Fathers' Rights and the Marriage Movement, Part 3

Men's News Daily ^ | October 6, 2003 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

MND Roundtable Discussion on
Fathers' Rights and the Marriage Movement

---

ROUND THREE: October 6, 2003
Roger F. Gay

introduction part 1 part 2

In relation to my comments, Tom Sylvester asks what “fundamental rights” have been wiped out? I can respond in relation to child support reform, but have also noted that the problem is broader and broadening with the help of the Marriage Movement. Literally, in relation to domestic relations law, parents are being denied constitutional rights; all constitutional rights, both those explicitly stated (like due process / "rule of law") and those derived from explicit rights and constitutional limits to government power (what we know as freedom).

Family law is no longer subject to the constitution because it has been recast by Congress as social / economic policy. Economic policy (taxes, prime interest rate, money supply, etc.) and so-called "social policy" are subject to a very low standard of constitutional review because they relate to collective rather than individual concerns. Noncustodial parents have not had difficulty arguing the merits of constitutional cases aimed at overturning the new laws but it has not mattered because judges, who now treat family law as social or economic policy, respond by claiming that parents have no constitutional rights.

The problem is not limited to Bill of Rights questions. The requirement of separation of powers between branches of government is also violated by the new domestic relations regime. Ordinary process of law, requiring judicial review of individual cases in view of facts, has been replaced by presumptive law (specific outcomes defined en masse by legislatures) subject to review by politically appointed committees that are often joined by members of state legislatures, representatives from child support enforcement, and others who profit from the new arrangement.

In real life of course nothing is more personal than family. Congress does not have the legal authority to eliminate fundamental rights by redefining reality, especially in areas like family law where it does not have authority to regulate to begin with.

Rebecca O'Neill raises such interesting questions that I find myself wishing we had planned a longer discussion with longer articles. I might still have a chance to address some things in the next (and last) round that I have so far left behind. Some social conservatives argue that extending family rights to unmarried fathers would reward men for irresponsible behavior. Should we be focusing on moral rather than legal rights?

Activist social conservatives of the sort Rebecca mentions are not political conservatives. They are people who will not acknowledge the fundamental rights of others. By and large, their intentions are not honorable; a fact that should not need to be explained in the modern world where we have formally defined defenses against intrusive and manipulative behavior.

"Responsible fatherhood" is a code name for child support enforcement. Fathers are told to cough up as much money as possible and - if they are good little boys - they might be able to see their children. Overall, child support practices have beome so heinous that some fathers have actually died from them because they are no longer able to support themselves.

Rebecca's questions are worthy questions. We would be an advanced and civilized society indeed if we would all grapple with them honestly. Personally, I would rather be building than battling. Just now, circumstances imposed by people Stephen Baskerville rather glibly calls "busybodies," call for a basic defense of human rights. We have no choice but to fight the good fight, for the sake of ourselves, our children, and our children's children ... The fight has been defined for us. We didn't start it.

I agree that the moral dimension is extremely important but must point out that false morality became the excuse used to defend immoral policies after the facts and logic used to establish them were discredited. Those of us who were focused on domestic relations reform noticed the transition. It was obvious to anyone who was really paying attention. Arguments that are incompatible with objective reality are being played as moral arguments.

For those who were not paying such close attention, the question should be restated. What moral edict calls for the elimination of basic legal rights? Since there is only one round left in this discussion, I will give my answer now: There isn't one.

Roger F. Gay

---

Discuss this article at the MND Forum

---

Roger F. Gay is well known for his research on and critisism of child support guidelines and child support policy as well as his reporting, analysis, and commentary at Men's News Daily. He contributed expert testimony in a federal case on child support guidelines, has submitted testimony to Congress on child support numerous times over the past decade, and has advised child support guideline review committee members in several states.

[Orangedog]

What was the pathfinder board?

[Orangedog]

Women don't have a legal right to end a pregnancy because a baby will cost them money.

Uh, no. Women have a legal right to an abortion for any reason they want. Society has decided men's role in procreation is to support the woman and child, if the mother bears the burden of childbirth.

