Sunday, November 19, 2006

Equal protection under the law.

Entry for March 08, 2006

I can't help it. There's an article on Yahoo News today about a men's right's lawsuit. A man has filed suit complaining that being required to pay child support against his will violates his constitutional right to equal protection under the law when his girlfriend tricked him by telling him she was on the pill (when she wasn't) in order to have a child - and even admitted it in court!


Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer Wed Mar 8, 5:20 PM ET

NEW YORK - Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.

The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.


Well, you know what I am about to say.

The original first point of child support laws was for divorced or deserted married women not to be made destitute by their no-good husbands - no one at the time ever imagined the law would be applied to out-of-wedlock shacking-up, for the obvious reason that should be remembered here: A marriage contract is a contract to live together, have sex, and if necessary or desired, raise a family. Shacking up has NO SUCH contract. Obviously this isn't about rape or incest, so shut up already. This is about the 99.9% of unwed mothers who knowingly and purposefully have sex without a marriage contract and then are legally able to extort one after the fact (forcing him to pay child support), kill the child without the father's consent, or give away the child (by neglecting to mention it at all to the father, or even against his will in some states).

The man in this article is angry about being subjected to a fraud, as well he should be.

And if you know me, then you know I believe men should have an equal right to refuse to be a father, even against the mother's will. This isn't about forced abortion, so don't even go there - in my opinion, abortion for birth control and "convenience" should be illegal. This is about a man being able to walk away free and clear, the exact same choice that women have every day.

The law should be crystal clear - no marriage contract, no obligation for support. Period. That's equal protection under the law. If we have a legal right to decide not to be mothers (by whatever means), then men have a constitutional right to be able to decide not to be fathers - in absence of a pre-existing contractual obligation of marriage. Since in the past when men have presented the court with "contracts" signed by their girlfriends not to get pregnant or have a baby, the courts have laughed - the child support laws need to be specifically amended.

It is sad that parenthood now has to be reduced to a contractual agreement - but the feminists have made it this way, and this is the way it will have to be. The contracts, in the absence of marriage, need to be made legal and binding. And if there was no contract of any kind, the man should sign a statement saying he is refusing fatherhood - and be irrevocably stripped of his parental rights concerning the child. No child support, no say in the child's upbringing. It's a very fair proposition.

Of course, class, it won't make those powermongering feminazis happy - but since when did I ever worry about that?