Legal Tragedy for Unemployed Divorced Men & Fathers

[ImFightingMad]

I am writing this to make this Legal Tragedy better known and also in hope that someone could help the thousands of us in this tragic situation.

Like many Americans at this time, I have been laid off. This in itself is bad enough for most Americans, but those of us that have been divorced face a Legal Tragedy that is against The Constitution and all moral concepts. Men are almost exclusively affected by what I am about to tell you. This shows the discrimination of the courts and the laws in this country.

Since I have been laid off, I am only “earning” unemployment insurance, which is only 16.6% of my previous gross income. I therefore cannot pay the alimony and child support that the courts ordered in my divorce in Florida. I do not even have enough money for my own expenses. The courts in Florida are looking at finding me in contempt of court because of non-payment. They would therefore put me in jail along with countless others for the same reason. This makes no legal or moral sense in many ways:

1. If I was still married and got laid off, would the courts care, of course not! The family would have to do what they could to survive. But, since I have been divorced, and there is no relationship anymore, I’m supposed to support them over supporting myself, otherwise go to jail. How does this make any logical, moral or legal sense? Why is it that since I am divorced I have a greater financial responsibility than I ever did when I was married? Why should all of my rights be taken away because I am unemployed now, and yet my ex-wife is suppose to maintain the same or better lifestyle as when I was employed? This again, would not be the case if I were still married. This shows that divorce laws take precedence over basic human rights and are stronger laws than marriage itself, which is a bond with God.

2. If I’m in jail, how am I supposed to find a job? After being in jail, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to ever find a good job again!

3. This type of incarceration was abolished with the 13th Amendment. Which prohibits Involuntary Servitude. Also 8 USCA-56 prohibits Peonage.

Why should my life and other’s be completely destroyed just because we were ever married and now unemployed?

Isn’t the fact that I, and many others have lost our jobs enough of a tragedy in itself? How does completely destroying the rest of our lives solve anything? In this situation, what could any of us ever do to help ourselves?

I was extremely involved in the 2000 Presidential election, supporting George Bush. I lived and worked in Austin, Texas, but I was still a registered voter in Florida. The government and country that I so dearly loved and put so much energy into, has now let me down.

Please Help!

[moondancer]

Thanks, I did:)

[Gracey]

You should have kept your pants on.

You are a first rate A$$hole and turd. I know this person. He's a decent man. Now go wash your mouth.

[familyop]

...good move, especially if you're in a California-like
school district. The reason I usually avoid the word,
"oppressed" in my writings is that it was so overused
by socialists and their victimology friends (e.g.,
feminists). I was mistaken at calling it a word of
"linguistic activism," as it is an older word.

"Sexism" is from linguistic activists, though. ...thought
its roots should be analyzed and more publicized. ;-)

As for the "free love" ushered into our country by the
likes of Anthony and her friends (Woodhull and others
who pushed it while Anthony defended it for them), it's
old, and weirdo writers like Hawthorne did much to
publicize it in seductive ways, but I'm going to spend
the rest of my life trying to take it down. ;-)

[null and void]

but watch out for the ones who were lurking ... and registered at this site only yesterday.

Welcome to FR BTW...

;^)

[moondancer]

Thanks:)

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Okay , well I never used the word that much, but now I will never use it again, in your honnor. I understand the hesitation for this group, but it has been a long time comming.

The feminists have done such great damage to our boys and to our families, that I am not surprised to see the passion that some men feel in defending themselves and reclaiming their self concept.

[moondancer]

well is time, really this time to cook dinner. thanks for those who were so kind.
family op...i wasnt aware that we had men sites and womens sites on FR...in all the years ive read the news here i never heard of any such thing. ill keep that in mind next time thou! nighty all:)

[cherry]

moondancer.....I have been on FR well before DITHF fiasco...which has been a "while"....

the nastiness you are seeing is really very new, the last year anyway....

there seems to be a lot of people with "issues" that they bring here and it does come out as a severe bitterness, especially against women....

please keep posting....if only to balance out other viewpoints.....

[mlmr]

She didn't have any thing to do with feeding clothing or putting them in schoool? She popped them out and you stepped in totally? I am impressed....and brutal.

[familyop]

"i did not leave for frivilous reasons, i was threatened with my life among other things, i did my best to stick it out, i did not leave to "find myself" or because i was "bored". i was not a "feminist" ever. i may have married a liberal, but..."

See post 516 again. And remember, my hide, rhetorically
speaking, is like that of an iguana. That's why the
opposition calls me "mean, old ___." I bring out the worst
in 'em. It's been part of my work to do so for many
years.

[familyop]

"in all the years ive read the news here"

That's funny. I tend to look at everyone's cool profile
Web pages here. Some only arrived yesterday. They have
dates on them...need to do something with mine, BTW.

[Z in Oregon]

On any thread like this, some posters will spitoon forth the line, "He should have kept it in his pants".

In reality, it takes two to tango. Thus, these situations have to be framed as a question of comparing the rights/responsibilities of the man/father to the rights/responsibilities of the woman/mother.

Given that almost all children are conceived thru consensual relations, both men and women...equally...should "keep their pants on" if they are unwilling to accept responsibility for any children which may be conceived from a given coupling.

But family courts do not apportion rights and responsibilities equally between women and men: quite the contrary.

Men, without fault on their part, are routinely stripped of their right to live with their children...routinely stripped of their right to parent.

They are then forced to pay their ex-wife...who is held unaccountable in every way...to raise the children that were taken from him by an entirely Marxist system.

