Dad regards pledge case as his 'duty'

The Sacramento Bee ^ | 7/16/2002 | Jennifer Garza

[Utah Girl]

Of all the names he's been called in the past few weeks -- and there have been plenty -- Mike Newdow can't quite understand how someone could call him a bad father. Or a traitor.

Newdow is the Sacramento man who challenged the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- and won.

[flyervet]

Feminazis are women who think that men have no value beyond their financial contribution to their children. That is exactly what we seem to have here- a woman who has so little regard for her child's relationship to her father that she moves 3,000 miles away from him but is content to take nearly double his income in child support.

If the mother of Michael Newdow's child had legal standing to prevent him from being part of his daughter's life, don't you think she would have filed charges against him? Don't you think if she had anything beyond "Gee, he's just not an individual I particularly like," she would be putting on a performance for the media? Get real.

I suspect that if it weren't for the fact that Michael Newdow is an outspoken atheist you would be appluading his efforts to be a father to his daughter.

[flyervet]

He still has a daughter that he is bending over backwards to be a father to. Just because he doesn't want a relationship with the mother of his child doesn't mean he doesn't have a daughter.

I think anyone who uproots his entire life and moves 3,000 miles to be near his daughter and who pays nearly double his income in support qualifies as a good father. Your standards would seem to be so high that I doubt anyone would pass muster in your eyes.

[flyervet]

Michael Newdow uprooted his enitre life to move 3,000 miles to be near his daughter. I don't know what he would have done had the mother of his child chosen a different place to live, but then, I also don't know why the mother of his child chose this particularly place to live. In other words, isn't it funny how the mother of Michael Newdow's daughter moved 3000 into the lap of the 9th Circuit?

[rkrtgw]

From what I seen, read and heard about this it appears as though N is using his Daughter to advance his political agenda......I would like to know how all the Newdow defenders can actually try to put up such a defense. According to FOX news this morning Newdow tried to sue President elect Bush to remove "GOD" from the presidential oath and is going to try again. These actions are showing he has some sort of problem with God and is trying to solve it through the courts

[flyervet]

Stalking his own child? Yeah. Sure.

Unfortunately for your argument, being obnoxious is not grounds to terminate parental rights.

[rkrtgw]

I agree with your argument on Fatherhood being demeaned. BUT I think your choosing the wrong guy to defend.

[flyervet]

No, Newdow gets scorned by me NOT because of his atheism (I sorta agree with him, frankly), but because he is a sick, stalking freak with no standing.

I am not psychic, as you are apparently, but he certainly does have standing. See Doe v. Madison School District 321 and Grove v. Mead School District 354.

The good part is that an astute judge will suspend his visitation altogether. I would.

Actually, an astute judge will probably listen to both parties instead of jumping to a conclusion based on emotion. I don't know what that conclusion may be, but considering the fact that the mother of Michael Newdow's child is obviously a bitter and angry woman when it comes to the father of her child, I find it difficult to believe that she hasn't previously sought to prevent his interaction with the child.

[flyervet]

Of course, flyervet is obviously a misogynist with a few "issues", and probably thinks all custodial mothers are whores, getting rich beyond their wildest dreams on child support.

Please. Most custodial mothers are honorable women who abide by their agreements to visitation and sharing custody. Unfortunately, most men are woefully lax when it comes to fulfilling their responsibilities toward their children. When a man comes along who is so obviously bending over backwards to do the right thing for his child, I think he should be applauded, not lambasted.

You're really relying on the ad hominems on this thread. Maybe you need to switch to decaf?

[flyervet]

Wow, you really have a problem with fatherhood, don't you?

Some men certainly do act as sperm donors, but that is clearly not Michael Newdow. In any event, a child gets one father and while that father may be far from perfect, he is an important part of the life of that child. He is more than a wallet with legs and when the father realizes this, and lives up to and beyond his commitments, he should be applauded, not lambasted.

[flyervet]

So the mother doesn't like him. Big deal. When you have a child with someone, the decision has been made as to who the parents of that child are. You can't change the fact simply because you aren't crazy about that person anymore.

Once again, being obnoxious is not grounds to terminate parental rights. If the mother has a legitimate complaint, let her bring it. If she does not, then don't interfere with the child's relatioship with her father.

[flyervet]

I call them like I see them. Many men don't live up to their responsibilities as fathers and that's a tragedy. Here is one man who is living up to his responsibilities, whatever else he may be. Please don't tell me that I have to wait until a perfect man who just happens to have custody issues comes along; that simply won't happen.