Lifestyle Support

[The Dave©]

Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

[Lecher9000]

>Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
>a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
>government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
>government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
>lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
it is to brainwash people.

Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

[Lecher9000]

>Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
>a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
>government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
>government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
>lifestyle for them, it is their "right".

I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
it is to brainwash people.

Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

[Kenneth S.]

Lecher9000 wrote:
>
> >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
> >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
> >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
> >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
> >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
>
> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
> just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
> it is to brainwash people.
>
> Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
> favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
receive it?

The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.

The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.

[Kenneth S.]

Lecher9000 wrote:
>
> >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
> >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
> >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
> >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
> >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
>
> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
> just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
> it is to brainwash people.
>
> Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
> favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
receive it?

The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.

The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.

[The Dave©]

> Lecher9000 wrote:
> >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is
> losing >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young
> adult sue the >government for financial support, citing the fact that
> since the >government made sure their father paid to maintain a
> certain level of >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
>
> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a
> "good and just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay
> it. Shows how easy it is to brainwash people.
>
> Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is
> always in favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

I could see it now. A kid , age 25, raised to be spoiled and lazy as
hell, loses their partents due to early death. They don't want to
work, so they sue the government claiming "When my parents divirced you
(the government) said that I was **ENTITLED** to live the lifestyle
that I had become accustomed to. No one else is willing or able to
provide it for me, so now you have to."

I know it'll probably never happen, but there are plenty of weird
lawsuits.

[The Dave©]

> Lecher9000 wrote:
> >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is
> losing >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young
> adult sue the >government for financial support, citing the fact that
> since the >government made sure their father paid to maintain a
> certain level of >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
>
> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a
> "good and just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay
> it. Shows how easy it is to brainwash people.
>
> Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is
> always in favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.

I could see it now. A kid , age 25, raised to be spoiled and lazy as
hell, loses their partents due to early death. They don't want to
work, so they sue the government claiming "When my parents divirced you
(the government) said that I was **ENTITLED** to live the lifestyle
that I had become accustomed to. No one else is willing or able to
provide it for me, so now you have to."

I know it'll probably never happen, but there are plenty of weird
lawsuits.

[Gini52]

In article >, Kenneth S. says...
>
>Lecher9000 wrote:
>>
>> >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
>> >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
>> >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
>> >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
>> >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
>>
>> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
>> just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
>> it is to brainwash people.
>>
>>Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
>> favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
>
> But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
>is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
>receive it?
>
> The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
>belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
>heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
>belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
>identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
>bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
>
> The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
>fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
>there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
====
Don't forget that there are a significant number of women supporters among your
ranks and they are not all second wives. My concern is partly (maybe even most
significantly) drawn from the perspective of a mother of many boys. However,
anyone who has been around here for a while knows as well, that there is a
substantial percentage of men who are "non-supporters." The gender lines aren't
so cleanly drawn--It is simply not a situation of men v. women.
===
===

[Gini52]

In article >, Kenneth S. says...
>
>Lecher9000 wrote:
>>
>> >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
>> >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
>> >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
>> >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
>> >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
>>
>> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
>> just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
>> it is to brainwash people.
>>
>>Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
>> favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
>
> But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
>is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
>receive it?
>
> The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
>belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
>heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
>belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
>identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
>bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
>
> The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
>fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
>there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
====
Don't forget that there are a significant number of women supporters among your
ranks and they are not all second wives. My concern is partly (maybe even most
significantly) drawn from the perspective of a mother of many boys. However,
anyone who has been around here for a while knows as well, that there is a
substantial percentage of men who are "non-supporters." The gender lines aren't
so cleanly drawn--It is simply not a situation of men v. women.
===
===

[TeacherMama]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message >...
> Lecher9000 wrote:
> >
> > >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
> > >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
> > >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
> > >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
> > >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
> >
> > I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
> > just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
> > it is to brainwash people.
> >
> > Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
> > favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
>
> But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
> is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
> receive it?
>
> The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
> belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
> heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
> belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
> identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
> bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
>
> The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
> fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
> there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.

So, Kenneth, do you think the masculinist movement will be more fair
than the feminist movement has been?

[TeacherMama]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message >...
> Lecher9000 wrote:
> >
> > >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
> > >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
> > >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
> > >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
> > >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
> >
> > I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
> > just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
> > it is to brainwash people.
> >
> > Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
> > favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
>
> But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
> is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
> receive it?
>
> The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
> belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
> heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
> belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
> identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
> bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
>
> The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
> fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
> there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.

So, Kenneth, do you think the masculinist movement will be more fair
than the feminist movement has been?

[Rambler]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message

> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> >...
>> Lecher9000 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is
>>>> losing
>>>> a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult
>>>> sue the government for financial support, citing the fact that
>>>> since the
>>>> government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level
>>>> of lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
>>>
>>> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a
>>> "good and just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay
>>> it. Shows how easy it is to brainwash people.
>>>
>>> Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue
>>> is always in favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
>>
>> But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself:
>> what
>> is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
>> receive it?
>>
>> The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay
>> CS
>> belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
>> heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the
>> money
>> belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
>> identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
>> bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
>>
>> The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
>> fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
>> there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
>
> So, Kenneth, do you think the masculinist movement will be more fair
> than the feminist movement has been?

I don't think it is about fairness. I think it has more to do with the
pendulum theory of politics quite frankly. A situation existed at a certain
time. Due to the inequality of that situation, changes were pushed for,
causing the pendulum to swing to the opposite side. However, because so
much force was exerted on this pendulum to make it change, it swung way to
far to the other side. As it kept pushing at the outer reaches of its
limits, gravity exerted itself and begin to lobby to push it back the other
way. Now, because of the inequity in the distance that pendulum moved off
centre, the force being exerted to bring it back is growing and will most
probably be gigantic. That is unfortunate, because it will inevitably cause
the pendulum to swing back to the other side, still off centre and still too
much of an extreme. Only through a series of these moves (read several
generations) will the pendulum finally come to rest in the middle, and there
will be parity between feminists and masculinists (or whatever the correct
terms are). Just espousing my own political theories.

It is just ridiculous to me that most men enter this arena with fear and
dread of getting screwed, while it would appear that most women do not, but
approach it with fear and dread of not getting what they feel they justly
deserve. This says something about the (inherrent?) biases in the system,
me thinks.

Rambler

[Rambler]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message

> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> >...
>> Lecher9000 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is
>>>> losing
>>>> a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult
>>>> sue the government for financial support, citing the fact that
>>>> since the
>>>> government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level
>>>> of lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
>>>
>>> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a
>>> "good and just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay
>>> it. Shows how easy it is to brainwash people.
>>>
>>> Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue
>>> is always in favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
>>
>> But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself:
>> what
>> is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
>> receive it?
>>
>> The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay
>> CS
>> belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
>> heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the
>> money
>> belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
>> identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
>> bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
>>
>> The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
>> fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
>> there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
>
> So, Kenneth, do you think the masculinist movement will be more fair
> than the feminist movement has been?

