Polygamy Debate proves interesting.

There are informative articles in both the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News today on last nights debate at University of Utah's College of Law. It's summed up by this exchange. I could write several blog posts, and in fact may do so, on the exchange. I'll start with this.

"The debate got lively when (Marci) Hamilton accused the attorney general's office of not trying hard enough to find evidence to prosecute polygamy.

'I know they don't like to hear it, but someone has to say that because it's a fact,' she said.

'I'm astounded at the naivete in that statement,' (Kirk) Torgensen replied. 'I live this. I don't write about it from some office back east. I live it. I've got to sit in cases where I have got to ask, "Where is the evidence so I can prove it in court?" Now you can say this is easy ... '

'I didn't say it was easy, I just said you weren't trying hard enough.'

When Torgensen offered to deputize her to prosecute cases, some in the audience shouted 'No! No! No!' while others shouted 'Yes! Yes!' The chief deputy did warn polygamous communities that the attorney general's office would prosecute underage marriage cases."

The offer to deputize Marci is the one of the core points. "You try it Marci, it's not that easy." Utah cannot house all the inmates they would produce in a full on prosecution of polygamy.

Prosecuting polygamy establishes polygamy as the crime. Establishing polygamy as the crime sets up test cases along the lines of a class action to present to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court these cases may ultimately come before may be an activist and liberal one and their actions will be based on the concept that marriage is defined by society. Such a court will not be opposed to homosexual "marriage" and is not likely to be able to wiggle around the implications that has for polygamy. In short, as stated before, Marci would set up the case that would be the "Roe vs Wade" of polygamy legalization. Utah, for it's part is trying to bargain with polygamists and Utah at large to make polygamy a misdemeanor which would keep underage marriages a prosecutable offense but make adult consensual polygamy a traffic ticket. As an aside, that's a devils bargain I don't think we should make.

Marci says polygamy should be aggressively prosecuted;

" 'It is easy to figure out who is engaging in polygamy,' Hamilton said. "You just have to figure out who is going into which house. . . . If you know that even a small percentage of individuals in these circumstances are prone to abuse children, why wouldn't you enforce the criminal law?' "

Is my DAUGHTER engaged in a polygamy Marci? She lives in a home owned by one woman, and in rooms rented out to both her and a young man. That's two women and one man. Is that a polygamy Marci? Kirk makes that point to her;

"Torgensen, who said he was expressing his own opinions and not necessarily those of the Attorney General's Office, said Hamilton did not understand the difficulties in getting evidence of crimes within polygamous communities and her sweeping assumptions would never uphold in court.

'People cohabitate with each other in many instances, in many circumstances, all the time,' he said. 'Who goes into what house doesn't prove anything. The difference here is that you make it sound very easy and in my experience that is not true.' "

Marci Hamilton is an activist who wishes to bend law and have it selectively applied in other cases, to advance HER agenda;

"Heidi Mattingly, a member of the Davis County Cooperative Society, was critical of Hamilton.

'I think she doesn't know her law,' she said."

Heidi, don't be so kind. She knows the law, Marci is an activist, the law is only important when it is on her side. Now I'd like to see a debate with a clear supporter of polygamy on the panel.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Marci Hamilton thinks Texas RIGHT to take kids, STILL.

A portrait of an elitist, as a Law Professor. I know, that's not terribly hard to believe, what is terribly hard to believe is someone could be so hard headed, so CLOSED MINDED. There have now been TWO Grand Jury sessions. DNA tests on every mother and child. The raiding of EVERY sock drawer at YFZ and still, no arrests, no indictments, no warrants, no crimes discovered.

Marci Hamilton, like the Texas CPS, has drunk their own Kool-Aid. They believe their own hubris.

The Salt Lake Tribune - PHILADELPHIA - "By sending the children in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints back home, Texas has opened the doors to groups who want religious protection for abusing children, a leading church and state scholar said Saturday."

