Comments

Posted by Somerschool

And I applaud your courage in opening this particular line of discussion. I think it's perfectly on point.

I'll start with one comment that gets politicians in trouble. If the State does not have enough of an interest to limit marriage to one man and one woman, then I can't see any way to prohibit religiously-motivated polygamy. I'm not going to bring up early Mormon polygamy or deal with underaged wives at the moment--I'll stick with Muslim polygamy, which is 100% legal in many nations.

France is trying to figure out the Muslim polygamy problem. If I recall France's immigration laws correctly, their borders are truly open to citizens of their former North African colonies. If I understand their Welfare laws, they provide a very generous subsidy for every child. When you combine these factors, you routinely get Muslim men fathering children with four women at the State's expense. They aren't "married" under French law, but that doesn't matter much to people who live in insular ethnic communities.

As a matter of constitutional law, I take this very seriously. I value the freedom of religion as highly as anyone I know--and if I were a federal judge in a state with same--sex marriage (i.e., Massachusetts), I would feel compelled to recognize Mormon or Muslim marriages as even more valid than the secular same-sex versions. (I wouldn't have to recognize your hypothetical case, though, Tad, because the girl is underaged.)

When conservative politicians point out this "inconvenient truth," they get slammed for "politicizing" the same-sex marriage issue.

In theory, I could live with a system where we cut Welfare to the bone and let churches (or mosques) handle marriage and custody issues. In such a system, Muslims would be free to marry as many wives as they can pay for. In practice, I'd have a real problem with it. Since there doesn't seem to be any danger of it happening anywhere soon, though, I don't have to explain all the practical problems with my libertarian solution to the marriage problem.

• Permanent Link

Posted by KyMentor

It is funny that you should open up this particular question. I just had a conversation with my neice about a similar case.

First, I want to address the age issue. In most states consent laws are between 16 and 18 or they read something to the affect the partners cannot be more than 4 years apart. So, a child of 14 cannot give consent and her parents cannot give consent for her to be raped in any state so far. You can't sign a paper saying, I give you permission to beat my child, or I give permisson to strangle my child, or I give you permission to endanger the life of my child.

Giving a 14 year old girl to a pedifile, is endangering her life. Her body is not ready to bear a child, making her chances of dying in childbirth very high. She is not ready to deal with the postpartem(sp) depression that comes if she survives the birth. Someone might be able to make a case for 16, but since you can't legally enter into a contract until 18 that still sounds like a good number to me.

Personally, I would vote for a sexual consent law of 18 and not one moment before and if anyone is caught having sex with someone under 18 they go to jail for a very long time. If both children are under 18 and less than 3 yrs apart, then other arrangements could be made for their protection.

As for marriage, I strongly believe in one man-one woman, but could live comfortably in a country that has secular contracts for partners and leaves churches, temples, and mosques to deal with marriage. If one woman and three men or three women and one man, four women or four men, decide to make a home with each other, I really don't see why that is a legal issue at all.

I also don't think welfare needs to support these arrangement either. I think insurance companies would have the right to charge more if they choose to cover the family at all.

• Permanent Link

Posted by AmoScribo

Hello Mr. Tad, I just wanted to tell you I answered the question of what I meant by "human" over in the comments under the Somerschool discussion.

I will be thinking on this Socratic question.
Thank you,
Allison C.

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

What are we addressing? Polygamy or underage marriage?

I don't care about the former. I think the latter is child abuse.

OTOH, I waited to marry until pretty late -- after living in sin with my now-DH for 13 years. We didn't want to rush into anything. :)

So now, many moons later, I'm pretty sure that nobody under 30 should be allowed to marry!

Nance

• Permanent Link

Posted by twimmer

Whether the state has a "right" to step in and override the parents decision in the control of the child in this case. I had flagged the topic of the state's right to make laws protecting the incompetent, and Allison had keyed that it starts with the rights of a competent parent.

As homeschoolers, we assert the right to control the upbringing of our children over the right of the state to force educate them. Some of our critics see this practice as abusive and would have it outlawed. I wanted to test the reasoning on a case that I expect most would find extreme.