I don't think it is about fairness. I think it has more to do with the
pendulum theory of politics quite frankly. A situation existed at a certain
time. Due to the inequality of that situation, changes were pushed for,
causing the pendulum to swing to the opposite side. However, because so
much force was exerted on this pendulum to make it change, it swung way to
far to the other side. As it kept pushing at the outer reaches of its
limits, gravity exerted itself and begin to lobby to push it back the other
way. Now, because of the inequity in the distance that pendulum moved off
centre, the force being exerted to bring it back is growing and will most
probably be gigantic. That is unfortunate, because it will inevitably cause
the pendulum to swing back to the other side, still off centre and still too
much of an extreme. Only through a series of these moves (read several
generations) will the pendulum finally come to rest in the middle, and there
will be parity between feminists and masculinists (or whatever the correct
terms are). Just espousing my own political theories.

It is just ridiculous to me that most men enter this arena with fear and
dread of getting screwed, while it would appear that most women do not, but
approach it with fear and dread of not getting what they feel they justly
deserve. This says something about the (inherrent?) biases in the system,
me thinks.

Rambler

[Kenneth S.]

With regard to Gini's point below, I'm aware that the lines are not
cleanly drawn. They almost never are in any public policy matter. I'm
also aware of the risk that stating this issue in terms of the sex of
those paying, and those receiving, the money may alienate women who
might be supporters of reform.

Despite this, however, my own view is that there is little hope of
reform until the gender issue is dragged out into the open. I also
think that it's very important to contrast what happens in this area,
where men are at a severe disadvantage, with what happens in other areas
where women are thought to be at a disadvantage. That's why I think
it's important to use appropriate vocabulary, such as talking about the
"glass ceiling" on paternal custody.

Right now, however, the supporters of the status quo try hard to
camouflage the gender issue. They realize very well that it won't look
good if people realize that this huge ramshackle "child support"
enforcement machine is, in reality, a way of forcing men to pay money to
women. So they insist on talking about custodial and noncustodial
parents, not mothers and fathers. And they like to pretend that the
money is owed to children, instead of the reality, which is that it is
owed to the mothers, and the mothers can spend it any way they want.

Gini52 wrote:
>
> In article >, Kenneth S. says...
> >
> >Lecher9000 wrote:
> >>
> >> >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
> >> >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
> >> >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
> >> >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
> >> >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
> >>
> >> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
> >> just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
> >> it is to brainwash people.
> >>
> >>Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
> >> favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
> >
> > But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
> >is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
> >receive it?
> >
> > The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
> >belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
> >heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
> >belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
> >identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
> >bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
> >
> > The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
> >fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
> >there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
> ====
> Don't forget that there are a significant number of women supporters among your
> ranks and they are not all second wives. My concern is partly (maybe even most
> significantly) drawn from the perspective of a mother of many boys. However,
> anyone who has been around here for a while knows as well, that there is a
> substantial percentage of men who are "non-supporters." The gender lines aren't
> so cleanly drawn--It is simply not a situation of men v. women.
> ===
> ===

[Kenneth S.]

With regard to Gini's point below, I'm aware that the lines are not
cleanly drawn. They almost never are in any public policy matter. I'm
also aware of the risk that stating this issue in terms of the sex of
those paying, and those receiving, the money may alienate women who
might be supporters of reform.

Despite this, however, my own view is that there is little hope of
reform until the gender issue is dragged out into the open. I also
think that it's very important to contrast what happens in this area,
where men are at a severe disadvantage, with what happens in other areas
where women are thought to be at a disadvantage. That's why I think
it's important to use appropriate vocabulary, such as talking about the
"glass ceiling" on paternal custody.

Right now, however, the supporters of the status quo try hard to
camouflage the gender issue. They realize very well that it won't look
good if people realize that this huge ramshackle "child support"
enforcement machine is, in reality, a way of forcing men to pay money to
women. So they insist on talking about custodial and noncustodial
parents, not mothers and fathers. And they like to pretend that the
money is owed to children, instead of the reality, which is that it is
owed to the mothers, and the mothers can spend it any way they want.

Gini52 wrote:
>
> In article >, Kenneth S. says...
> >
> >Lecher9000 wrote:
> >>
> >> >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
> >> >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
> >> >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
> >> >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
> >> >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
> >>
> >> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
> >> just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
> >> it is to brainwash people.
> >>
> >>Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
> >> favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
> >
> > But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
> >is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
> >receive it?
> >
> > The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
> >belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
> >heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
> >belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
> >identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
> >bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
> >
> > The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
> >fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
> >there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
> ====
> Don't forget that there are a significant number of women supporters among your
> ranks and they are not all second wives. My concern is partly (maybe even most
> significantly) drawn from the perspective of a mother of many boys. However,
> anyone who has been around here for a while knows as well, that there is a
> substantial percentage of men who are "non-supporters." The gender lines aren't
> so cleanly drawn--It is simply not a situation of men v. women.
> ===
> ===

[Kenneth S.]

With regard to your question below, TeacherMama, I see very few signs
of any significant masculinist movement developing. So for the moment
your question is academic.

Would men be more fair than women, if men started to speak up for their
own sex in matters where the interests of the two sexes are in
conflict? I think the indications are that they would. For example, as
a general rule, fathers have sought nothing more than effective joint
legal and physical custody, while the representatives of mothers are
seeking to protect the status quo, which is sole maternal custody. And,
more generally, the feminist movement achieved its present position
because, decades ago, men in positions of power were willing to agree
that women were not being treated fairly. On the strength of that sort
of thing, the indications are that the fair sex is men, not women.

Of one thing I am absolutely certain. Men will never be treated fairly
so long as, in Warren Farrell's words, "in the battle of the sexes only
one side shows up." The U.S. political and judicial system is
completely dominated by unprincipled and spineless individuals who see
their job as nothing more than pandering to special interest groups. In
that situation, heterosexual men had better have THEIR special interest
group.

TeacherMama wrote:
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message >...
> > Lecher9000 wrote:
> > >
> > > >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
> > > >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
> > > >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
> > > >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
> > > >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
> > >
> > > I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
> > > just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
> > > it is to brainwash people.
> > >
> > > Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
> > > favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
> >
> > But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
> > is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
> > receive it?
> >
> > The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
> > belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
> > heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
> > belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
> > identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
> > bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
> >
> > The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
> > fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
> > there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
>
> So, Kenneth, do you think the masculinist movement will be more fair
> than the feminist movement has been?

[Kenneth S.]

