The Federal Marriage Amendment - Fathers' Rights Activists Weigh In

The Federal Marriage Amendment - Fathers' Rights Activists Weigh In

by Art Lemasters

December 11, 2003

FamilyOps.us - Some advocates of libertine doctrine among us oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Federal Marriage Amendment clarifies, even enough for judges to understand, the obvious intent of those who wrote and signed the founding documents of the U.S.A.

    Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union
    of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the
    constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be
    construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents
    thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

The Amendment should prevent third parties from getting involved in custody fights against fathers. It's obvious that the same Amendment should keep many fathers from being cheated by "common law marriage." With the Amendment in place, fewer men should be bound to fund the destructive frolics of disloyal women who pretend commitment. We know that cohabitation situations are more often weaker and shorter in duration than marriages.

"Should" is written so often in the previous paragraph, because we must also join conservatives in the fight against judicial activism if we want to see the intent of the Constitution obeyed by judges. Needed pickets against the destruction of fatherhood--like the Marriage Amendment--and against the activism of the social left will only slow pigs who render pearls and will not stop them, unless we follow through. Our founders did not intend for us to support "alternative" forms of family that erode real families by offering more third-party and illegitimate marriage ammunition against fathers in divorce courts. We should oppose efforts to destroy the family and fathers--not support them. The "shoulds" can be "woulds" if we'll have the sense to know what will or will not support fatherhood.

The National Organization for Women, the homo-sex lobby and other anti-family advocacies oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is because they are against the solid interpretation of our founders' intent offered by the Marriage Amendment, and they are against fatherhood.

For more than 100 years, federal and state governments have made laws, the collective effect of which could eventually be the destruction of family. It's obvious that we, unfortunately, also have some aversion against working toward having the legislatures repeal bad laws. Where is the interest in repealing laws that are destroying families and fatherhood? We aren't seeing any such sincere interest, while we do see too much interest in equality or equity laws for supporting divorce and single life to make us more comfortable in divorce and less subject to real responsibility. If our legislators are too vain to repeal bad laws, we will give them a chance to put a new confirmation of the tenets of our Constitution to work, and that is the Federal Marriage Amendment.

It's time for more in the fathers' rights movement to grow up enough to stop supporting the divorce industry at joining feminist efforts for "men's lib" to liberate us all from marriage. It's time for us to take the moral high ground to protect traditional family structure. Without family, there is no context for fatherhood or motherhood. Without family, the government will take custody of all the chilren, sooner or later. It's time for us to stop listening to propaganda from left-liberals and the anarchists who recruit the ignorant to assist in anti-family divorce industry efforts.

As for the complaining about "politics," we desparately need to get involved in politics. Without doing so, we won't have a chance to repeal bad legislation. We haven't done so to date, because leftists and various shades of the Libertinarian Party (incorporates "libertine," also known as the Crack Whore Anarchist Party) continue to con fathers out of getting politically active enough to promote good legislation in favor of fatherhood and family. It would be more possible for us to assume much of the administration of a political party that is already strong than it would be for us to get anywhere by simply opposing conservative politics. If a few more of us would get involved, we could expose feminists and have them tossed out of our nation's lawmaking for a great part of the time.

Our days of libertinian emasculism, sado-masculism, foreskinism and other crazy, anti-family distraction and divorce industry efforts are over, thank goodness. We can be the most respected family rights activists known, and we can begin to take our rightful place in the legislative efforts of the U,S.A.

We can help to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment as a hedge against judicial activism and against feminist efforts to destroy men. We can oppose judicial activism, which has been a major force against fathers. We can win if we will have the humility and wisdom to criticize our own efforts and think about what those efforts might accomplish or destroy in the future. We can save fatherhood and the rights of our grandchildren by a greater consciousness of what we are doing, and by getting active.

E-mail your comments.

Without family, there is no context for fatherhood or motherhood. Without family, the government will take custody of all the chilren, sooner or later.

This is what the country wants. Everyone says just the oposite, but it's really what they want. That's why none of these laws have ever, and never will be, taken off the books. There's the marxists on the left who have gained all the political power from destroying the family. They like the way things are going.

The snobs on the right, who are just as happy to blame fathers in every divorce, are no better. After all, none of this can ever happen to them, right? Now that the homosexuals want a piece of the marriage game (that they are not entitled to, btw), all of a sudden the Right is all worked up. But they still don't want anything to do with the father's rights crowd. The Right just sees them as "a bunch of deadbeats that don't wanna pay child support." All the Right wants is for these fathers to just shut the hell up so they still have someone to blame. The threads on this site are rife with that attitude.

So let them go ahead and pass whatever "defense of marriage" amendment they want. The courts on all levels will ignore it anyway. Just take a look at what happened to the first amendment this week. It became too "inconvenient" so they gutted it like a trout. This new amendment will be no different. Besides, none of the other constitutional protections apply in "family" court anyway.