Gee, too bad the father doesn't enjoy any of the "rights" that "society" has assigned to the mother. There are no room for his rights...he gets all the responsibilities. How convenient. Why don't you just come out and admit that, to people with that attitude, men are nothing more than a check in the mailbox every payday.

Men in these threads don't seem to understand that women have a deeper biological tie to their children than men.

This "deeper biological tie" ends when the child is born. Everything after that is either emotional, instinctual, or a combination of the two and is in no way superior or inferior to that of the father.

His drive is to experience the pleasures of sex...

No, women don't want any part of that, do they? Your statement is sexist.

[SarahW]

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the basis of the law.
She "gets to" weigh the risks and benefits, but only because the pregnancy affects her physical person.

A woman is also obligated, as is a man, to provide for her born and living children.

Men do not get all the responsibilities. Women have more, in my view.

And there you go again, completely discounting the more intense biological ties between mother and child.


Women can only produce a relative few children. The resources they must devote to produce children far outweighs that which a man must invest.

Every human society recognizes that women need male support and protection of law because of this disparity.

Women's bodies and brains are also affected at birth and during lactation. Call it instinctual, but these hormones create stong biologically based attachments. The hormones actually change the brain.

Men and women share generally equivalent genetic ties with their children. They both share a similar interest in that regard. CHildren can be likened to a quiverful of arrows to be shot into the future, as it were.

But women and children share more than that. Each pregnancy leaves cells from the mother, with HER DNA, in the child.
Each pregnancy leaves cells of the child behind in the mother's body, where they will persist til the end of the mothers life.

Men have a drive to spread their seed, and they do not have the phsycical consequences to themselves, as women do, to constrain it.

The law constrains it, as it should, for the benefit of society.

You better believe that in matters of reproduction, I'm sexist. This happens to be one area of life where sex is of ultimate importance.

[Orangedog]

Obviously, you are unfamiliar with the basis of the law.

Obviously, you have not bothered to read the Supreme Court's decision in Roe V Wade. Their decision was based mainly on an interpretaion of the 4th amendment that invalidated all state laws at that time based on the right to privacy that they found under said amendment. A woman need state no reason under current law as to why she wants an abortion. And matters relating to the "health" of the woman can be defined as anything from anxiety on up.

A woman is also obligated, as is a man, to provide for her born and living children.

Perhaps by the letter of the law, but hardly in it's application. Failing to meet what is deemed to be a responsibility under law has penalties. Does the costodial mother risk losing her drivers license if she doesn't spend child support money on the child? No. Does she have her wages garnished to make sure that she does? No. Can she have her bank accounts seized if she fails to spend the support money on the children? No. Can she be jailed for repeatedly spending the support money on anyone other than the children? No. The only realistic sanction she can face is loss of custody, which occurs very rarely.

And there you go again, completely discounting the more intense biological ties between mother and child.

Those debateable "intense biological ties between mother and child" would be exclusively the mothers and are cannot be proven to be tied directly to the child she gave birth to. There have been children switched at birth in the nursery and the mother never knew the difference. Instinct and emotion told those women to care for the child they thought was theirs. Mitacondrial DNA is not a factor in this process, as it pertains only to ancestry. It takes DNA from a mother AND a father to produce offspring. The fathers DNA is no less or more vital. And in this entire process, no "intense biological ties between mother and child" impact on the health or wellbeing of the child, other than possible inherited traits from BOTH biological parents. To say otherwise ignores proven science and the love and devotion of the millions of adoptive parents who raise children who were not born to them. But it does give some emotional leverage to those who would try to elevate the role of the mother over that of the father.

Men have a drive to spread their seed, and they do not have the phsycical consequences to themselves, as women do, to constrain it.

And the logical line of thought in that argument would also dictate that women have a have a drive to receive that seed regardless of the known physical consequences to themselves. Otherwise the human race would have died out thousands, if not millions of years ago. Logic doesn't descrimnate.

The law constrains it, as it should, for the benefit of society.