With regard to your question below, TeacherMama, I see very few signs
of any significant masculinist movement developing. So for the moment
your question is academic.

Would men be more fair than women, if men started to speak up for their
own sex in matters where the interests of the two sexes are in
conflict? I think the indications are that they would. For example, as
a general rule, fathers have sought nothing more than effective joint
legal and physical custody, while the representatives of mothers are
seeking to protect the status quo, which is sole maternal custody. And,
more generally, the feminist movement achieved its present position
because, decades ago, men in positions of power were willing to agree
that women were not being treated fairly. On the strength of that sort
of thing, the indications are that the fair sex is men, not women.

Of one thing I am absolutely certain. Men will never be treated fairly
so long as, in Warren Farrell's words, "in the battle of the sexes only
one side shows up." The U.S. political and judicial system is
completely dominated by unprincipled and spineless individuals who see
their job as nothing more than pandering to special interest groups. In
that situation, heterosexual men had better have THEIR special interest
group.

TeacherMama wrote:
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message >...
> > Lecher9000 wrote:
> > >
> > > >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
> > > >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
> > > >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
> > > >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
> > > >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
> > >
> > > I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
> > > just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
> > > it is to brainwash people.
> > >
> > > Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
> > > favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
> >
> > But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
> > is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
> > receive it?
> >
> > The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
> > belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
> > heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
> > belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
> > identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
> > bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
> >
> > The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
> > fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
> > there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
>
> So, Kenneth, do you think the masculinist movement will be more fair
> than the feminist movement has been?

[Lecher9000]

I see it as a problem of government being where it should not be. Thew govt
should not force money from either parent to the other parent. Having kids and
divorce and who pays for what kid is a personal choice of the parents, not the
govt. The whole CS system should be abolished.
If people divorce and both are so irresponsible that neither one
wants the kids, then, yes, foster homes and so forth (govt) would get
involved, as they should.

But having the govt force one parent to pay x amount to another for a kid(s)
is just plain wrong. It doesn't happen in a marriage, and it should not happen
after a divorce.

L

[Lecher9000]

I see it as a problem of government being where it should not be. Thew govt
should not force money from either parent to the other parent. Having kids and
divorce and who pays for what kid is a personal choice of the parents, not the
govt. The whole CS system should be abolished.
If people divorce and both are so irresponsible that neither one
wants the kids, then, yes, foster homes and so forth (govt) would get
involved, as they should.

But having the govt force one parent to pay x amount to another for a kid(s)
is just plain wrong. It doesn't happen in a marriage, and it should not happen
after a divorce.

L

[Gini]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> With regard to Gini's point below, I'm aware that the lines are not
> cleanly drawn. They almost never are in any public policy matter. I'm
> also aware of the risk that stating this issue in terms of the sex of
> those paying, and those receiving, the money may alienate women who
> might be supporters of reform.
>
> Despite this, however, my own view is that there is little hope of
> reform until the gender issue is dragged out into the open. I also
> think that it's very important to contrast what happens in this area,
> where men are at a severe disadvantage, with what happens in other areas
> where women are thought to be at a disadvantage. That's why I think
> it's important to use appropriate vocabulary, such as talking about the
> "glass ceiling" on paternal custody.
>
> Right now, however, the supporters of the status quo try hard to
> camouflage the gender issue. They realize very well that it won't look
> good if people realize that this huge ramshackle "child support"
> enforcement machine is, in reality, a way of forcing men to pay money to
> women. So they insist on talking about custodial and noncustodial
> parents, not mothers and fathers.

===
Then perhaps a good approach would be to start with the "micro" issues of
terminology.
Why not lobby legislators on these relatively benign (ie palatable)
components (understanding that
they are not benign to fathers but can seem benign to others)? Sometimes,
it is easier to tackle a pyramid by standing it on its head. Too, I have
noticed a substantial increase in father-friendly
advertising so things *are* moving in a positive direction. We have, I
believe, always agreed that a change in the courts would be precipitated by
a change in society. It is good that people are seeing fathers, via
advertising, in an important position in childrens' lives. Several months
ago I started a list of companies who run father-friendly ads so we could le
t the companies know we appreciate it, but I never finished the list (no
surprise there). Lately, there have been a lot more of those ads. I am not
of the opinion that we will see a cataclysmic change in family court. I
rather think that it will kinda sneak up on us.
===
===

[Gini]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> With regard to Gini's point below, I'm aware that the lines are not
> cleanly drawn. They almost never are in any public policy matter. I'm
> also aware of the risk that stating this issue in terms of the sex of
> those paying, and those receiving, the money may alienate women who
> might be supporters of reform.
>
> Despite this, however, my own view is that there is little hope of
> reform until the gender issue is dragged out into the open. I also
> think that it's very important to contrast what happens in this area,
> where men are at a severe disadvantage, with what happens in other areas
> where women are thought to be at a disadvantage. That's why I think
> it's important to use appropriate vocabulary, such as talking about the
> "glass ceiling" on paternal custody.
>
> Right now, however, the supporters of the status quo try hard to
> camouflage the gender issue. They realize very well that it won't look
> good if people realize that this huge ramshackle "child support"
> enforcement machine is, in reality, a way of forcing men to pay money to
> women. So they insist on talking about custodial and noncustodial
> parents, not mothers and fathers.

===
Then perhaps a good approach would be to start with the "micro" issues of
terminology.
Why not lobby legislators on these relatively benign (ie palatable)
components (understanding that
they are not benign to fathers but can seem benign to others)? Sometimes,
it is easier to tackle a pyramid by standing it on its head. Too, I have
noticed a substantial increase in father-friendly
advertising so things *are* moving in a positive direction. We have, I
believe, always agreed that a change in the courts would be precipitated by
a change in society. It is good that people are seeing fathers, via
advertising, in an important position in childrens' lives. Several months
ago I started a list of companies who run father-friendly ads so we could le
t the companies know we appreciate it, but I never finished the list (no
surprise there). Lately, there have been a lot more of those ads. I am not
of the opinion that we will see a cataclysmic change in family court. I
rather think that it will kinda sneak up on us.
===
===

[Melvin Gamble]

That is true, BUT...

Gini52 wrote:
>
> In article >, Kenneth S. says...
> >
> >Lecher9000 wrote:
> >>
> >> >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
> >> >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
> >> >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
> >> >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
> >> >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
> >>
> >> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
> >> just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
> >> it is to brainwash people.
> >>
> >>Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
> >> favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
> >
> > But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
> >is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
> >receive it?
> >
> > The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
> >belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
> >heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
> >belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
> >identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
> >bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
> >
> > The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
> >fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
> >there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
> ====
> Don't forget that there are a significant number of women supporters among your
> ranks and they are not all second wives. My concern is partly (maybe even most
> significantly) drawn from the perspective of a mother of many boys. However,
> anyone who has been around here for a while knows as well, that there is a
> substantial percentage of men who are "non-supporters." The gender lines aren't
> so cleanly drawn--It is simply not a situation of men v. women.