"Can you tell me where that intent is stated in our founding documents?" That's the most common straw man presented by liberaltarians. Official Libertarian Platform http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/ It's getting old, so I'll hand it back to you. Can you tell me where the founders wrote an intent for us to allow our neighbors' unregistered immigrant slaves to load 50 caliber machine guns while injecting cocaine and seducing kids into prostitution? Our founders' didn't write any specific intent to prevent any abominable acts of perversion, but that wasn't because they wouldn't have stopped such deeds. People were punished severely for those things during the time of our founders.

"So let them go ahead and pass whatever "defense of marriage" amendment they want. The courts on all levels will ignore it anyway." First, there's a difference between a law (US code) and a constitutional amendment. I find it hard to believe that the writers who say that the Amendment won't succeed don't know the difference between a law and a constitutional amendment. They know good and well that an amendment will stand and that the Marriage Amendment might be another nail in the coffin of judicial activism. Also, the Freepers have been far more supportive for fathers' rights than the liberaltarian and Democrat subverters who control various parts of the so-called men's movement. Conservatives here have reacted with very positive replies and information to everything reasonable that I've posted on the rights of fathers and on what has happened to families. They've had far more interest in the work to expose the truth about early feminism than fathers' rights activists have. As for your story about disdain from this site (which I seriously doubt if you're sincere about the rights of fathers), see what kinds of reactions you get from a Democrat forum. The burned out old, left, divorce lawyer, hippie and anti-family contingent repeatedly ruining fathers' rights efforts wants me out. Fine. I'm out, and thanks for flaming the "right" here, as it exposes and establishes the opposition point of view in this thread. I'm in better company now. Kids need moms who are women and dads who are men, living with and loving each other. Without families, the government will be the only father to all.

Sorry about the formatting in that last attempt. ...busy here! Here's a repost.

Orangedog wrote:

"So let them go ahead and pass whatever "defense of marriage" amendment they want. The courts on all levels will ignore it anyway."

Then I wrote:

First, there's a difference between a law (US code) and a constitutional amendment. I find it hard to believe that the writers who say that the Amendment won't succeed don't know the difference between a law and a constitutional amendment. They know good and well that an amendment will stand and that the Marriage Amendment might be another nail in the coffin of judicial activism.

Also, the Freepers have been far more supportive for fathers' rights than the liberaltarian and Democrat subverters who control various parts of the so-called men's movement. Conservatives here have reacted with very positive replies and information to everything reasonable that I've posted on the rights of fathers and on what has happened to families. They've had far more interest in the work to expose the truth about early feminism than fathers' rights activists have. As for your story about disdain from this site (which I seriously doubt if you're sincere about the rights of fathers), see what kinds of reactions you get from a Democrat forum.

The burned out old, left, divorce lawyer, hippie and anti-family contingent repeatedly ruining fathers' rights efforts wants me out. Fine. I'm out, and thanks for flaming the "right" here, as it exposes and establishes the opposition point of view in this thread. I'm in better company now.

Kids need moms who are women and dads who are men, living with and loving each other. Without families, the government will be the only father to all.

"...but absurd statements like "the obvious intent of those who wrote and signed the founding documents of the U.S.A." lose all credibility for the author."

If a demand for legalizing homosexual marriage had come before our founders, the person who brought it up would have been punished by our founders, obviously. Haven't you read Early American History? ...think our founders were a bunch of hippie freaks who thought anal sex was okay? ROFL! They would have put the language into an amendment, just as we are about to do, if they had needed it.

And "Lazarus long?" ROFL! ...any Winnie-the-Pooh quotes to go with that?

This is a subject that gets the better of me every now and then. Tonight seems to be one of those times. I don't have any disdain for the site, just the rather large cadre of sphincters who come down on divorced dads who have legitimate complaints like a ton of bricks. I gave the right a little more heat than I really wanted to. It's just that when the defense of marriage stuff starts, they refuse to even consider the fact that marriage wouldn't need a group of defenders if they had not stood by and watched (and sometimes even supported it) while the divorce industry and the marxists turned the institution into a bad joke. I've had it with the bullsh*t "deadbeat" label that we got saddled with in the 90's. If we're not being called deadbeats by both sides, we're accused of just wanting to be manipulative. And the courts have shown complete and utter disdain for the constitution and the Bill of Rights in the past 30 years. If the courts refuse to acknowledge wording like "congress shall make no law..." and "shall not be infringed" then what's going to stop them from ignoring yet another amendment? All of the domestic relations courts operate in the universe of all custody cases being a matter of public policy and therefore not subject to protections afforded us under the Constitution in every other court. Fathers are the red-headed step-child of politics and the defense of marriage crowd have made it pretty clear that there isn't going to be a place for us at the table when it comes to drafting any amendment.

