Replies

My problem with the paternity fraud movement is that it wants to ignore (or do away with) the legal realities of marriage.

In fact legal marriage, not bio-paternity should determine what legal rights (support) a child is entitled to.

I am however, all for ending child support for illegitimate children. I would not require men, biologically related or not to support children born out of wedlock. Of course, I would also not allow them any parental rights either.

Men who want parenting rights will have to marry to get them. AND women who want to be single moms should do it on their own, without demanding financial support from her "sperm donor"

And men and women, adults responsible for thier own behavior, can just quit whining about fairness and live with the consequences of their choices.

Restoring the power and the benefits of marriage would go a long way to restoring social and family health in America. I would also end no-fault divorce as long as minor children are in the home and weight any settlement in a "faulted" divorce in favor of the aggreived party.

(not that I expect to be made Queen of the Universe, or anything, but the more "fixes" the gov't, the courts and the liberal social advocates try to apply to our dying culture, the worse they make it.)

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.

I am however, all for ending child support for illegitimate children.

Here's the rub with your standpoint: If a woman, unbeknownst to her husband, conceives a child with another man, and the husband (upon discovering the affair) terminates the marriage, the husband is still required to pay support for the child.

Just being married gives the patina of legitimacy to a child, but this patina is currently construed to mean that the child is the husband's responsibility. Given that child support is often used as a punitive measure (even when the wife leaves the husband), how is making one man pay for another's proclivities - in defiance of the moral (if not legal) contract between the husband and wife?

I agree that no-fault divorce is an abomination. But so is enforcing legal obligations on a man as a direct result of his wife's breakage of their wedding vows.