That is patently untrue!
Prior to 1972, single men or men who were married to someone other than the mother of the child in question were frequently adjudged to be the "father" and thus liable for child support. There are many, many cases of pre-1972 women suing, e.g., Hollywood celebrities for support for their (the men's) putative offspring.
This acted as an inducement to get married before having children.
That statement doesn't make sense. How would not being held liable (prior to 1972) encourage men to marry the mothers of their children?
Regards,
You make a good point about paternity suits. They were around.
However the statement “This acted as an inducement to get married before having children” seems to me to make perfect sense.
In the same way that the 1960’s supercharging of preferential and “per child” welfare for unmarried women with children undercut the structure of the American family...
...if a woman must marry a man in order to be assured of financial support from him, it encourages the woman to NOT have sex and get pregnant until the man demonstrates his committment to their family through marriage.
It was one more thing encourging marriage and families that was intentionally broken, mostly by “Democrats,” in the 1960’s.
You may both be right. The laws differ from one state to another -- especially then, where more local control of social issues was more the norm than subsequently.
What I said was "states COULD make only married fathers be liable". Some states (e.g. Texas) did so. Other states made the biological father liable regardless. What the Supreme Court decision did was to forbid states from making illegitimate children ineligible for child support.