Sickening

[Inkara1]

So the legal age is 16 if the parents consent. At the time of marriage, they are legal to consummate the marriage. I guess they failed to do one very important thing: They failed to call Spike to see if it was all right for them to allow their daughters to marry.

There's a hole in your argument big enough to drive a 1997 Kenworth through.

These girls weren't LEGALLY married. They were "married" in the eyes of the "church," but the state doesn't allow a man to have more than one wife. Trying to legally marry multiple wives would land a dude in jail, so either a) they wouldn't file state paperwork or b) they're exceptionally stupid. Since, as far as the state is concerned, they weren't married, there was no legal consummation.

 

[Gonz]

legal consummation

So you want the state in your bedroom?

 

[spike]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Oh there's certainly probable cause and a swab sure isn't unreasonable.

 

[spike]

So you want the state in your bedroom?

So you want the state to allow old guys to pork little girls?

 

[Gonz]

Oh there's certainly probable cause and a swab sure isn't unreasonable.

The state forcibly taking DNA samples from minors, without their parents permission, is most certainly unreasonable.

I ask again...has there been any charges filed?

 

[jimpeel]

Jim, did I accuse that guy of molesting? Please tell us what your point is.

Everyone is SUPPOSED to be innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. You have these people tried and convicted and none of them has yet to be charged with anything.

You wouldn't be trying to use a single example to make generalizations again would you?

It was the only example given in that link you posted, you twit. I'd better be precise: The FIRST LINK you posted, you twit.

Again, hypocritically you have declared them all innocent before letting all the facts come out.

So it is hypocritical to find someone innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers by a preponderance of the evidence? It seems that I read that somewhere ... hm ... let's see now ... it's right on the tip of my tongue ... oh, yeah it was the Constitution of the United States -- the Supreme Law of the Land!

How "hypocritical" of me to have tried to hold these people to the tenets of the Supreme Law of the Land!

Did they call you to see if it was ok to pork a 14yr old?

They didn't need to call me, you, or anyone else. Until 2005, that was legal BY TEXAS STATE LAW if the woman was married with their parent's permission. What's your point?

What is this insider knowledge you have of pedophiles to be able to make such quick judgements without all the facts?

And your having them convicted and executed without a trial is not a "quick judgement"? How is my willingness to WAIT for all of the facts to come out before casting aspersions a "quick judgement"?

Once again, you prove your ignorance of the judicial system, the tenets of the law, jurisprudence, and the Constitution of your country all the while showing what a vigilante you are. You then, in full view of everyone reading this, accuse others of making snap judgements without the facts.

Again. You are such a fucking joke; but you STILL make me laugh.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

One sworn affidavit and probable cause is satisfied. Then they specify what they want from whom, tie it to the case, and just like that we got spit on a Q-Tip Gonz. You know that. They'll file the charges in two or three cases, and if the evidence is suppressed, they'll go another route and have hundreds of other potential victims to draw from.

We live in the age of sex offender paranoia bordering on persecution. Not that I have any particular problem with that. I can't see any possible way to "fly off the handle" and rape somebody...you GOTTA take the time to drop trou, thus making it premeditated in every instance. So it's an inexcusable crime. We got one here, and we got him stockpiling victims. I see no reason to allow him free reign. Those who do are free to that hold that opinion.

Just don't start hollerin later, cuz they's one of these perverts within a mile of where each of us live most likely. I got three within five miles of the house, and I live in the sticks. If this one's gonna avoid prosecution, then yours can too.

 

[jimpeel]

Just look how much time, trouble, heartache, needless pain, unimaginable suffering, and attention could have been avoided if this perv had been locked up where he belongs.

Just look how much time, trouble, heartache, needless pain, unimaginable suffering, and attention could have been avoided if this hoaxing bitch in Colorado Springs had been locked up where she belongs.

 

[jimpeel]

hmmmm

I didn't see anything in there about there being any age requirement for protection under the IV Amendment. It seems that there is this little thing, confirmed by the SCotUS, that every United States citizen is protected by the Constitution FROM BIRTH.

 

[jimpeel]

There's a hole in your argument big enough to drive a 1997 Kenworth through.

These girls weren't LEGALLY married. They were "married" in the eyes of the "church," but the state doesn't allow a man to have more than one wife. Trying to legally marry multiple wives would land a dude in jail, so either a) they wouldn't file state paperwork or b) they're exceptionally stupid. Since, as far as the state is concerned, they weren't married, there was no legal consummation.

Amendment I

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.

And what about that part about "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."?
--[1] St. Mathew, Chapter 19. verse 6.

And then there's this:

III. MATRIMONIAL CONSENT

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:
- not being under constraint;
- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."[125] If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."[126] This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."[127]

1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.[128] No human power can substitute for this consent.[129] If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.[130] In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.[131]

1630 The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. The presence of the Church's minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality.