Under current law, illegitimacy and single parent homes have grown enormously. These laws have flourished under emotion, not demonstrated fact. One would have to at acknowledge, at the very least, the possibility that these laws and public policy of the government that supports them have harmed society.

You better believe that in matters of reproduction, I'm sexist. This happens to be one area of life where sex is of ultimate importance.

I'll let that statement collapse under it's own lack of a rational foundation.

[RogerFGay]

If this were truly a "fair" society, and we keep abortions for women, we would have abortions for men.

I think that's the argument made by journalist turned radio talk show host Glen Sacks.

[RogerFGay]

http://www.pathfinder.com/pathfinder/index.html

Pathfinder was part of a web site system put together by Time and some other large media concerns. They hired full time monitors who policed the discussions with extreme left wing bias. -- well really they seemed like young pot smokers who didn't have a clue what was going on in the real world. Keep in mind as you read this that this was back in the days when extremist left wingers could enforce their positions against anyone by characterizing any disagreement as "offensive to women." (I think the internet world has become someone saner since then, since reasonable people have created their own environments and abandoned the original PC hell holes.)

One of the monitors stalked me through the discussions for a couple of weeks trying to intimidate me into accepting feminism ... that's about the closest I can come to accurately describing it.

I eventually got tossed out of the forum, mostly because I disagreed with a Republican. Odd, you might think, given the leftist bias of the monitors -- but no, it made perfect sense in context. The monitors would not allow independent disagreement based on facts. If disagreement with their positions was not a matter of pure partisanship, it violated the rules. So, another monitor showed up and stalked me for several days trying to get me to understand what he found obvious -- that it didn't make any sense for me to disagree with a Republican after I had disagreed on many occassions with Democrats -- proof in his opinion that I'm a completely unreasonable guy.

BTW: The monitor who stalked me because feminism is not my religion was fired when one of his bosses looked in to what was going on in the forum.

The idea that I was "outed by a user with the screen name SherrieG" is an urban myth that I hadn't heard about until now. But I sort of remember SherrieG, and it would not surprise me if she started the rumor. She was just the kind of person who would have been trying day after day to get rid of anyone who didn't agree with her -- you know the type. As is also typical, she was never able to present a logical argument without lying, so she never had any credibility.

[RogerFGay]

Women don't have a legal right to end a pregnancy because a baby will cost them money.

That isn't true to begin with. Women have a right to abortion. They aren't required to give reasons to a review panel or a court. Abortion is used more often as birth control than any other reason; whenever women think having a child would be inconvinient for any reason.

[independentmind]

Society has decided men's role in procreation is to support the woman and child, if the mother bears the burden of childbirth.

So you think that society decided this? There's a lot more biology to it than you may think.

[independentmind]

If you're really serious about defending the family, you will tackle the issue of no-fault divorce.

Otherwise, you will look like a man whose main interest is himself.

[fml]

--Under current law, illegitimacy and single parent homes have grown enormously. These laws have flourished under emotion, not demonstrated fact. One would have to at acknowledge, at the very least, the possibility that these laws and public policy of the government that supports them have harmed society.---


Heard an interesting study the other morning on FOX. Men who have only dauaghter(s) are more likely to divorce as well as men who know before hand of the sex of an unborn child to be male are more likely to marry their partner. More fatherless homes to girls, more divorces to mothers of daughters. These fatherless along with all the other fatherless families no doubt lead to continuing problems for society.

[fml]

--Society has decided men's role in procreation is to support the woman and child, if the mother bears the burden of childbirth.....

So you think that society decided this? There's a lot more biology to it than you may think.---


Of course biology is what starts the whole situation, but it has been a societal decision for the man to support and protect the mother and child

[independentmind]

Of course biology is what starts the whole situation, but it has been a societal decision for the man to support and protect the mother and child.

Are you saying that men aren't designed to support and protect the mother and child?

I would suggest that those traits are the defining characteristics of manhood. The "feminization" (and I disagree with that characterization) of our culture that so many men complain about has much to do with the fact that men have walked away from their responsibilities. That's why we have so many perpetual adolescents disguised as adult men in this country.

