Replies

The key point you mention is eliminating no-fault divorce. If that were ended, then the rest would become moot. Until that time happens, however, an undue and unfair burden is put on men. They are required to prove their innocence - and even then, they still get the shaft. I'm reminded, for example, of Marcia Clark who tried to get more money out of her ex-hubby for child-support even though she made twice as much as he did.

>>>>They are required to prove their innocence <<<<<<

Prove their innocence of what?

A child born (or adopted) of a legal marriage is the LEGAL child of both partners in that legal marriage.

I do not believe biology should be allowed to trump the law.

That means a man who divorces his legal wife cannot divorce his legal children, regardless of the biology.

And bio parents should not be able to interfere in the legal marriage or upbringing of a child they knowingly or unknowingly contributed DNA too.

I think the law should trump biology. The problem has come with the courts granting extra or non legal rights to women with illigitimate children. This further weakens the importance and value of marriage, which is why it has become treated as a disposable convenience rather than an enforceable legal contract.

What should be ended is the granting of "palimony" and child support of illegitimate children.

Won't ever happen, because the feminazi's and the support collection system and the social workers have a very vested interest in the status quo.

But putting legal children on the same footing as illigitimate children and forcing them to also fight for the right to support based on biology rather than the law is not the way to increase "fairness" or to strengthen marriage.

The Paternity Fraud movement is fighting the wrong fight, IMO. They should be fighting to restore the legal value of marriage and the stigma of illegitimacy.

i.e. support of legal children is mandatory and based on law and support of illegitimate children is optional and based on biology.