She says this in the context of the above remarks I have just made. The door apparently is open to abuse from her point of view, but something has restrained the members of YFZ from ENGAGING in abuse, and what distresses Professor Hamilton is that it isn't a busybody state with laws crafted by her sensibilities. It is a "Polygamist Cult." As we all know Polygamy is abusive by it's very construction, the FLDS a noxious cult, so a POLYGAMIST CULT should abuse children, right? Given the freedom to practice their own methods which Marci despises, the FLDS produce no busybody Law Professors, but they turn out great mothers and happy children who grow up in a stable environment.

"When you add yesterday's decision to FLDS, the state of the Texas has just sent out an engraved invitation to any group who wants to abuse children," Hamilton said. The two decisions make "Texas a very dangerous place for children."

Phenomenally, she ignores the CPS record DURING the raid that took the children. Interrogations, sleep deprivation, withholding medications, terrorizing children, dehydrating children, LOSING children. She ignores this effect, and relies instead on the intent and purpose of the agency she favors instead of Religious Cult Polygamists, who are later shown to be doing a great job. Since it is her intent to do BETTER than these people, she has to take the kids, because her intent means she WILL do better.

The differences between liberals and conservatives are many, but boil down in a lot of cases to managing by result or managing by lofty goals. Liberals have noble goals and refuse to see that perhaps most conservatives do as well. A conservative though is willing to scientifcally test methods against one another by the result. We want happy healthy kids. How do we get the LARGEST number of them? The liberal says "Oh my, there are some abused kids, how do I eliminate abuse completely?" Superficially the liberal seems more moral, until you put plans into action and the repressive cultic polygamist religious group spits out more healthy happy kids than does the liberal state run foster care system or than society at large.

"At the Philadelphia conference Saturday, Hamilton said placing the children into state custody 'put them in really terrible straits.'

'They had to eat pizza. They had to learn to ride bicycles,' Hamilton said. 'They had to live in a universe where abuse is not normal. They saw a window of information they would have otherwise not gotten.'"

As the Pharisee has pointed out before, when you have weak arguments, string them together and deliver them machine gun style. While you are formulating your retort, ratatatatat come the other unfounded arguments. The power of the podium and their sheer number distract from the flim flamery.

By the way, has ANYONE seen a fat YFZ child? I've seen a few adults packing a little extra weight, but by and large the kids are fit, healthy and the women slender and attractive. Maybe that's why they looked so "young."

They don't have bicycles? I don't know what she bases that on, but it wouldn't be the end of the world, THEY CAN CLEARLY CLIMB TREES.

And the "Window of Information" Marci. What would that be? No one can experience everything, not even in the small world of YFZ. Is it that they don't see what YOU want them to see? Their choices are not VD, ABORTION, FAST FOOD, PORNOGRAPHY, BICYCLES and PROMISCUITY? God forbid that we should construct an environment that sheilds people from such things, because after all, it's their right to choose, right? I mean if we're going to take away fast food, it has to be the governing elite that says it's time, not PARENTS.

I would agree that ultimately it is a child's right to choose, and that in fact, at some point, they do choose and you can never stop that. The child grows up. But if what we are saying is that few FLDS members become Budhists or Topless Dancers or Astronauts, I'm sorry, that's not the end of the world. When it comes to opening one door or window, a child is distracted by what's available behind that door or out that window and fails to see what was through another door or window. Every such opportunity minimizes other opportunities. The idea that we make free choices based on a muliplicity of different views is silly. There is always something forgotten. What Marci WANTS is to be the person that determines the content and menu of choices, she doesn't want parents to do that, or religious leaders.

"FLDS elder and spokesman Willie Jessop blasted discussion of the group at the conference focused on cults. He said it's stereotyping."

You tell 'em Willie.

Let's face it. It's a struggle for control of who gets to call the shots when it comes to our children. This is viewed as a key battle in that war, by both sides. By the Marci Hamiltons of this world who see it as a slap to their claim to decide, and by the parents of this world, who see it is their right, not that of the state.
More →

Sphere: Related Content