....if we hadn't spent the last 40 or 50 years teaching those same men
that they had no value as parents, they might be behaving differently.
In a way, as a society, you could say we got what we taught. And I
don't see the course material changing much...

Mel Gamble

[Melvin Gamble]

That is true, BUT...

Gini52 wrote:
>
> In article >, Kenneth S. says...
> >
> >Lecher9000 wrote:
> >>
> >> >Generally, the only thing that gets a government's attention is losing
> >> >a lawsuit. Given that, I'd almost like to see some young adult sue the
> >> >government for financial support, citing the fact that since the
> >> >government made sure their father paid to maintain a certain level of
> >> >lifestyle for them, it is their "right".
> >>
> >> I like the idea. It's amazing that child support is seen as a "good and
> >> just thing" by the average person who doesn't have to pay it. Shows how easy
> >> it is to brainwash people.
> >>
> >>Also amazing that any political attention shown to the CS issue is always in
> >> favor of those receiving the CS, not those paying it.
> >
> > But why should this be amazing? You simply have to ask yourself: what
> >is the sex of those who pay the CS and what is the sex of those who
> >receive it?
> >
> > The fundamental political reality in the U.S. is that those who pay CS
> >belong to one of the few remaining official scapegoat groups,
> >heterosexual males. In sharp contrast, those who are getting the money
> >belong to an official victim group, females, who constitute an
> >identifiable special interest group. Politicians, judges, and
> >bureaucrats want to pander to women, and are intimidated by them.
> >
> > The current imbalance will continue until a substantial number of
> >fathers are custodial parents receiving money from mothers, or until
> >there is a politically significant "masculinist" movement.
> ====
> Don't forget that there are a significant number of women supporters among your
> ranks and they are not all second wives. My concern is partly (maybe even most
> significantly) drawn from the perspective of a mother of many boys. However,
> anyone who has been around here for a while knows as well, that there is a
> substantial percentage of men who are "non-supporters." The gender lines aren't
> so cleanly drawn--It is simply not a situation of men v. women.

....if we hadn't spent the last 40 or 50 years teaching those same men
that they had no value as parents, they might be behaving differently.
In a way, as a society, you could say we got what we taught. And I
don't see the course material changing much...

Mel Gamble

[Kenneth S.]

Gini wrote:
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > With regard to Gini's point below, I'm aware that the lines are not
> > cleanly drawn. They almost never are in any public policy matter. I'm
> > also aware of the risk that stating this issue in terms of the sex of
> > those paying, and those receiving, the money may alienate women who
> > might be supporters of reform.
> >
> > Despite this, however, my own view is that there is little hope of
> > reform until the gender issue is dragged out into the open. I also
> > think that it's very important to contrast what happens in this area,
> > where men are at a severe disadvantage, with what happens in other areas
> > where women are thought to be at a disadvantage. That's why I think
> > it's important to use appropriate vocabulary, such as talking about the
> > "glass ceiling" on paternal custody.
> >
> > Right now, however, the supporters of the status quo try hard to
> > camouflage the gender issue. They realize very well that it won't look
> > good if people realize that this huge ramshackle "child support"
> > enforcement machine is, in reality, a way of forcing men to pay money to
> > women. So they insist on talking about custodial and noncustodial
> > parents, not mothers and fathers.
>
> ===
> Then perhaps a good approach would be to start with the "micro" issues of
> terminology.
> Why not lobby legislators on these relatively benign (ie palatable)
> components (understanding that
> they are not benign to fathers but can seem benign to others)? Sometimes,
> it is easier to tackle a pyramid by standing it on its head. Too, I have
> noticed a substantial increase in father-friendly
> advertising so things *are* moving in a positive direction. We have, I
> believe, always agreed that a change in the courts would be precipitated by
> a change in society. It is good that people are seeing fathers, via
> advertising, in an important position in childrens' lives. Several months
> ago I started a list of companies who run father-friendly ads so we could le
> t the companies know we appreciate it, but I never finished the list (no
> surprise there). Lately, there have been a lot more of those ads. I am not
> of the opinion that we will see a cataclysmic change in family court. I
> rather think that it will kinda sneak up on us.
> ===
> ===
I think you are right, Gini, in saying that there has been a very
slight movement in a father-friendly direction in such matters as
advertising. So far as I can see, this change has come not
spontaneously, but in response to pressure from men's and fathers'
groups. These groups have been far more successful in having an impact
on businesses than on government.

However, it will take far, far more pressure from fathers' groups to
have any impact on domestic relations law. One reason is that so many
areas in family law are zero sum games -- what fathers gain, mothers
must lose. Feminist organizations won't object to businesses stopping
the depiction in their ads of men as idiots needing careful supervision
by their wives. However, the feminists won't stand still for changes in
the law that would, for example, result in meaningful joint custody
arrangements.

Increasingly, I am persuaded that the solution will come, not through
changing government's impact on family matters, but from forcing
government to get the hell OUT of family matters. I would like to see
marriage privatized, and government involvement limited to the
enforcement of comprehensive prenuptial contracts that cover such
matters as custody of children if a divorce occurs. Paradoxically, the
best chance of this happening may be as a result of pressure from
homosexual rights groups. (Now THERE's a powerful special interest
group that has influence utterly disproportionate to their numbers.)

When the homosexuals agitate for the right to "marry" each other,
conservative religious groups may say that the right response is to let
anyone make any civil contract arrangement they want with any other
living entity, be it man, woman, groups of men or women, or pet
animals. And, as part of that change, government would cease to have
the right to say that it will decide the conditions of marriage and
divorce, and change those conditions -- retroactively, so far as
existing marriages are concerned.

[Kenneth S.]

