Fake Conservatives Push Same-Sex Marriage Agenda

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | September 9, 2008 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

It may be time to re-evaluate your wisdom if you've ever said that all's fair in love and politics.

One good thing you can say about Michelle Obama is that she comes right out and says it. An Obama presidency would mean repeal of the Defence of Marriage Act and streamlining adoption for same-sex couples. A more sinister side of the policy debate involves where some of those children will come from – fit and loving natural parents who want to raise their own children. The idea is being pushed by people playing a conservative values game. ... cont.

[EyeGuy]

“Fake Conservatives”

Plenty of those on FR lately.

Easy enough to flush out though...they don’t like blunt, direct talk.

[goldstategop]

No true conservative believes in perversion and the rejection of moral absolutes as the foundation of our country's cultural life.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[caseinpoint]

Here I thought registries of putative fathers was intended to prevent a woman from claiming she didn’t know the father and putting it up for adoption without his consent. At least that’s how it was to work in other states. If a man thinks the mother won’t put his name on the birth certificate willingly, he has the right to make a declaration in court claiming paternity but it also entails being responsible for child support should the mother decide to keep the child. Hence, a lot of putative fathers don’t register or they don’t have enough of a relationship with the mother to even know she is pregnant. Either way, it isn’t a gotcha or tell-all sort of registry, it’s something that the court must search before approving an adoption which lacks the father’s consent.

[Chode]

filthy disease ridden queers strike again...

[RogerFGay]

There's a lot of anti-fathers' rights stuff now being sold as pro-fathers' rights stuff. It's become standard politics. Continuous extentions to child support enforcement for example (one of the most corrupt programs the US has ever created) have been sold as part of a pro-"Fatherhood" pro-family agenda for about a decade.

[RightWingTeen]

Now, I believe GAYS should have the benefits of marriage (like lower taxes) and they should ADOPT older kids, but they should not be married.

[RightWingTeen]

No true conservative believes in perversion and the rejection of moral absolutes as the foundation of our country's cultural life.

I am a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, and I believe that the GOVERNMENT should NOT be in the bedroom of CONSENTING ADULTS!!

[CitizenUSA]

Perhaps the government shouldn’t be in the bedroom of consenting adults, but that doesn’t mean it has to endorse and subsidize what goes on within that bedroom. Does it?

[xmission]

Now, I believe GAYS should have the benefits of marriage (like lower taxes)

I do too, if they happen to be married to the opposite sex.

[LearsFool]

Fake social conservatives have found their way into conservative discussion forums and they’re up to no good.

Are you talking about me and Dr. Sivana and our discussion this morning, Roger? If you are, you're a liar, fella:

A more sinister side of the policy debate involves where some of those children will come from – fit and loving natural parents who want to raise their own children. The idea is being pushed by people playing a conservative values game.

You wrote that post on MDN late this morning, then posted it here this afternoon? When you add the "(Vanity)" tag to it, be sure and add a "/slander" tag too.

Oh, and grow up.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm curious: Do you think that two men (or two women) who are NOT a sexual couple, but who live together and have a shared domestic set-up --- two adult sisters, for instance --- should also have the benefits of marriage (like lower taxes, co-coverage on health insurance, Social Security benefits, exemption of estate taxes in the event that one or the other dies?

Why or why not?

[caseinpoint]

I will agree that the courts are biased against fathers, clearly, but I don’t think the registry is really part of that. In fact I suspect most mothers would prefer it didn’t exist but it is there to protect the rights of the putative father, not deny them. Its purpose is to permit the man to claim paternity and give information on where he can be reached on matters of custody and adoption. On the backside it is also a way to be contacted for child support so it is a two-edged sword but there is nothing unfair in having a father support his child, any more than having the mother support her child.

[RogerFGay]

There was a huge transformation of marriage and family law in the early 1990s, so things probabaly don't work the way you think they do generally. In fact, they don't work the way most people expect they must generally - and that's why misrepresentations are so easy.

In the early 1990s, a federal court decision reclassified marriage and family law - from civil law to social policy. Social (or economic) policy is the classification for such things as welfare entitlements. They are strictly political controlled. Civil rights are non-existent. From there, marriage and family laws have been transformed such that they are presumptive. Things that you, and everyone else who thinks ordinary civil rights - due process - still operate in marriage and family law - would also imagine are not merely illogical and improbable - but possibly impossible under Constitutional law.

Presumptions favor bureaucracy and state power, and the political agenda. They have nothing to do with anything that makes sense to normal people.

There is an enforcable presumption that the father has waived his parental rights if he didn't register the sexual activity. It's like when someone sends you an advertisement that says - if you're not ordering this product - send the response card, properly filled out, within the time limit - otherwise you'll have to pay for the product. Or like doing the same thing - and if you don't comply with stated requirements - you automatically forfeit your home, etc ....

[caseinpoint]

It is true that law operates of what we might consider irrational presumptions and paternity rights are included in some of those presumption concepts. However, the registry exists to protect the father’s rights. If you know or reasonably suspect you have fathered a child and you are not willing or able to marry the mother before birth and suspect the mother will not deign to put your name on the birth certificate, then the registry exists to stake your claim to paternity rights. The presumption as to waiver probably differs from state to state but I believe there is an exception against waiver if the father can prove he had no reason to suspect the mother was pregnant with his child until after birth. Otherwise, the presumption probably should apply: if a father doesn’t care enough about the relationship to make a formal claim, then why should the court be required to hunt him down before proceeding on an adoption? It’s not as though it’s a public proclamation of sexual adventure. It is a private document kept in the court to be examined in the event a child belonging to the woman named in the claim notice is put up for adoption. I have done adoptions before and I remember a time when there was no such thing as a registry and if a man was not married to the mother, his rights were almost always automatically terminated. The registry stopped that automative waiver.

[RogerFGay]

Presumptively waiving parental rights means that the father’s parental rights will not be recognized even if he chooses to assert them. It is logially impossible for a presumptive waiving of parental rights to be protection of parental rights. You are arguing the purpose of the presumption is exactly the opposite of the effect of the presumption.

[caseinpoint]

I didn’t say the presumptive waiver of rights is protecting parental rights. The registry is intended to protect parental rights. Failure to use the registry means parental rights are usually waived. Usually a failure to say “yes” means a presumed “no” and that is the case here. It imposes on the father an affirmative duty to stake his claim to parental rights and, if he fails to do so, the court won’t bother hunting him down. There is nothing illogical about that. Any father can protect his rights by registering his interest in a child born to such-and-such a woman and, I believe, he would also have a right to prove he isn’t the father in cases of questionable parentage. Before the registry, father had fewer rights than they do today.

[RogerFGay]

I didn’t say the presumptive waiver of rights is protecting parental rights

Then why are you arguing against me for saying that the presumptive waiver violates parental rights? I know - you're assuming the rights would be set aside or waived anyway, but you still haven't addressed the situations in which fathers assert parental rights. If their rights were not presumptively set aside, they would have parental rights and could assert them. When they are presumptively set aside merely because the sexual activity was not formally registered with the state ... I'm repeating myself. You're not addressing the situation in which the father wishes to assert parental rights and isn't hiding.

BTW: Most of the time, tracking down fathers isn't really all that hard when the mother cooperates. If the mother decides to keep the child, it's routinely done to enforce child support. States have lots of machinery - almost more than the defense dept. - for tracking down fathers. For some reason, states never assert that financing systems for doing that are a waste of effort and investment.

[RogerFGay]

ddd

[An American In Dairyland]

ddd

Roger, you rang? Or is the above some sort of code?