• Permanent Link

Posted by JJ

Are we mainly talkin' right-wrong, or right-left?
Religion, politics, or only the intersection of the two?

Or just sort of mixing and matching?

What's been wrought against women and children historically has been in the name of almost everything. Hard to know where to jump in. . .

• Permanent Link

Posted by bubbebobbie

My husband and I are celebrating our 33 anniversary next week. We married at the ripe old ages of 16 and 17 years old. We had to get our parents permission, find a pastor that would marry unsaved kids and go to court and have a Judge say we could be married. I was not pregnant. (But I think saying the 14 year old can't carry a healthy pregnancy is what abortionists use to make their acts acceptable to society). We didn't mind having to get our parents to say yes, they said no at first. We didn't mind talking the judge into believing we were mature enough to take this step. Those questioning our right to marry increased our resolve to do so. I know 25 year olds that are more immature than we were and I have seen 30 year olds with less skill at parenting than I had at 19 years old. Cultural ages for marriage as well as multiple marriages depend on the traditions. 13 year old brides happened in the early history of our country. In a multi-cultural nation that opens its doors to immigrants these situations live next door.
Here is an example; how would you address this? A Muslim comes to your church and becomes a believer. He wants very much to do what he believes the scriptures say; he has three wives. Does he divorce them? Which does he divorce? This is religious law now, not just government wisdom that is causing him to consider these questions. Does religion have the right to instruct him to abandon his wives because of his new faith? Is excommunicate the right way to deal with polygamy? Is divorce the answer? Does he remain with all three? He wants to be a good Christian. Now what?

• Permanent Link

Posted by Anonymous

This sounds like something the attornies and intellectual bloggers at Millennnial Star, Times and Seasons, By Common Consent, and many of the other group and individuals in the Bloggernacle would chew and spit out answers in a heartbeat. I hope you get some press and debate from those individuals to quell the notion of opening a can of worms.

Welcome to the Bloggernacle!

• Permanent Link

Posted by twimmer

This situation covers a bunch of different philosophical, ethical and legal questions related to Scotts "Dominionist" theme.

I had looked at the angle that one might see the "religion" in the scenario as being a wacko cult, and the girl's participation in it the result of indoctrination, which contrasts with Scott's wanting to teach his children (and me wanting to teach mine) the religious principles of our various faiths. If you think my hypothetical scenario is different as it affects parental rights, why?

I know what the law is. I want to discus what it should be. Does the Libertarian view go this far? Sandie thinks allowing a 14 year old to marry endangers her life, and characterizes the "husband" as a pedophile. (I'm curious as to why you think this.) Bobbie thinks that is abortionist nonsense and notes that 13 year old brides were not uncommon in days of yore. (My great grandmother married my great grandfather on her 16th birthday, then proceeded to bear 17 children!) JJ thinks the afair is sexist, if not misogynistic. Scott cuts to the welfare issue of supporting the children of the polygamists as a state interest. In the actual case reported in the news, the girl was 16. I personally think the arrangement is foolish, but I'm not sure I'd send in our CPS folks to "rescue" this girl. is this "free exercise" or the "human sacrifice?"

• Permanent Link

Posted by KyMentor

I teach sexual abuse awareness classes for my dioceses and the basic definition is an adult who is sexually attracted to children or if you get a bit more specific an adult whose primary sexual interest is in children; some professionals make a differentiation between a pedophile, whose sexual partner of choice is a prepubertal child, and a hebephile, who is aroused by adolescents.

I am around 25-30 kids ages 12-17 everyday, their bodies may say they are young adults, but their minds and actions prove again and again they are not. These are mature homeschooled teens, the cream of the crop so to speak.

Like I said before 16 for me is where the 'grey' area starts. But a man (over 21) who is sexually attracted to a 14 year old child is attracted to the power, the control, the dominance aspects of the relationship. He is not looking for an equal partner to share his life. I feel the same way about these female teacher lately in the news who are raping 13-15 yr old boys. These children are not able to consent because the relationship is not equal.