Gini wrote:
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > With regard to Gini's point below, I'm aware that the lines are not
> > cleanly drawn. They almost never are in any public policy matter. I'm
> > also aware of the risk that stating this issue in terms of the sex of
> > those paying, and those receiving, the money may alienate women who
> > might be supporters of reform.
> >
> > Despite this, however, my own view is that there is little hope of
> > reform until the gender issue is dragged out into the open. I also
> > think that it's very important to contrast what happens in this area,
> > where men are at a severe disadvantage, with what happens in other areas
> > where women are thought to be at a disadvantage. That's why I think
> > it's important to use appropriate vocabulary, such as talking about the
> > "glass ceiling" on paternal custody.
> >
> > Right now, however, the supporters of the status quo try hard to
> > camouflage the gender issue. They realize very well that it won't look
> > good if people realize that this huge ramshackle "child support"
> > enforcement machine is, in reality, a way of forcing men to pay money to
> > women. So they insist on talking about custodial and noncustodial
> > parents, not mothers and fathers.
>
> ===
> Then perhaps a good approach would be to start with the "micro" issues of
> terminology.
> Why not lobby legislators on these relatively benign (ie palatable)
> components (understanding that
> they are not benign to fathers but can seem benign to others)? Sometimes,
> it is easier to tackle a pyramid by standing it on its head. Too, I have
> noticed a substantial increase in father-friendly
> advertising so things *are* moving in a positive direction. We have, I
> believe, always agreed that a change in the courts would be precipitated by
> a change in society. It is good that people are seeing fathers, via
> advertising, in an important position in childrens' lives. Several months
> ago I started a list of companies who run father-friendly ads so we could le
> t the companies know we appreciate it, but I never finished the list (no
> surprise there). Lately, there have been a lot more of those ads. I am not
> of the opinion that we will see a cataclysmic change in family court. I
> rather think that it will kinda sneak up on us.
> ===
> ===
I think you are right, Gini, in saying that there has been a very
slight movement in a father-friendly direction in such matters as
advertising. So far as I can see, this change has come not
spontaneously, but in response to pressure from men's and fathers'
groups. These groups have been far more successful in having an impact
on businesses than on government.

However, it will take far, far more pressure from fathers' groups to
have any impact on domestic relations law. One reason is that so many
areas in family law are zero sum games -- what fathers gain, mothers
must lose. Feminist organizations won't object to businesses stopping
the depiction in their ads of men as idiots needing careful supervision
by their wives. However, the feminists won't stand still for changes in
the law that would, for example, result in meaningful joint custody
arrangements.

Increasingly, I am persuaded that the solution will come, not through
changing government's impact on family matters, but from forcing
government to get the hell OUT of family matters. I would like to see
marriage privatized, and government involvement limited to the
enforcement of comprehensive prenuptial contracts that cover such
matters as custody of children if a divorce occurs. Paradoxically, the
best chance of this happening may be as a result of pressure from
homosexual rights groups. (Now THERE's a powerful special interest
group that has influence utterly disproportionate to their numbers.)

When the homosexuals agitate for the right to "marry" each other,
conservative religious groups may say that the right response is to let
anyone make any civil contract arrangement they want with any other
living entity, be it man, woman, groups of men or women, or pet
animals. And, as part of that change, government would cease to have
the right to say that it will decide the conditions of marriage and
divorce, and change those conditions -- retroactively, so far as
existing marriages are concerned.

[The Dave©]

> Rambler wrote:
> I don't think it is about fairness. I think it has more to do with
> the pendulum theory of politics quite frankly. A situation existed
> at a certain time. Due to the inequality of that situation, changes
> were pushed for, causing the pendulum to swing to the opposite side.
> However, because so much force was exerted on this pendulum to make
> it change, it swung way to far to the other side. As it kept pushing
> at the outer reaches of its limits, gravity exerted itself and begin
> to lobby to push it back the other way. Now, because of the inequity
> in the distance that pendulum moved off centre, the force being
> exerted to bring it back is growing and will most probably be
> gigantic. That is unfortunate, because it will inevitably cause the
> pendulum to swing back to the other side, still off centre and still
> too much of an extreme. Only through a series of these moves (read
> several generations) will the pendulum finally come to rest in the
> middle, and there will be parity between feminists and masculinists
> (or whatever the correct terms are). Just espousing my own political
> theories.

It's interesting you say this. I have used the pendulum example
before, too. I think it is right on target, but I do not think it will
ever settle in the middle. We won't allow it. I believe that it is
human nature to keep pushing beyond what is fair and reasonable and try
to get a leg up on the other side. We may rationalize that we are
making up for past injustices, or whatever, but we as people
(generically speaking) do not seem to have the capability to leave
"right" alone.

I think there is also another thing that hurts us, too. Have you ever
heard of a politician get in office then say "My predecessor was great!
I will do nothing and let his programs work their magic." Hell no!
They need to make a name for themselves and they will tweak and change
and stir up **** to do it, and it may not have anything at all to do
with what is right and wrong.

> It is just ridiculous to me that most men enter this arena with fear
> and dread of getting screwed, while it would appear that most women
> do not, but approach it with fear and dread of not getting what they
> feel they justly deserve. This says something about the (inherrent?)
> biases in the system, me thinks.

I think you're assessment of how men and women see it is accurate.
Years ago I considered teaching my boys to never have kids or get
married. I chose to not do that, but I do warn them of the realities
of the consequences of their potential actions.

[The Dave©]

> Rambler wrote:
> I don't think it is about fairness. I think it has more to do with
> the pendulum theory of politics quite frankly. A situation existed
> at a certain time. Due to the inequality of that situation, changes
> were pushed for, causing the pendulum to swing to the opposite side.
> However, because so much force was exerted on this pendulum to make
> it change, it swung way to far to the other side. As it kept pushing
> at the outer reaches of its limits, gravity exerted itself and begin
> to lobby to push it back the other way. Now, because of the inequity
> in the distance that pendulum moved off centre, the force being
> exerted to bring it back is growing and will most probably be
> gigantic. That is unfortunate, because it will inevitably cause the
> pendulum to swing back to the other side, still off centre and still
> too much of an extreme. Only through a series of these moves (read
> several generations) will the pendulum finally come to rest in the
> middle, and there will be parity between feminists and masculinists
> (or whatever the correct terms are). Just espousing my own political
> theories.

It's interesting you say this. I have used the pendulum example
before, too. I think it is right on target, but I do not think it will
ever settle in the middle. We won't allow it. I believe that it is
human nature to keep pushing beyond what is fair and reasonable and try
to get a leg up on the other side. We may rationalize that we are
making up for past injustices, or whatever, but we as people
(generically speaking) do not seem to have the capability to leave
"right" alone.

I think there is also another thing that hurts us, too. Have you ever
heard of a politician get in office then say "My predecessor was great!
I will do nothing and let his programs work their magic." Hell no!
They need to make a name for themselves and they will tweak and change
and stir up **** to do it, and it may not have anything at all to do
with what is right and wrong.

> It is just ridiculous to me that most men enter this arena with fear
> and dread of getting screwed, while it would appear that most women
> do not, but approach it with fear and dread of not getting what they
> feel they justly deserve. This says something about the (inherrent?)
> biases in the system, me thinks.

I think you're assessment of how men and women see it is accurate.
Years ago I considered teaching my boys to never have kids or get
married. I chose to not do that, but I do warn them of the realities
of the consequences of their potential actions.

[The Dave©]

> Lecher9000 wrote:
> I see it as a problem of government being where it should not be.
> Thew govt should not force money from either parent to the other
> parent. Having kids and divorce and who pays for what kid is a
> personal choice of the parents, not the govt. The whole CS system
> should be abolished. If people divorce and both are so
> irresponsible that neither one wants the kids, then, yes, foster
> homes and so forth (govt) would get involved, as they should.
>
> But having the govt force one parent to pay x amount to another for
> a kid(s) is just plain wrong. It doesn't happen in a marriage, and
> it should not happen after a divorce.

