LEGAL
THOUGHTS ON THE TEXAS FLDS RAID
Carl
F. Worden
I have held off making any comment on the Texas raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints until I gathered enough information. This is what we know
so far:
A woman in Colorado illegally
phoned in a false claim to Texas authorities that she (claiming to be Sarah) had been raped and abused
and forced to bear children for men in the FLDS church establishment.
As a result of that one unverified
telephone call, Texas authorities mounted a raid on the church grounds, removing the children
present by force and against the will of their parents. The children have
since been set up in foster care all over Texas while authorities attempt to sort out what was going on there.
DNA and other evidence obtained as a result
indicates many of the “underage” female children were impregnated
by men they were “spiritually” married to at the church.
Nobody was murdered. There is no evidence
of rape. Nobody was kidnapped. The entire case
rests upon the right of the state to dictate at what age a young woman may
consent to consensual sex, even if married under church doctrine.
HISTORY:
Many states have adopted laws that claim a
female citizen does not have the right to consent to consensual sex if under a
certain age. Those laws claim
that the “underage” female who does have consensual sex has been “raped”,
and the male who had sex with the willing female is a rapist who must be
prosecuted and punished, and must register as a sex offender for the rest of
his life. The female is held
as entirely innocent by law, while the male is automatically deemed an
offender.
But the prosecution of these “Statutory
Rape Laws” is highly arbitrary and capricious as practiced in most
states. Here in Oregon, District
Attorneys have adopted a policy of not prosecuting a young man age 17 for
having consensual sex with a girl age 15, but if a man age 25 were to have sex
with the same young woman he would have the law books thrown at him. This is a common
practice in most states that summarily excuse and accept teen sex as “normal”
and not illegal. From a legal
standpoint, this is a practice that was bound to eventually become a major
legal issue. Clearly it is
discriminatory on the basis of the age of the alleged offender.
First, almost all law in the United States is based upon the Ten Commandments and other biblical laws against certain behaviors, but
nowhere in the Bible is there a prohibition against having sex with a female of
a certain age specific if the act is completely consensual after marriage. In those days it was common for a man of
means to marry a young woman of age 12 or 13. The silence of God’s
Word on this issue is quite telling with regard to actual biblical
morality as compared to what man has dictated as being legally acceptable.
So I find this issue involving the
FLDS church to be one of religious freedom under our Constitution, as it finds
itself in conflict with state law.
I believe this will be the issue that finds
itself before the Supreme Court.
Under the Christian Bible, there is no
prescribed marriage ceremony to establish a marriage. Under state law, a Marriage License is
required prior to marriage along with age requirements, etc. The conflict is
obvious.
The question might well be to determine if “marriage” is a
legal or religious right, either protected by the right to practice one’s
religious beliefs, or subject to the laws of the state. Can it be both? If you view this conflict objectively, I
think you will conclude that “marriage” was originally based upon
religion long before anyone came up with the bright idea to license married
people in return for certain rights they could claim. Think about it.
No matter how this issue is decided, the
way Texas
handled this debacle is contrary to their alleged claims that they were only
acting to protect the children. There was no allegation
that any of the children under age 12, either male or female, were being abused
in any way, sexually or physically. In every other case where child abuse of
any kind is suspected, authorities move in and immediately expel the males(s)
from the home. In this case, the
children were forcibly removed from the home into foster care against their
will, and depriving them of both their mother’s and father’s
influence. I think Texas will be vilified and pay dearly for that.
These children were being raised in a very controlled, pristine and moral environment. They were not being
exposed to MTV and “Shot At Love With Tila Tequila”, and
other fine television shows as they probably are now while in foster care. I believe this raid was conducted
because these people living at the FLDS establishment were simply “different”
and the state wouldn’t tolerate it.
If it turns out that some of the young women age 13-14 were being forced
to “marry” elders in the FLDS church against their will, I’m
sure that will eventually come out, but I’m waiting to see just how many
of them will now claim that – if any. We’ll see.
Carl F. Worden