[fml]

Physically protect, yes. But emotionally and financially protect and support I would agree with you that is should be a defining factor of manhood which historically society has deemed to be natural. I agree with you too with respect that men walking away from their responsibilities is why we have so many adolescents disguised as adult men. To be fair, too many girls grow up to be adult brats for many of the same reasons.

[William Terrell]

About 50% of the babies born are male, and women are the only portal through which a new life can be brought into the world. This gives men an interest. If women bore female children and men bore male children your argument might make sense.

Plus, it is been widely know in history that a nation of people has a vested interest in perserving intact families.

I don't know why any man thinks he is entitled to get a woman pregnant and walk away if he is sick of the woman or wants to move on.

Since the "nofault" divorce addition to state laws, the vast majority of those that initiate the divorce, or just leave, are women. So, you statement here is untrue because it uses the wrong presumption in it.

[RogerFGay]

I remember SherrieG now. She was one of a trio that spent several months shreaking nasty personal comments in response to everything I wrote. She and the other girls tried over and over again to get me kicked out of discussion forums by .... not difficult to guess .... lying about what was going on in the discussions, but they were never successful. On a few occassions, I had to straighten things out with a forum monitor, but it wasn't hard. The thing about discussion forums is everything is in writing. Everything is in the written history. One trick I remember well, was when they responded with quote, then altered the quote to say something other than what I originally said ... another was to report me purely on the basis of what someone else said in response to me (proof that respondent felt "offended.") The quality of these tricks, given the obvious fact that they won't work in a discussion forum, indicates the level of intellect.

[Orangedog]

Heard an interesting study the other morning on FOX. Men who have only dauaghter(s) are more likely to divorce as well as men who know before hand of the sex of an unborn child to be male are more likely to marry their partner. More fatherless homes to girls, more divorces to mothers of daughters. These fatherless along with all the other fatherless families no doubt lead to continuing problems for society.

Yes, I saw that hatchet job on fathers while Cavuto was on vacation. Thier "research" showed that marriages were more likely to break up if the married couple had a daughter instead of a son. The guest presented ZERO information about who ended the marriage and Cavuto's substitute just carried on like it was the father filing for divorce and leaving, when it is a fact that women file for divorce more than 2/3's of the time. It's kind of hard for the father to stay in the home when the mother evicts him via divorce.

[Orangedog]

Of course biology is what starts the whole situation, but it has been a societal decision for the man to support and protect the mother and child

Not entirely accurate. "Society" has decided to "protect" the mother by giving her a default protected class status in the practice of (anti)family law. They decided that it's the mans job to "protect" the mother, on the mother's terms. When she says it's time for the father to go, he goes, period, as she is almost guaranteed to be awarded custody. The father's role is then dictated to him on her terms and she has the power of the industry to back her up. And under her terms, his role is financial...His right to be with his children is secondary at best...he is to pay up and shut up.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Orangedog/RogerFGay,

You both make excellent, and correct, points. Thanks for covering things while I slept al weekend... :)

In my opinion, and based on most studies, abortion is birth control. It is fact that abortion kills a baby. Abortions should not take place because of this. If we are to keep abortions legal men should have equal protection under the law and should be able to decide whether the baby will be an inconvenience for him or not. If so... he has an abortion and never has to worry about the baby, or legal ramifications of the woman deciding to have the baby, in the future. This would be "equal rights." This would also stop the vast majority of abortions because women would keep their legs closed until they found a man who would not (likely) abandon her and the baby. But, the "women's rights" blatherers don't want the problem corrected. They want sex with no consequences...

[SarahW]

It's irrational to pretend men and women are the same in terms of reproduction.

[SarahW]

"you have not bothered to read the Supreme Court's decision
in Roe V Wade"


I am very familiar with Roe v. Wade and it's legal underpinnings. The "right to privacy" flows from the fact that it is *her* physical person at stake. In matters of the physical person, the highest expectation of privacy is employed. It colored the structure of Roe V. Wade, about when and if the government had enough compelling interest to override the expectation of privacy.