For the most part I agree with you, but I would not go so far as to say
government should never have anything at all to do with it. In a warm
and fuzzy world where all adults acted in a mature manner, that would
be fine. But, not all adults act as adults, and in times when petty
jealousies and the such are present, somebody has to step in and make
sure the basics are taken care of. The rest of us who are mature
adults need to make sure the government doesn't overstep it bounds.

[The Dave©]

> Lecher9000 wrote:
> I see it as a problem of government being where it should not be.
> Thew govt should not force money from either parent to the other
> parent. Having kids and divorce and who pays for what kid is a
> personal choice of the parents, not the govt. The whole CS system
> should be abolished. If people divorce and both are so
> irresponsible that neither one wants the kids, then, yes, foster
> homes and so forth (govt) would get involved, as they should.
>
> But having the govt force one parent to pay x amount to another for
> a kid(s) is just plain wrong. It doesn't happen in a marriage, and
> it should not happen after a divorce.

For the most part I agree with you, but I would not go so far as to say
government should never have anything at all to do with it. In a warm
and fuzzy world where all adults acted in a mature manner, that would
be fine. But, not all adults act as adults, and in times when petty
jealousies and the such are present, somebody has to step in and make
sure the basics are taken care of. The rest of us who are mature
adults need to make sure the government doesn't overstep it bounds.

[Freedom]

> sure the basics are taken care of. The rest of us who are mature
> adults need to make sure the government doesn't overstep it bounds.

The policies have only made society worse off than before, not better.

[Freedom]

> sure the basics are taken care of. The rest of us who are mature
> adults need to make sure the government doesn't overstep it bounds.

The policies have only made society worse off than before, not better.

[The Dave©]

> Freedom wrote:
> > sure the basics are taken care of. The rest of us who are mature
> > adults need to make sure the government doesn't overstep it bounds.
>
> The policies have only made society worse off than before, not better.

First, it is the responsibility of the rest of us that government not
make it worse.

Second, what do you suggest be done in the cases where one or both
parents cannot act in a reasonable and mature manner?

[The Dave©]

> Freedom wrote:
> > sure the basics are taken care of. The rest of us who are mature
> > adults need to make sure the government doesn't overstep it bounds.
>
> The policies have only made society worse off than before, not better.

First, it is the responsibility of the rest of us that government not
make it worse.

Second, what do you suggest be done in the cases where one or both
parents cannot act in a reasonable and mature manner?

[Lecher9000]

>
>First, it is the responsibility of the rest of us that government not
>make it worse.
>
>Second, what do you suggest be done in the cases where one or both
>parents cannot act in a reasonable and mature manner?
>

The same thing that happenned before the communist "child support" boondoggle
popped up, which was that foster homes or orphanages took in the kids.

Perhaps now with "Child Support", a lazy mom (or dad) who would have given
her/his kid to a foster home would now keep the kid, as long as she/he got free
money from someone. But this all boils down to using kids as pawns to get free
money from someone, whether it's welfare or child support, etc. We should not
allow/encourage people to use kids as hostages in order to collect ransoms from
the state, or from divorced dads.

[Lecher9000]

>
>First, it is the responsibility of the rest of us that government not
>make it worse.
>
>Second, what do you suggest be done in the cases where one or both
>parents cannot act in a reasonable and mature manner?
>

The same thing that happenned before the communist "child support" boondoggle
popped up, which was that foster homes or orphanages took in the kids.

Perhaps now with "Child Support", a lazy mom (or dad) who would have given
her/his kid to a foster home would now keep the kid, as long as she/he got free
money from someone. But this all boils down to using kids as pawns to get free
money from someone, whether it's welfare or child support, etc. We should not
allow/encourage people to use kids as hostages in order to collect ransoms from
the state, or from divorced dads.

[Kenneth S.]

Lecher9000 wrote:
>
> >
> >First, it is the responsibility of the rest of us that government not
> >make it worse.
> >
> >Second, what do you suggest be done in the cases where one or both
> >parents cannot act in a reasonable and mature manner?
> >
>
> The same thing that happenned before the communist "child support" boondoggle
> popped up, which was that foster homes or orphanages took in the kids.
>
> Perhaps now with "Child Support", a lazy mom (or dad) who would have given
> her/his kid to a foster home would now keep the kid, as long as she/he got free
> money from someone. But this all boils down to using kids as pawns to get free
> money from someone, whether it's welfare or child support, etc. We should not
> allow/encourage people to use kids as hostages in order to collect ransoms from
> the state, or from divorced dads.

The proper way to do this is to get the government out of family
decisions entirely. There are still going to be divorces, of course.
But the way to deal with the decisions about the circumstances of
divorce is BEFORE the marriage occurs.

There should be a requirement that all couples contemplating marriage
have a comprehensive prenuptial contract that covers all matters likely
to arise in any divorce. The government's role in marriage and divorce
would be confined to policing the requirement for a comprehensive
prenuptial contract and enforcing the terms of that prenuptial contract.

Privatizing marriage in this would force people to think in advance
about the details of their marriages and would prevent parents (or, to
be blunt, mothers) from using the children as hostages or profit centers
to get money from their husbands. Furthermore, eliminating the
possibility of child support except where a prenuptial contract had made
provision for it would have another benefit. It would discourage
illegitimate births. Unmarried women no longer would be able to have
children, knowing full well that the government would force the fathers
of these children to pay money to the mothers. Let the normal rules of
contract law apply. No piece of paper, no money.

[Kenneth S.]

Lecher9000 wrote:
>
> >
> >First, it is the responsibility of the rest of us that government not
> >make it worse.
> >
> >Second, what do you suggest be done in the cases where one or both
> >parents cannot act in a reasonable and mature manner?
> >
>
> The same thing that happenned before the communist "child support" boondoggle
> popped up, which was that foster homes or orphanages took in the kids.
>
> Perhaps now with "Child Support", a lazy mom (or dad) who would have given
> her/his kid to a foster home would now keep the kid, as long as she/he got free
> money from someone. But this all boils down to using kids as pawns to get free
> money from someone, whether it's welfare or child support, etc. We should not
> allow/encourage people to use kids as hostages in order to collect ransoms from
> the state, or from divorced dads.

The proper way to do this is to get the government out of family
decisions entirely. There are still going to be divorces, of course.
But the way to deal with the decisions about the circumstances of
divorce is BEFORE the marriage occurs.

There should be a requirement that all couples contemplating marriage
have a comprehensive prenuptial contract that covers all matters likely
to arise in any divorce. The government's role in marriage and divorce
would be confined to policing the requirement for a comprehensive
prenuptial contract and enforcing the terms of that prenuptial contract.