How can such bias, such destruction of families, such a war on fatherhood, possibly be good for society?

It cannot be. Quite the opposite: by depriving men of the right to be fulltime fathers to their own children, the courts are depriving men of their only reason to care about the future.

Such deprivation is the central reason why the West is dying...fatherhood was its foundation, and fatherhood is being killed: literally, biologically, by abortion, and in the of-the-raising sense by the alliance between left-wing feminists and matercentric "traditionalists" who in tandem marginalize fathers rights to raise their own children and demonize those fathers presumptively, without care for objective truth, as "deadbeats", "hounds", et al

[StatesEnemy]

Brilliant post.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

It makes me crazy to think of anyone having their relationship with their children ruined by such nonesense.

I really feel for these men. They must feel helpless and hopeless. The women's movement put emphasis on father's sharing the duties of raising children. Now we have men who openly care for their own kids... and the system takes the kids away like the men are invisable. It is bad for the Dads and the kids.

First thing I am going to tell my boys for the birds and bees talk is to make sure the bee has her head on straight. How scary.

[shaggy eel]

,,, post #532 is 100% on the nail! Well said.

[4Liberty]

Hi Everyone!,

I haven't been hiding, - I've been working... I'm not a feminist, I'm a Libertarian. My husband has Parkinson's Disease so I know about having a sick spouse at home.

I suggest you all read a book: 'From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies & Social Services, 1890-1967.' It describes a time PRIOR to New Deal dem. social services & no-fault divorce, when local, faith-based groups dealt privately and humanely with family problems - including unemployment, break-ups, illness, and orphaned/poor children. (Chapter 6, "The Child City" is the most interesting.) These societies were voluntarily formed and carefully run throughout the United States. Poor, middle class and upper-middle class folks formed and joined them. 95% of blacks vigorously joined them over the period, esp. in urban areas. Sometimes they were church-based, sometimes not. These organizations (e.g., Modern Woodman of America, the House of Ruth, The Odd Fellows, The Loyal Order of Moose etc.) became very popular and served as economic "insurance" and mutual assistance and were active at solving community problems. A lot of "moral suasion" was used (something Liberals today disparage as 'judgmental') to monitor members and keep people from cheating the organizations, gaming the system (malingering at work), drinking too much, etc.

Schools were set up, money was paid out to families in need, funds were moved from one fraternity to another where things were especially difficult around the country.

We need to return to that very efficient private sector 'support system.' Today we have a Welfare State - and liberal "values" which encourage sexual "freedom," divorce on Demand, out-of-wedlock births as a "life style choice," and single-parenthood "choice." This is wrong, and it's COSTING ME MONEY!!

I know I sounded harsh. But I am sick up to here hearing about the high divorce rates, birth rates at a young age (before you have human capital & edn.), etc. Sure, women should bear some of the cost -- but someone should STAY HOME and raise the Kids too! People want it all; they can't HAVE it all. I know things don't always go as planned. We need to speak up against the Dems blathering about 'non-judgmental life styles' - and speak loudly in favor of hard-core self-responsibility and values, and NEVER let up that pressure.

I live in California - we have a 38 billion deficit. Do you know how it became so big? We have to pay for K through 12 services. "K" standing for kindergarten. Honestly: why am I paying for someone's kids' kindergarten (babysitters). It's become a comfortable a hammock, not a 'safety net.' The Calif dems in the teacher's unions have been pushing public day-care programs, now. Is there any end, here?

Kids ARE expensive -- more and more expensive. I'm tired of paying. If people want em, they should pay for em. Take care, to "shop" wisely for a good loyal spouse, work hard TOGETHER, and pay for all the expenses we KNOW will happen.

I'm sorry you have to pay for your kids & wife -- but the REST of us are kicking in the K-12 Costs! Can WE whine too?!? I DON'T want to PAY! Many folks say public education services don't cost us money, -- they in fact benefit society. This is false. Each teacher needed in the classroom.... is one LESS chemist, technican, or medical scientist in a lab doing research to cure cancer or develop a vehicle that runs on solar cells. Kids are great; but they put a drag on technology, R&D and growth. We need to acknowledge this trade off, and choose wisely how many kids we are going to have. Kids take more years of training as well. It takes MORE years of training - at bio/genetic-engineering - nowadays ....to GET another bushel of corn off the land... & feed another person. It isn't enough just to 'rotate' your crops and flick the bugs off the plants... that was fine in the 1700s.

I think it's very irresponsible that some of you seem to be whining that 'we can't let third-worlders & immigrants' do all the breeding, and that society (others) should somehow be responsible for your various child-reproduction costs. That was a breathtaking - and immoral - statement. There should be a limit to charity -- and that goes for US citizens, and for immigrants (esp. illegal immigrants, who don't pay Income taxes). Everyone should pay for their own progeny, if they choose to have them. Have 7 or 8, if you'd like! Outstanding!! :)

Well, good luck in court. Thanks for a lively discussion.

[icu2]

Simulate "witness protection program" Your children are grown and can do as they like.
Or get a bunch of like minded fellows together and form some sort of action to remind the powers that be that this is still a goverment " of,by,and for the people" I hope that is the order. Any way lobby for a law that is more equeal.

[farmfriend]

Brilliant post.

Yes, brilliant post.

[natewill]

Good thing 4liberty is freakin' perfect. Sheesh. Probably never made a mistake in her life.

[4Liberty]

Gee, thanks for that interesting response.
:(p