About the abortion issue, I am about as against abortion as anyone can be. If a 14 yr old is not having sex, then abortion just isn't an issue! Yes, our country had young brides, which is why it was more common to find a widower then a widow in early America. I also married young, just a few week after my 19th birthday. I have been married for 23 years, but I had graduated from highschool at 16 and been living on my own since just before my 17th birthday. Today's youth are not assuming adult responsibilities until well into their 20's.

oops, got to go for now, but the discussion has been interesting....

• Permanent Link

Posted by JJ

I'm impressed that Tad so easily understood and reflected back what I was saying, from so little -- "sexist if not misogynistic" sums it up pretty well!

My teen daughter and I recently read, digested and blogged about a poetic and inspiring book that describes clocks, calendars, schedules, church bells -- basically Time itself -- as a tool of patriarchial culture intentionally designed to harness and control the naturally less structured pursuits of women and children; see "A Sideways Look at Time" by Jay Griffiths (this Jay is a woman, Tad, I say this only to save you possible embarrassment )

That's why I ask what specific context/s we want to contain this discussion. Is what we now take as "natural law" quite as natural as even Locke assumed? Or it is about partitioning and structuring the exercise of power over others, too?

• Permanent Link

Posted by twimmer

I've pondered on this since I started the thread. Although there's been some wonderful comments, we really haven't reached the core issue of where the state has a right to intervene, or even if it does. That is, other than Sandie, who proposes a physiological issue worthy of prohibition to sexual relations for girls under 16 and a question of whether the girl is intellectually and emotionally mature enough to make an informed choice. I'm surprised to see that no one jumped on the "last remnant of barbarism" argument.

Setting aside, for the moment, the physical maturity issue, lets look at the issue of informed choice. Under Locke's theory of "Paternal Power" (even Locke surmises that this power extends to the mother and points out the misnomer), the parent's right to direct and govern the child stems from the incompetence of the child to make decisions on her own. The parents' competence substitutes for the child's lack.

In our test case, the parents agree to the arrangement, and even encourge it based on their religious views. Assuming that the parents have not used coersion on the girl beyond reasonable parenting, we have both the girl's choice and ratification by the parents. Or the other way 'round; the girl could be ratifiying her parents' choice. In either case, the parents have decided that this is an appropriate course for their child. By what reasoning do we allow the state to second guess these parents?

I think Sandie's characterization of the "husband" as a pedophile is unwarranted because the evidence is insufficient. His motives may not be sexual at all. He may be marrying for power or money, or he may be marrying for spiritual reasons. It could be an arranged marriage. It could even be for the protection and care or other advantage of the girl where the alternative is worse than being a child bride. There simply isn't enough information.

Sexist or misogynistic? JJ, your Feminist leanings aren't as transparent as you think. As with the characterization of the "husband" as a pedophile, I don't think there is evidence enough to warrant the characterization of misogynist. But would this practice be sexist?

The immediate picture that comes up as I think about the arrangement has the male as lord and master over his two plus wives, with the wives subservient to him. Under that set of circumstances, then, yes, it is sexist. But... If the women are there of their own free will and choice, is this a bad thing? One can disagree with their beliefs, but if they believe that is their calling in life, by what reasoning to we say they are wrong? Is exerting dominion based on Feminist principles any more justified than exerting dominion based on religious views?

On the other hand, one feminist argument against marriage is that, in child bearing, the woman's position (as mother) is established by biology, where the man's position (as father) is established politically as a result of the marriage. If the arrangement were that all of the spouses shared equally the responsibility for all of the children, does this not place any "sister wives" on an equal footing with the '"husband." This raises some interesting questions about the purpose and nature of marriage that will have to be another thread.

So that leaves us with Scott's welfare issue. Does the state have an interest sufficient to intervene in this case in order to prevent the children ending up on the state's welfare roles? Are there other ways to ensure that any children are provided for?

My conclusion is that, since I don't want the state interfering with me teaching my religious views to my children or usurping my authority as agent for my children during their minority, that I would not second guess the parents in this case. As I would want to be presumed competant (knowing that there are folks out there who believe my religion is a wacko cult), I would presume these parents competent.

