand of polygyny, I don't think I am the obtuse one on this topic. Every free society has the rights and freedoms to so order it's life and liberty as the majority sees fit(which remains exclusively monogamy).

The Pharisee said...

I do not countenance the breaking of the law by anyone. Let's concentrate on breaking the law.

Per Conn's court in AZ, TX broke the law. A TX judge has yet to say TX broke the law, and they may never do so. I am confident that eventually the ruling in Conn's court will meet up with the self serving rulings of TX political judiciary and at that point Conn's ruling will win out.

You are concerned that a child abuser (by your definition, will escape the law.

The framers of our Constitution more greatly feared the STATE, figuring that the grasp and reach of people like Warren is greatly less than that of the state.

This brings us to what constitutes "As Good as it Gets."

You are not willing to let a Warren go for the greater good. You want the BEST case scenario. I would want that too, but I don't believe the BEST case scenario is always possible. Thus I would let Warren go.

Your "brand of monogamy" might not be mine. Your "brand of marriage" might not be mind. The difference is I don't care and you want to look into my bedroom.

You have not saved Courtney Alexis Stodden from the creepy menacing ancient phallus of Doug Hutchison, so you see, you've lost.

A 16 year old is oppressed under the grunting sexual perversions of a 51 year old man. Legally. How about that?

All you have done is imprisoned men who believe in polygyny and have chosen to have 16 year old brides. What a marvelous accomplishment.

None of the FLDS women turned up with STD's. Their health was no more threatened than that of Courtney Alexis Stodden.

So the ugly but real question is truly this:

Since we think it is clearly, as a society, OK for 16 and 14 year old girls to have sex, what then is the horrible damage done by a 51 year old penis as opposed to a 16 year old penis?

Does the vagina know? Is it oppressed? Is it damaged? Does it transmit this pyschic trauma to the brain and then the "child" that would have been "exploring" their sexuality in an uncommitted way with a person near their own age, irretrievably damaged by the same act with someone above the age of 18?

This is where I ally with the FLDS. I simply think we're being completely ridiculous. We've been overcome by a teenagaged girl "ick" mentality and we want to crucify men above a certain age for having sex with "children." I think examined in a cold emotionless light, we're not helping anyone. Teenaged girls are not more greatly harmed by older men than they are by younger boys.

Therefore I think we should live and let live. I do NOT subscribe to the idea that we need to preserve the "choices" of our young people so that they can choose against their parents.

I think parents should be able to "Brainwash" their children into their beliefs.

I think that is part and parcel of our religious freedom.

I maintain the comparison is accurate. Courtney Alexis Stodden was not in our view, capable of making a choice to marry. The court asked for parental permission.

FLDS parents give their consent to have their "Prophet" arrange marriages. Thus by proxy they have given their permission. They only things different about Doug's marriage to Courtney are that a court has not sanctified their relationship and Doug is ostensibly not screwing several women in an interchangeable way, only in succession. I don't see how that helps Courtney Alexis Stodden.

By the way you DO realize I can now bed her myself? Without the sanction of marriage? By becoming married Courtney Alexis Stodden is now emancipated. She is no longer "jail bait."

Our rights by the way, are their to protect us against the tyranny of the majority. We are not a democracy. We are a federal republic with a constitution and I maintain the majority's view on monogamy is an intrusion into my rights.

Go away.

April Day said...

Doug Hutchison's wife, Courtney Stodden, is absolutely beautiful. My wish for the newlyweds is much happiness.

The Hutchisons' decision to marry was private and personal. People who don't approve should mind their own business.


First Things published an opinion/article on the slippery slope of legalized sodomy leading into legal polygamy and beyond.

Carol said...

I visit your site daily and each time I am more disgusted by this picture. I would like to slap the smirk off his silly face.
Why would parents consent to such a marriage? The young lady should be looking forward to her prom, the upcoming ball games, as beautiful as she is, she can do so much better then a 51 year old.

The Pharisee said...

Carol, my point is that the laws of this country do nothing to protect 16 year olds from 51 year olds. What they do is imprison 51 year olds who haven't first legally wed the 16 year old, that is all.

It seems immediately logical to almost all minds (mine included at first) that it is a bad thing for 51 year old men to have 14 or 15 or 16 year old girls.

The whole thing breaks down when you start examining it a bit closer, however, the hysteria remains and clouds everyone's judgement. I don't care if Doug is humping Courtney. I don't feel the need to prevent it. Her parents gave their permission. End of story.

rkirkpatrick said...

You have a great point Hugh. I just wish there was a more polite way to make it.

Obstructionist said...

Which FLDS do you agree with now? Warren Jeffs now in prison? BIG Willie who now opposes Warren's regime? How about William Timpson (little William)? you state ANY AGE with parental consent? You don't believe a minor can be exploited or you don't care if they are? Can a parent there by trade a plumbing repair or a rebuilt engine in his or her car, in a exchange for sexual favors, as long as dad says its o K? Then at what age? Do you see this all to be about sex or have you considered the slavery aspect of being forced underage, under educated in to a birthing machine, funded by unwilling taxpayers? I bet I could find you a country where they might enjoy your sexual friendship, would it be O K if you were forced in to it against your will? If might is right with no government interference, then so be it. The FLDS use selective enforcement of the law in court, but cry foul, when they could not buy their own version of justice. Whom do you drive for?

I'll save my comment elsewhere, as you may chose dictatorship over democracy, chosing who you answer.

Hugh McBryde said...

I know I'm late to the table with this news, but they're going to divorce: