Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven
|
|
| Sunny Days in Heaven Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven |
|
|
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 Men's Rights Dan Walter's has this headline to his column in the Sac Bee today: "Men gain a rare victory in political gender war as DNA bill passes" and a few paragraphs from the article state: The men won a rare skirmish in the state Assembly on Tuesday when it voted 51-3 to make it easier for men to challenge child-support orders when DNA tests prove that they are not the biological fathers of the children involved. The measure is backed by men's rights groups, and advocates, including its author, Assemblyman Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles, said it was a matter of fundamental fairness, likening it to DNA tests that free wrongly convicted prisoners. But critics said it would plunge more children into poverty, and Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, said it would resurrect the "age-old double standard." The Wright bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate, and even if it clears that hurdle, an uncertain fate in Davis' hands. He's quite aware that he needs female voters to win re-election. The Libertarians may love this idea, but there are overwhelmingly good reasons why the laws of States recognized that the children born in wedlock were the legal children of the male partner. It's not an issue that gets solved by DNA tests. Many men were away from home for long periods and came home to children they had obviously not fathered. It didn't matter, they were the responsible paternal parent under the law. Why? Because the most important person in this matter is the child, not the father's rights. Children need a father whether natural or not. The State presumed (in a sense) that the child is not to suffer for the sins of his parents. Also that each parent chose the other - they made their bed, they each had to lie in it. If one chose unwisely in a mate, the children shouldn't have to suffer for it. This new law would say, tough luck kids, your mom's a whore, your dad's a heartless bum, you're on your own. Many of these non-bio-dads have often been the caring father for a number of years before they discovered their wife's sin. They get outraged, divorce the mom, and want to throw away the child who dumbly believes his male parent is his daddy because he dearly loves him and is absolutely bonded to him. But sweet dad is furious over being the cuckold and wants to punish any or everyone he can for his hurt. This is terrible for children. Better an adult should swallow his pride and care for another's offspring than that a child should be called a bastard. Of course, that idea prevailed when we were a more (evil) Christian society. Now secular charity demands that the innocent suffer more than the guilty and the responsible. I hope this bill does not pass. It is the epitome of selfishness and cruelty. posted by Mark Butterworth | 11:41 AM | |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