I would, however, also hold the parents and the church accountable and responsible for the consequences that arise from this arrangement. If the arrangement fails and the husband and his wives are not able to support themselves and their children, I would require that the parents and the church be tapped first for their support, before the state's welfare coffers are touched. I agree with Scott that it is inapproprate to require taxes in support of the consequences of moral decisions that I oppose.

• Permanent Link

Posted by KyMentor

Would you also marry a 14 yr old boy to a grown woman who had more than one husband?

• Permanent Link

Posted by AmoScribo

The focus:

“Whether the state has a "right" to step in and override the parent’s decision in the control of the child in this case.”

Sorry, I know I’m coming into this late, but it took me that long to wrap my brain around this one. This is the best I could do:

"A 13 year old girl being "married"
Are there are minimum-age laws about marrying, even with parental consent, in place?
If there aren’t, then general opinion is not enough to stop this family. If there are, then they can’t break the law. If there are no marriage minimum-age laws, then the husband-to-be can probably be prosecuted if need be. (I do not personally think I would call parents who allow a girl to marry at age 13 competent.)

"in a religion practicing plural marriage"
It sounds as if polygamy didn’t disappear by vote. (Thank you for the informative post on Utah!) However, it is illegal now. (Again, personally, there was a time when I was sure my husband needed 2 wives…)
The girl in this case can’t be compelled to break the law and enter into the plural marriage.

Marriage age is a moral issue. What are the laws?

Homeschooling informs morality, but it’s not a moral issue, is it? Homeschooling is a personal choice with no laws against it (just regulation of it- some very heinous, all unnecessary, to say the least).

So I don’t think the state can intervene in homeschooling, but yes in the personal protection of a child’s moral state.

(P.S. I do think young mothers can deliver a child.)

Thank you.
Allison

• Permanent Link

Posted by twimmer

Would you also marry a 14 yr old boy to a grown woman who had more than one husband?

I personally wouldn't participate in, consent to, or encourage either situation. Polyandry is less common throughout history than polygyny, but it isn't unheard of. Would I support legislation prohibiting such a situation? Only if there was a legitimate state interest in doing so.

I will be starting a new thread soon to discuss government interest in marriage in general based on a paper published by the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society called "The Real Danger of Same Sex Marriage." by Stephen Baskerville. I expect to cover the state's interest in marriage a bit more fully there.

Allison, by most accounts, Mary, the espoused wife of Joseph, was about 14 when she gave birth to Jesus.

JJ, you ask:

That's why I ask what specific context/s we want to contain this discussion. Is what we now take as "natural law" quite as natural as even Locke assumed? Or it is about partitioning and structuring the exercise of power over others, too?

As I read Locke, he assumes a "natural law" that probably never existed in reality where "all men [and women] are created equal" in that they have the same rights to life, liberty and property.(In fact, Locke even acknowledges that all men are not equal in all respects, he merely asserts that they have equal rights to things created by God and held in common by all men.) In reality, a condition where there was no government would result in the strong preying on the weak. I suspect that the historical reality is that governments formed for both self protection and to exert power over others. To people who have been made subject to a government and its laws without their consent (as in Iraq both before the invasion and now, the Israelites in Eygpt or Babylon, the Hindus under Muslim rule, or the Mormon's between 1848 and 1890, etc.) there is little difference between a Mafia protection racket and the twin powers of government to tax and police. The difference between the Iraqi militias and any of the hundreds of special interest groups in the US is a matter of strategy and tactics as much as it is a matter of moral conviction. So I don't rely too much on Locke's view of "Natural Law" other than to note that it forms part of the basis of our constitutional government.

Embodied in the notion that ours is a nation of laws and not of men, our constitutions -- federal and state -- are, in theory, limited to only those powers specifically granted, and are prohibited from usurping certain specified others. From a view to the federal Constitution, this discussion centers around the absense of any language that would grant a power to Congress to regulate the marital arrangements of individual citizens, a Ninth and Tenth amendment right to a liberty interest in anything not specifically granted to the federal government (with a lengthy case-law history that parental rights are fundamental constitutional rights), and a specific prohibition contained within the two religion clauses of the First Amendment: Establishment of Religion and Free Exercise of Religion.