1631 This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:[132]
- Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
- Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children; - Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
- The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.

1632 So that the "I do" of the spouses may be a free and responsible act and so that the marriage covenant may have solid and lasting human and Christian foundations, preparation for marriage is of prime importance.
The example and teaching given by parents and families remain the special form of this preparation.
The role of pastors and of the Christian community as the "family of God" is indispensable for the transmission of the human and Christian values of marriage and family,[133] and much more so in our era when many young people experience broken homes which no longer sufficiently assure this initiation:
It is imperative to give suitable and timely instruction to young people, above all in the heart of their own families, about the dignity of married love, its role and its exercise, so that, having learned the value of chastity, they will be able at a suitable age to engage in honorable courtship and enter upon a marriage of their own.[134]

Marriage is a covenant between men, women, and God. PERIOD. The state merely records the marriage for the purpose of keeping records. By so doing, the state has also taken upon itself the sole arbiter of whether the marriage should or should not be "granted". Note the word "granted".

 

[jimpeel]

Oh there's certainly probable cause and a swab sure isn't unreasonable.

It still requires a warrant and the party served must reasonably understand the charge, the cause of the warrant, and the consequences of giving evidence which could be used against them. A four-year-old child does not understand those tenets. Neither would a retarded person.

Are you for gathering evidence, even under warrant, from pesons who are unable to understand their rights? How about a reterded person? Are you willing to have evidence taken from a retarded person who does not understand their rights?

 

[jimpeel]

So you want the state to allow old guys to pork little girls?

Your problem is with comprehending the law as it was codified until 2005 in which a "little girl" -- as you put it -- was thirteen. Fourteen-year-olds could marry. Since that time a "little girl" is fifteen.

 

[jimpeel]

One sworn affidavit and probable cause is satisfied. Then they specify what they want from whom, tie it to the case, and just like that we got spit on a Q-Tip Gonz. You know that. They'll file the charges in two or three cases, and if the evidence is suppressed, they'll go another route and have hundreds of other potential victims to draw from.

And if the person from whom the spit is being taken does not understand, nor could be reasonably expected to understand, their rights; is that good law? Does a four-year-old person understand their rights?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352682,00.html

CPS officials have conceded there is no evidence the youngest children were abused, and about 130 of the children are under 5.

Read the United Nations Covenant on the Rights of the Child, Article 40, and how the child cannot be determined to be capable of comprehending the penal law under a certain age. If they are incapable of understanding a criminal charge against them, then they are surely incapable of understanding their Constitutional right against self incrimination, unreasonable searches, civil law, etc.

Article 40

1. States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society.

2. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of international instruments, States Parties shall, in particular, ensure that:

(a) No child shall be alleged as, be accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law by reason of acts or omissions that were not prohibited by national or international law at the time they were committed;

(b) Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees:

(i) To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law;

(ii) To be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians, and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her defence;

(iii) To have the matter determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body in a fair hearing according to law, in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance and, unless it is considered not to be in the best interest of the child, in particular, taking into account his or her age or situation, his or her parents or legal guardians;

(iv) Not to be compelled to give testimony or to confess guilt; to examine or have examined adverse witnesses and to obtain the participation and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under conditions of equality;

(v) If considered to have infringed the penal law, to have this decision and any measures imposed in consequence thereof reviewed by a higher competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body according to law;

(vi) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used;

(vii) To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings. 3. States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular:

(a) The establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law;

(b) Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected.

4. A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence.

The minimum age that has been determined since the writing of this instrument is TEN. Of course, the U.S. never ratified the UNCOtRotC so I guess the point is moot with those determined to rush to judgement.

 

[Inkara1]

And what about that part about "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."?
--[1] St. Mathew, Chapter 19. verse 6.

And then there's this:



Marriage is a covenant between men, women, and God. PERIOD. The state merely records the marriage for the purpose of keeping records. By so doing, the state has also taken upon itself the sole arbiter of whether the marriage should or should not be "granted". Note the word "granted".

You and I are married now. It's my religion. Wanna whoopie?



Really, though... if I were caught pigging some 13-year-old down the street, then I could just tell the cop that we're married and it will be the equivalent of that guy in the old commercials holding up the package of Mentos in order to get out of trouble for pulling some random, crazy shit. Everything will be kosher. After all, who is the cop to question my religion?

As an aside, since you say marriage is between the participants and God only... one, do you endorse polygamy? What if your own daugher involved? Two, since Lori and I aren't members of any particular religion, when we do get married, will it be invalid according to you?

 

[Inkara1]

Your problem is with comprehending the law as it was codified until 2005 in which a "little girl" -- as you put it -- was thirteen. Fourteen-year-olds could marry. Since that time a "little girl" is fifteen.

Holy fucking shit, dude. I just love, no LOVE how you use state law for determining what is a "little girl" and what is not, but disregard state law that says if you're not legally married under the age of consent then you can't legally have sex.