If anyone here took anything I wrote personally, I'm sorry for that. It's just that this whole thing has somehow made me really touchy on this subject.

" I gave the right a little more heat than I really wanted to."

Thank you for representing us well in that last reply. I see what you see with regards to Republican politicians (especially Senate) who passed Democrat floored bills to crush fathers, separate them from their children, and to entice wives to divorce. When all that was happening, most people had no clue as to what was really happening in divorces or why so many divorces were happening.

But I also know which organizations are in the Republican Party for the purpose of using it to destroy fathers and families. One of those organizations is exposed behind a link in the last part of the Susan B. Anthony series. I also know that fathers' rights conservatives, for the most part, haven't lifted a finger to speak to our politicians. They do what they are told to do by their constituents. The anti-family hold on the Party will break when enough conservative fathers' rights activists start acting properly and get involved. Very few fathers' rights activists have even tried to write a few letters to our representatives. We don't even have a body count, because anti-family leftists have stepped in to take over every organizational effort.

Your identity is a mystery to me. Most likely, though, you know who I am and what I stand for.

Liz Kates and her friends are terrified of seeing us involved with Free Republic or the Republican Party, and for good reason. She ranted about fathers' rights activists being involved with Free Republic and has a link to "Freepstakes," a diatribe against this site, this organization, and its supporters.

...same with the Hollywood/left bunch who come with money and pretend to be friends when they see us starting to get somewhere. Before you know it, they've made what began as a good effort look like a San Francisco leather parade.

God bless you with wisdom and capability in your efforts. I will move on, having had enough of the FR rumor mill, pecking order, tactical ignorance and struggles with those who come to destroy the effort. It took too much time--eight years to move it to the right at all. Nine years ago, it was nothing more than a collection of anti-father subverters and the poor dupes who came to them for help. If they want me back, they are more than welcome to ask. Humility is the first attribute of strength in this work, by the way. You showed that in the message this is in reply to.

And as for politics, yes, I'm a Republican and have been for a long time. For those of us who sought hard to find the truth, it wasn't so difficult to see what Hillary, Donna, and their friends would do in office. We knew Perot's agenda, and we knew that Alan Keyes wanted fathers "caned" for getting behind on alimony/support. Yet so many dads continued to help split the vote for those freaks. It's not difficult to see as to which party is bright and educable.

I'm one of the guys he disagrees with. My guess is that his article is a response to mine.

Why I Oppose The Federal Marriage Amendment

I think what mainly motivates the proposal is that it will delay discussion, avoiding debate on family issues during the election year. Art Lemasters seems to think that since homos are against it, we should all automatically choose this particular alternative as the right choice and support it as our sworn duty as members of another politically defined group. That seems like the kind of thinking I discouraged as being leftist in:

What have Republicans done for us lately?

"Art Lemasters seems to think that since homos are against it, we should all automatically choose this particular alternative as the right choice and support it as our sworn duty as members of another politically defined group."

Do you have any idea of how transparent that statement is in a conservative forum?

You were very good at work on child support guidelines, which are also part of government tampering efforts against families. ...not to mention that the alimony/support industry costs taxpayers far more than it yields. But in a conservative forum, your arguments against the Marriage Amendment appear to be an effort to isolate us from efforts in conservatism for fatherhood, and an effort obvious to general interest conservatives at that.

I meant what was written in the rebuttal in that we don't need more third parties (lesbian "partners" with runaway wives, for example) fighting against dads for custody. And common law marriage is an injustice against all. The homo-liberaltarian effort against the Marriage Amendment is an effort against dads.

Also, the government's been involved in family matters all along--not just a 1/4 century. The government has been perpetuating divorce since sometime in the 1800s. That's also in a few of the documents behind the links in the Susan B. Anthony series. IIRC, the best interests of the child doctrine was finally used around 1920, 1921 or so. Susan B. and her friends pushed for all of that much earlier. Stanton wrote to promote no-fault divorce.

The Republican Party did not start the homo-sex marriage thing, much less start it to hold fathers back. Cathy Young was one writer who promoted it quite some time ago, though, and her work has been getting special reverence on the front page of MensNewsDaily for quite a while.

The Republican Party hardly knows that we exist, because so few of us bother to talk to its politicians or organizers. What publicity they do see is that associated with policies like Farrell's--gun control, instituting homosexual marriage, government in schools to teach parents how to communicate with their children, etc. And as for the organizations pretending to represent us all--the NCFM being one of several? Those few former Hollywood actors, psychologists, libertinarian feminists and lawyers in those several organizations do not represent most us.

Conservative fathers' rights advocates have been pushed out of organizations and publications by such insidious anti-fatherhood forces for too long, but it's not over, yet.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.