The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The Ninth reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the Tenth:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

To enforce this with a strict interpretation, a religion could practice human sacrifice and the government would be powerless to stop it. Originally the First Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, so regulating human sacrifice would have been left to the states, as would have been marital law including the practice of polygyny. However, the 14th amendment has been interpreted as making the Bill of Rights applicable to all state and local governments as well as the Federal Government. This would appear, with the "Congress shall make no law..." language to make government powerless to prohibit human sacrifice for religious purposes.

Clearly though, the government can step in in cases of human sacrifice; we can no longer take the "make no law" wording at its face. Unless we want to completely throw the First Amendment out the window, we need to draw a line that defines what laws Congress and other legislative bodies can make, and which they can't. I won't go into the sophistical gymnastics the Supreme Court has used to draw this line other to note that the law is far from settled on the matter and note that the test in current use requires the state to prove it has a public policy interest in enacting any regulation that burdens a religion.

We decided, I think, over at Scott's blog that dominionism -- the imposition of the moral standards of the majority religion or other faction on everyone -- wasn't okay unless there was a rational reason for the standard other than God's will. The idea I presented over there was that law were appropriate when they protect a person from harm perpetrated by another person, but not when they protect another person or group from what you or I may think are her, his or their faulty moral standards or political views.

Allison says "So I don’t think the state can intervene in homeschooling, but yes in the personal protection of a child’s moral state." But there are some who believe that parents who homeschool for religious or political reasons are indoctrinating them in the values of a wacko religious cult (yes, some people think Christianity is a wacko religious cult!) and homeschool should be prohibited; they would prohibit homeschooling "to protect the child's moral state." (Or so they would claim.) In Germany, the government position is that children belong to the state, and the state has a responsibility to ensure they are properly indoctrinated in the German political system and views. Homeschool is not permitted.

So the context is: Under our current system of constitutional law, where should the line be drawn with regard to the First Amendment's religious protections and the Ninth Amendment's protection of a parent's liberty interest in the rearing of a child? If we use the 'state's interest test,' what should the law be in this case? If we believe that the state can intervene in this test case, but not intervene in the case of homeschooling, what is the relevant difference? (Allison, I beg to differ with you. Homeschooling is, in many cases, a moral question. Many, especially on the Christian Right, choose to homeschool specifically so they can teach their children 'Christian' moral values instead of the relativistic values taught in the public school system, while many on the secular left oppose homeschool because they object to Christian moral values being taught. Or so they say.)

• Permanent Link

Posted by KyMentor

I posted a response to something you said on my blog....www.homeschoolblogger.com/KyMentor/184458/

• Permanent Link

Posted by AmoScribo

I actually appreciate your helping me to make distinctions. It was a fine line to try to make. I think I mean the girl was being compelled to a situation effecting her flesh, vs her worldview.
I know many would shut down homeschooling because we effect morality. I bet they wish there were laws pre-the homeschooling movement to prevent it.
I took the leap but I appreciate being called on it! :-)
Allison

• Permanent Link

Posted by JJ

. . .and certainly not meaning to offend, but what about the 14-year-old daughter killed by her father, uncles and brothers because they believe their god and holy writings tell them this is required to restore their honor? Do we say they know best for her, as long as she's a minor? There are similar horrific examples from African immigrants to America who mutilate young girls in ritual fashion. And I mentioned the Old Testament before at Scott's, and Ruth told me she buys it as well as the New, as sacred truth and commandment. So I guess what I think is, that when we make girls and women subject to whatever the men believe the god says to do, there's no point in debating anything after that. It is OVER!

Of course for most of Christian history we had horrific witch and heretic ritual tortures AND barbarism, based on ex-tortured confessions and accusation not limited to females. Wonder if fundamentalist Christian men have thought about that lately? Maybe Muslim beliefs will start to attract the most paternalistic of them away from Christianisty, in which their own fragility as sovereign individual humans seems more at risk from accusation by others in the tribe?
Now that's a debate I will tune in anywhere to follow!

I just think when any of us starts from "my beliefs are off limits" then we all get nowhere.

• Permanent Link