Privatizing marriage in this would force people to think in advance
about the details of their marriages and would prevent parents (or, to
be blunt, mothers) from using the children as hostages or profit centers
to get money from their husbands. Furthermore, eliminating the
possibility of child support except where a prenuptial contract had made
provision for it would have another benefit. It would discourage
illegitimate births. Unmarried women no longer would be able to have
children, knowing full well that the government would force the fathers
of these children to pay money to the mothers. Let the normal rules of
contract law apply. No piece of paper, no money.

[The Dave©]

> Kenneth S. wrote:
> The proper way to do this is to get the government out of family
> decisions entirely. There are still going to be divorces, of course.
> But the way to deal with the decisions about the circumstances of
> divorce is BEFORE the marriage occurs.
>
> There should be a requirement that all couples contemplating marriage
> have a comprehensive prenuptial contract that covers all matters
> likely to arise in any divorce. The government's role in marriage
> and divorce would be confined to policing the requirement for a
> comprehensive prenuptial contract and enforcing the terms of that
> prenuptial contract.

What happens when an issue falls outside the contract? What happens if
circumstances change entirely in ways that no one could have forseen?

> Privatizing marriage in this would force people to think in advance
> about the details of their marriages and would prevent parents (or, to
> be blunt, mothers) from using the children as hostages or profit
> centers to get money from their husbands. Furthermore, eliminating
> the possibility of child support except where a prenuptial contract
> had made provision for it would have another benefit. It would
> discourage illegitimate births. Unmarried women no longer would be
> able to have children, knowing full well that the government would
> force the fathers of these children to pay money to the mothers. Let
> the normal rules of contract law apply. No piece of paper, no money.

Bear in mind here that I am playing devil's advocate here, for the most
part. I agree with your general concept, especially making people
think first, though I do think it has holes, and maybe even a few
unintended consequences, though I cannot think of what they would be
right off the top of my head. My point is that it sounds good, but in
no way would be a panacea, nor would it cover all the bases, so to
speak. We already have contracts and contract law in other
(non-family) areas of society, especially business, yet lawsuits
continue at an alarming pace. Some form of conflict resolution would
still need to be in place.

[The Dave©]

> Lecher9000 wrote:
> The same thing that happenned before the communist "child support"
> boondoggle popped up, which was that foster homes or orphanages took
> in the kids.
>
> Perhaps now with "Child Support", a lazy mom (or dad) who would have
> given her/his kid to a foster home would now keep the kid, as long as
> she/he got free money from someone. But this all boils down to using
> kids as pawns to get free money from someone, whether it's welfare or
> child support, etc. We should not allow/encourage people to use kids
> as hostages in order to collect ransoms from the state, or from
> divorced dads.

I most certainly agree that more parents would take care of their own
kids if forced to, and the vast majority of whose kids would do just
fine. If orphanages, do you really want the government literally
having 24/7 control over kids? If foster care, who will be the foster
parents? They can't get enough for what they think they need right
now. And, the question that affects everybody, who will pay for it?

[The Dave©]

> Kenneth S. wrote:
> The proper way to do this is to get the government out of family
> decisions entirely. There are still going to be divorces, of course.
> But the way to deal with the decisions about the circumstances of
> divorce is BEFORE the marriage occurs.
>
> There should be a requirement that all couples contemplating marriage
> have a comprehensive prenuptial contract that covers all matters
> likely to arise in any divorce. The government's role in marriage
> and divorce would be confined to policing the requirement for a
> comprehensive prenuptial contract and enforcing the terms of that
> prenuptial contract.

What happens when an issue falls outside the contract? What happens if
circumstances change entirely in ways that no one could have forseen?

> Privatizing marriage in this would force people to think in advance
> about the details of their marriages and would prevent parents (or, to
> be blunt, mothers) from using the children as hostages or profit
> centers to get money from their husbands. Furthermore, eliminating
> the possibility of child support except where a prenuptial contract
> had made provision for it would have another benefit. It would
> discourage illegitimate births. Unmarried women no longer would be
> able to have children, knowing full well that the government would
> force the fathers of these children to pay money to the mothers. Let
> the normal rules of contract law apply. No piece of paper, no money.

Bear in mind here that I am playing devil's advocate here, for the most
part. I agree with your general concept, especially making people
think first, though I do think it has holes, and maybe even a few
unintended consequences, though I cannot think of what they would be
right off the top of my head. My point is that it sounds good, but in
no way would be a panacea, nor would it cover all the bases, so to
speak. We already have contracts and contract law in other
(non-family) areas of society, especially business, yet lawsuits
continue at an alarming pace. Some form of conflict resolution would
still need to be in place.

[The Dave©]

> Lecher9000 wrote:
> The same thing that happenned before the communist "child support"
> boondoggle popped up, which was that foster homes or orphanages took
> in the kids.
>
> Perhaps now with "Child Support", a lazy mom (or dad) who would have
> given her/his kid to a foster home would now keep the kid, as long as
> she/he got free money from someone. But this all boils down to using
> kids as pawns to get free money from someone, whether it's welfare or
> child support, etc. We should not allow/encourage people to use kids
> as hostages in order to collect ransoms from the state, or from
> divorced dads.

I most certainly agree that more parents would take care of their own
kids if forced to, and the vast majority of whose kids would do just
fine. If orphanages, do you really want the government literally
having 24/7 control over kids? If foster care, who will be the foster
parents? They can't get enough for what they think they need right
now. And, the question that affects everybody, who will pay for it?

[Lecher9000]

>I most certainly agree that more parents would take care of their own
>kids if forced to, and the vast majority of whose kids would do just
>fine. If orphanages, do you really want the government literally
>having 24/7 control over kids? If foster care, who will be the foster
>parents? They can't get enough for what they think they need right
>now. And, the question that affects everybody, who will pay for it?
>

Yes, who will pay for it ? Or, in other words, who will be responsible for
it ? Currently, in America, the answer is "The mother does not have to be
responsible for her children". Welfare will pay for them, or the divorced
father will be forced to pay for them, or the married father will voluntarily
pay for them. And, ideally, the mother will not divorce the father and make him
into a slave. Ideally the mother and father will remain married and one or both
will work and provide for the kids. But as soon as there is a divorce, whammo,
the father is always the scapegoat, criminalized even though the wife filed for
divorce out of "boredom" only, and the father is made into a slave working for
the ex-wife and mother of his kids.

If there really were a disastrous black hole that divorced mothers or unwed
mothers fell into, and there were no socialist/communist concessions made to
them, then there would be far fewer unwed/divorced mothers.