That level of consistency takes some kind of talent.

 

[jimpeel]

Really, though... if I were caught pigging some 13-year-old down the street,

What you miss is that 13 is below the age of consent in every state in the Union. Even the TX law set the age at fourteen until 2005 and then only with the permission of the parents.

As an aside, since you say marriage is between the participants and God only... one, do you endorse polygamy?

I don't not endorse it. I feel that if a man wants many wives or a woman wants many husbands, that is between them and is none of my business. A man or woman should be able to take on as many lovers -- "wives" or "husbands" -- as they are able to keep. There are numerous men and women who have one state sanctioned spouse but many lovers. The consenting adults laws take care of that. How are the consenting adults laws any different than polygamy other than there are no vows, religious or otherwise, exchanged other than "Hey baby, let's"? If that is polygamy then the soap operas practice polygamy every day.

The only difference between polygamy and any "open marriage" is that the state sanctions the consenting adults; but the state squelches those who do so under the tenets of their religion.

What, pray tell, is the difference; besides the fact that the consenting adults of the open marriage call their lovers their "lovers" and the polygamists call their lovers their "wives"?

If a man lives with two or more women as consenting adults but never calls them his "wives" is it polygamy; or is it merely state sanctioned "consenting adults"?

What if your own daugher involved?

She is her own person. I don't deign to tell thirty-six-year-old people what to do.

Two, since Lori and I aren't members of any particular religion, when we do get married, will it be invalid according to you?

No. Marriage is no longer a rite of religion; and that is what is lost on most people. It is a rite of the state and you only do so by their permission. You buy their document, you pay their fees, and they ALLOW you to marry. Without the document, and without the fee, they deny you their permission to marry.

The Constitution, however, declares that the state shall not interfere with those things which are of the church. If you want to get married at city hall then you have fulfilled your duty to the state by allowing them to allow you to do so. If you get married in any church, however, you are still bound by the state as the church is restrained from marrying you if the state has not given the church permission to do so.

There is always the "common law marriage" wherein two people live with each other for a state defined period of time and they are considered married. The problem is ... what if there are a number of people living together in a "common law marriage"?

Consider this: If the FLDS church were instead the "Fuckfest Temple of Free Love" and no one there called anyone else there their spouse; and the kids were all bastards would that be all right? The state says it is through their consenting adults laws. As long as they do not claim to be married, spiritually or otherwise, and there is no monetary arrangement for sex the state stays out of it.

So what is the motive of the state; revenue enhancement; serfdom of the citizenry; what?

 

[jimpeel]

Holy fucking shit, dude. I just love, no LOVE how you use state law for determining what is a "little girl" and what is not, but disregard state law that says if you're not legally married under the age of consent then you can't legally have sex.


That level of consistency takes some kind of talent.

It kinda does unless you are willing to render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's.

Spike was talking about "little girls" in the context of anyone under eighteen. He has yet to tell me what the national age of consent should be even though I have pointedly asked him. The age ranges from fourteen to eighteen depending on which state's soil is currently under your shoes.

I merely take the laws, as written, and turn them back on those who state that these people are pedophiles regardless of what the law may think. The state law in TX was marriage at fourteen with the permission of the parent until 2005. No one has shown that any girl married off at an age less than the current age of sixteen was married after the 2005 change in the law.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LAW HERE.

The law raided the church and took the kids. They did so under color of codified law. That codified law sets a certain standard for consent. That codified law changes at the whim of the people who make such laws. Yet they have yet to charge a single person of any age with any crime. That is the law.

Under the tenets of the CHURCH, however, there is no crime as they are acting under their beliefs. If everyone there holds the same beliefs, and the Constitution states very clearly that the state shall not interfere with the exercise of religion, then what is the state doing taking these kids?

Remember, the church has no set age of consent at all. That is purely a state function. So why should I not use the tenets of the state when speaking about the conflict of the tenets of the church?

What you call "talent" is merely balance.

 

[jimpeel]

Holy fucking shit, dude. I just love, no LOVE how you use state law for determining what is a "little girl" and what is not, but disregard state law that says if you're not legally married under the age of consent then you can't legally have sex.


That level of consistency takes some kind of talent.

By the way, did you miss the part on what the church (Catholic) says about consent?

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:
- not being under constraint;
- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."[125] If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."[126] This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."[127]

1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.[128] No human power can substitute for this consent.[129] If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

 

[2minkey]

golly jim you've bent over so far backwards to defend an absurd point of view, that it's gonna require surgical intervention for you to be able to see the sun again.

 

[spike]

The state forcibly taking DNA samples from minors, without their parents permission, is most certainly unreasonable.

Nope, if we knew who the parents were they wouldn't need the swabs. I don't see anything wrong with establishing who the fathers of these kids are.

I ask again...has there been any charges filed?

We'll see after all the evidence is gathered.