April 21, 2008
Men From Polygamy Sect Speak
Early Show Co-Anchor Maggie Rodriguez Lands Exclusive Interview With 3 From Texas Compound
-
-
Photo
From left, men giving their names as Edson, Rulon, and Jake speaking with Maggie Rordiguez (CBS)
-
Photo
Main temple of polygamist compound in Eldorado, Texas, as seen from road outside last week (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)
-
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Polygamist Men Have Their Say
Three fathers whose children were placed in Texas custody after a raid on a polygamist ranch speak about their beliefs and customs. Maggie Rodriguez reports.
-
Video
Polygamy DNA Tests To Begin
Texas authorities will begin DNA testing of more than 400 children and 100 mothers of a polygamy sect in order to determine the children's actual parents. Randall Pinkston reports.
-
Video
Polygamy 'Lost Boy' Speaks
Polygamist sects often turn out young boys because they're seen as competition for the women. Maggie Rodriguez speaks to one of these young men and the director of an organization that helps them.
-
Photo Essay
Separation Anxiety
Some mothers in polygamist sect separated from children as part of abuse investigation.
-
Photo Essay
Polygamist Compound Raid
Secret calls from alleged abuse victim lead to raid of religious sect's compound.
Rodriguez conducted the interview Sunday night with three men whose children were among more than 400 removed by authorities from the sect's compound in a raid earlier this month.
It was the first time since the raid that any male members of the sect spoke with a member of the media.
In the wide-ranging interview, Rodriguez asked, “After all this, can you see why society looks upon you and says, ‘A girl who's younger than 18 shouldn't be married and having sex?’ Has this forced you to reconsider?”
One of the men, who identified himself as Rulon (none of the three offered a last name) responded, "Yes, many of us perhaps were not even aware of such a law, but yes, we have been made very aware in the last two weeks and we do reconsider -- yes.” Rulon says he has six children, ranging in age from a year to nine.
All three said they would submit to DNA testing, as ordered by a Texas judge who wanted to help authorities determine who the parents of the children in custory are.
A man who gave his name as Edson and told Rodriguez he has four children, from almost four-years-old to 11, took issue with the view that youngsters are abused in the compound.
"I think they have a very false perception of the way we live because we're closed mouthed," Edson said. "They assume a lot of things that aren't there."
To see all of Part One, click on the arrow in the image below.
Asked by Rodriguez if he was saying older men don't marry adolescent girls in the compound, Edson replied, "I didn't say that at all, but I think that people have a false concept of what our religion is all about. To say that they're sexually abused and that people here are -- they haven't found anything to my knowledge that proves that. ... But I think that, overall, they look at us as if we're immoral people and, in our own makeup, that is the very most important part of our religion, is to be morally clean. I have a hard time standing here being a criminal, when I had no idea that I'm a criminal. I've always strived to be an upright man and my children and my family, everyone that I know, love me and I love them."
If an adolescent had sex with an older man, should that be considered abuse?
Ruloln answered, "The state of Texas has defined it as that. I would simply say, if you had a teenage girl that chose to go that way, could you force her to do otherwise? No, you could not. We are not a people of force. We are people of free agency and peace. We do not teach our children to have sexual conduct before they are of age. We do not teach them that; we teach them the contrary."
"But gentlemen," Rodriguez asked, "do you think that a teenage girl has the maturity to make that kind of decision, especially if she sees other girls doing it and maybe might believe that it's OK? Isn't it your responsibility to tell them no it's not OK?"
A mah who said his name is Jake and said he has a two-and-a-half-year-old child, responded, "You can tell your child, 'Go through the courts to do it right and proper."
"So," Rodriguez followed-uop, "are you saying that, that's what you tell girls who are young and want to marry these older men?"
"Well, it's not my -- it's not my child. That's what I'll tell my children -- it's definitely -- after they're 18, it's their choice. If they want to go that route, they can."
Earlier, Jake said it's been very difficult not having his child with him. His voice cracking, he said, "I miss my child, my heart's broken. But, I know that we'll see him sometime soon, if we stay at it and be faithful."
The interview will be broadcast in two parts, Monday and Tuesday on The Early Show.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from The Early Show
-
Video
Maxwell's Back On The Scene
-
Video
Young Boy Climbs for a Cause
-
Video
You Say Tomato...
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 8
- next
See all 351 CommentsAnd the fact that many of these women are stealing from the government is sickening.
I don''t abide by the polygamy that this group practices, but I feel like these people are being persecuted for their religion by applying a double standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by JackKnows at 08:32 AM : Apr 21, 2008
+ report abuse
Ummm Sparky the legal age is 18. Why shouldn''t these "Men" look healthy and normal? LOL We have ONE nation and ONE set of laws to cover ALL citizens of that nation. NO religion or cult is above that law no matter how happy they may appear. Sieg Heil and Amen
These men claim they did not know the law of the land. That means the women didn''t either. Since they have their own teachers and the children are home schooled, you can mostly bet they never heard of the Constitution of the United States and that they have free choice.
Home schooled children should be required to take a test which reflects their knowledge of the Constitution and the law of the land where they live. And reflects that they know the law of the land is to be upheld before the teachings of their religion.
