[Lorianne]

These are divorced non-custodial parents fighting this fight. It's their right to frame the fight in terms of their needs.

Right. Obviously missing any reference to the obligations parents have for their offspring. You make my point for me. Without easy access to no fault divorce and slam dunk custody of the kids, families wouldn't be broken up by one spouse's whimsical desire to "spread their wings" or play the field.

Again, whether families are "broken up" or not is a separate issue from whether or not kids deserve support and care before or after. Children are owed these things regardless the marital situation. Divorce should not be cited as a "excuse" for parents not fulfilling their oblations towards their offspring. What you and Mr. Gay are attempted to do is create a diversion by doing is shifting the issue from the responsibilites of parents towards kids, to a secondary issue, one I might add does not even come into play in many many CS situations because the parents were never married to begin with.

In addition your charachterization of divorce is "whimsical speculation" in and of itself. However that is another topic entirely.

The point of conflating all these issue is so one can create an the illusion that parents' obligations towards their kids are somehow obviated by mitigating circumstances (even completely speculative ones). Interestig ploy but it doesn't fly for those awake and paying attention.

Parents are obligated to support and care for their offspring. Period. No ifs ands or buts. Otherwise you're setting up a framework by which parents can say "I don't think I'm being treated fairly by the co-parent so I'm going to take out my frustration on the kids. Using kids as pawns is a disgusting and cowardly way to deal with adult problems and frustrations, no matter how legitimate they might be.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"Obviously missing any reference to the obligations parents have for their offspring."

A "missing reference" in a statement of fact is a long way from callous disregard for one's offspring. We go through this every time you post to the divorce/custody/support threads. You assign nefarious motives and shirking of responsibility to any and every opinion/initiative/cause taken up by men. One is required to parse every word, then you call "foul" for said parsing. One of your most frequent complaints is against complainers. Yet when confronted with the fact that someone is going to the mat and doing something... you become..... a complainer!

These people are doing something about injustice against fathers. For the majority of them, it certainly is about access to their children. If this doesn't address your anti-male opinion that their agenda doesn't help all children is your problem, not theirs. These are a specific segment of the non-custodial parent population looking out for their rights so they can actually be parents, not indentured slaves. It was the government that separated custody and visitation issues from financial support as a way of growing the feminist agenda in law enforcement and social welfare bureaucracies. Don't go blaming the people who have to respond by attacking the issues separately.