These old perverts teaching these children that they must be obedient and allow these old men to do whatever they want to with their bodies, including beatings and being locked up in closets for punishment should be designated criminals.
Are you aware that having s.e.x. with an underage unmarried girl is also r.a.p.e? Statutory r.a.p.e
It doesn''t matter if the man is 16, 65. or 80, that is what it is. Does this upset you as well? Birth control is passed out to young people today to encourage this underage practice.
I don''t support the lifestyle of this group as I said earlier. I also don''t believe in applying a double standard to one group over another.
Now on to the subject, I can''t understand why it wasn''t the men who were arrested and removed from the compound in the first place? If we view the women and children as "victims".....why are they being apart?? Why not remove the perpetrators...the men? I cannot for the life of me understand why children are being separated from their mothers. What did the mothers do? What did the children do to deserve this?
It sounds like maybe you know and speak more about your own family than Texans in general. Please don''t assume what is common for your family is common for all Texans.
My bet is they are complicit in welfare fraud, child abuse from allowing their children to be waterboarded (breaking babies'' wills), not educating their children, kicking out the young men, accepting re-assignments of husbands, brainwashing them into living "the sweet life."
Girls can marry at age 16 with parental permission and a family court order. I doubt there were court orders.
Posted by blazercoach1
Because the police messed up when they went into the compound. They were going after one girl, which they didn''t find, so they just took all the women and children to see if they could find her, which to my knowledge, they still haven''t found. I''m not saying that this situation shouldn''t have been dealt with, but they way the authorities did it, raises some concerns.
Yes. Texas also refers to common law marriage as an informal marriage.
For a marriage to be declared an informal marriage in Texas They Live together as husband and wife in Texas
Represent to others that they are married.
Agree with one another that they are married.
Cousin Marriages:
No.
People are forgetting that Texas is a Common Law State. They have repeatedly said that they were only "legally" wed to one woman but they may have had another "wife" whom they were only "spiritually wed" In Texas, if both agree that they were husband and wife, then by law, they were married !!
And in Texas...cousins CAN NOT marry !!! So, this "close knit community" that has been marrying unlces and neices are ALL guilty of another offense.
Right on. In America, we are innocent until proven guilty. We also respect freedom of religion as long as does not conflict with our other laws. (And for those on here who don''t think morality plays any part in law......name one law that does NOT reflect a moral value or persepctive. Can''t be done.) This is a paradox. Our laws reflect SOME religous values...but not all.
In any case, shouldn''t it be required that the state prove that a law has been broken before determining that all of these children are in "danger"?? Folks, the alarming precedent is this: Children are being separated from families because of something that MIGHT happen.
How would we feel if the state came in and took the children of all Latino or black inner city families because they MIGHT end of in violent gangs and commit a violent crime? Last I knew, it was not illegal to be IN a gang....only illegal to carry out violent actions. There are serious first amendment implications here that Americans should be passive about.
Posted by dcparker2
I totally agree here !!! Why is it ok for Miss Spears to be pregnant at ONLY 16 !!! Why does the media report this as "great news"
It is sooo sad how the media influences people in the fact that this particularly 16 is year old is ok to be pregnant, but this 16 year old it is a crime !!
They are being controled by one man, Warren Jeffs. He decides there whole lives, men and women. You cannot blame these men anymore than you can blame one of the 900 men and women who died at Jonestown. The only difference between Warren Jeffs and Jim Jones, is that Jeffs hasn''t commenced a mass suicide.
How do you explain half of the thirteen-year-olds either pregnant or with a kid already? Would it kill you to at least wait until she''s 18 and she can make these choices for herself? Are you that ***-starved?? If you love her, wouldn''t you be willing to wait until she has the maturity to reciprocate her love to you? Instead, you''re taking advantage of her immaturity and ignorance so you can indoctinate her into submission. Most of these women in you''re collections didn''t even know their own birth date. If that''s not abuse, I don''t know what is. This is sick, repulsive, and is an insult to the intelligence of women in this country. You men are cowards.
"If an adolescent had *** with an older man, should that be considered abuse?
Ruloln answered, "The state of Texas has defined it as that. I would simply say, if you had a teenage girl that chose to go that way, could you force her to do otherwise? No, you could not. "
In a society where children are growing up in single parent homes.
I think we have an appology to make to these people. We should ask them to abide by the law, but there are some areas, I think they should be an example to us.
And we condone this kind of actions.......teach your children that they come from the monkey and they will act like a monkey!
Yearning for Zion? I think these guys are yearnin'' for a little something else.
Posted by whatinthewld at 10:06 AM
Oh, that''s truly pathetic.
You can''t be legally married to an adolescent teen, so, in the eyes of the state, they cannot be married. I think 16 is the limit with parental consent, and a lot of those marriages took place beneath that limit, and are, therefore, invalid in the eyes of the State (the only eyes that REALLY count).
And even if the marriages WERE valid, you''re saying that that is somehow better than remaining single people? Marriage is an institution, something good for some people, not as good for others. Some people shouldn''t get married - they don''t have the temperament or tolerance for it. Some people who aren''t married probably should be. But the point is this - marriage is a social tool, and whether or not it is a positive thing depends on the people in it, the institution has no inherent virtue in and of itself.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 8
- next
See all 351 Comments