[Lecher9000]

>I most certainly agree that more parents would take care of their own
>kids if forced to, and the vast majority of whose kids would do just
>fine. If orphanages, do you really want the government literally
>having 24/7 control over kids? If foster care, who will be the foster
>parents? They can't get enough for what they think they need right
>now. And, the question that affects everybody, who will pay for it?
>

Yes, who will pay for it ? Or, in other words, who will be responsible for
it ? Currently, in America, the answer is "The mother does not have to be
responsible for her children". Welfare will pay for them, or the divorced
father will be forced to pay for them, or the married father will voluntarily
pay for them. And, ideally, the mother will not divorce the father and make him
into a slave. Ideally the mother and father will remain married and one or both
will work and provide for the kids. But as soon as there is a divorce, whammo,
the father is always the scapegoat, criminalized even though the wife filed for
divorce out of "boredom" only, and the father is made into a slave working for
the ex-wife and mother of his kids.

If there really were a disastrous black hole that divorced mothers or unwed
mothers fell into, and there were no socialist/communist concessions made to
them, then there would be far fewer unwed/divorced mothers.

[Kenneth S.]

By definition, Dave, there are no panaceas. In my view, the question
we ask ourselves should not be: would my privatizing marriage proposal
be perfect, and a solution to all problems? Instead, the question
should be: would the proposal be better than what we have at present?

What we have at present is a situation where the only kind of marriage
permitted in the U.S. is government-sanctioned marriage. And
government-sanctioned ANYTHING is subject to the whims of politicians
and judges, who are intimidated by special interest groups.

There is a pretense that marriage is some kind of meaningful contract.
It is not. It is nothing more than a ceremony with very little
contractual significance. Anyone who gets married in the U.S., (or
anywhere else, but becomes a U.S. resident) has no idea of what their
obligations will be. State legislatures frequently change those
obligations through changes in divorce law. They apply these changes ex
post facto to existing marriages, regardless of the jurisdiction in
which the marriages took place.

Contrast what happens in business partnerships. A company set up as a
Delaware partnership continues as a Delaware partnership, even if it
does business in another state. The Delaware legislature would not
dream of changing the rules for partnerships, and then applying the
changes retroactively to existing partnerships.

What happens if something crops up that is not covered in the
prenuptial contract? The answer is that the spouses have to work it
out, perhaps using some conflict-resolution mechanism included in the
prenuptial contract. Businesses frequently have to provide for ways of
settling problems not covered in their contracts. Increasingly, they
rely on arbitration. What they DON'T do is say: "Oh, let's not think
about that. Let's just leave it up to chance, and let it be decided on
terms established (possibly many years ahead) by whatever state or
national legislature can claim jurisdiction over our business."

I appreciate that you are being devil's advocate here. However, the
technique of acting as if the status quo is perfect is very widely used
by those who want to keep things just as they are in domestic relations
law. It's a technique that is completely invalid. (To take only one
example, the feminist organizations resist custody reform by acting as
if the status quo, which is sole maternal custody, is perfect. However,
by now we know very well that sole maternal custody has been a disaster
for children, and is an incentive for divorce.)


The Dave© wrote:
>
> > Kenneth S. wrote:
> > The proper way to do this is to get the government out of family
> > decisions entirely. There are still going to be divorces, of course.
> > But the way to deal with the decisions about the circumstances of
> > divorce is BEFORE the marriage occurs.
> >
> > There should be a requirement that all couples contemplating marriage
> > have a comprehensive prenuptial contract that covers all matters
> > likely to arise in any divorce. The government's role in marriage
> > and divorce would be confined to policing the requirement for a
> > comprehensive prenuptial contract and enforcing the terms of that
> > prenuptial contract.
>
> What happens when an issue falls outside the contract? What happens if
> circumstances change entirely in ways that no one could have forseen?
>
> > Privatizing marriage in this would force people to think in advance
> > about the details of their marriages and would prevent parents (or, to
> > be blunt, mothers) from using the children as hostages or profit
> > centers to get money from their husbands. Furthermore, eliminating
> > the possibility of child support except where a prenuptial contract
> > had made provision for it would have another benefit. It would
> > discourage illegitimate births. Unmarried women no longer would be
> > able to have children, knowing full well that the government would
> > force the fathers of these children to pay money to the mothers. Let
> > the normal rules of contract law apply. No piece of paper, no money.
>
> Bear in mind here that I am playing devil's advocate here, for the most
> part. I agree with your general concept, especially making people
> think first, though I do think it has holes, and maybe even a few
> unintended consequences, though I cannot think of what they would be
> right off the top of my head. My point is that it sounds good, but in
> no way would be a panacea, nor would it cover all the bases, so to
> speak. We already have contracts and contract law in other
> (non-family) areas of society, especially business, yet lawsuits
> continue at an alarming pace. Some form of conflict resolution would
> still need to be in place.

[Kenneth S.]

By definition, Dave, there are no panaceas. In my view, the question
we ask ourselves should not be: would my privatizing marriage proposal
be perfect, and a solution to all problems? Instead, the question
should be: would the proposal be better than what we have at present?

What we have at present is a situation where the only kind of marriage
permitted in the U.S. is government-sanctioned marriage. And
government-sanctioned ANYTHING is subject to the whims of politicians
and judges, who are intimidated by special interest groups.

There is a pretense that marriage is some kind of meaningful contract.
It is not. It is nothing more than a ceremony with very little
contractual significance. Anyone who gets married in the U.S., (or
anywhere else, but becomes a U.S. resident) has no idea of what their
obligations will be. State legislatures frequently change those
obligations through changes in divorce law. They apply these changes ex
post facto to existing marriages, regardless of the jurisdiction in
which the marriages took place.

Contrast what happens in business partnerships. A company set up as a
Delaware partnership continues as a Delaware partnership, even if it
does business in another state. The Delaware legislature would not
dream of changing the rules for partnerships, and then applying the
changes retroactively to existing partnerships.

What happens if something crops up that is not covered in the
prenuptial contract? The answer is that the spouses have to work it
out, perhaps using some conflict-resolution mechanism included in the
prenuptial contract. Businesses frequently have to provide for ways of
settling problems not covered in their contracts. Increasingly, they
rely on arbitration. What they DON'T do is say: "Oh, let's not think
about that. Let's just leave it up to chance, and let it be decided on
terms established (possibly many years ahead) by whatever state or
national legislature can claim jurisdiction over our business."

I appreciate that you are being devil's advocate here. However, the
technique of acting as if the status quo is perfect is very widely used
by those who want to keep things just as they are in domestic relations
law. It's a technique that is completely invalid. (To take only one
example, the feminist organizations resist custody reform by acting as
if the status quo, which is sole maternal custody, is perfect. However,
by now we know very well that sole maternal custody has been a disaster
for children, and is an incentive for divorce.)


The Dave© wrote:
>
> > Kenneth S. wrote:
> > The proper way to do this is to get the government out of family
> > decisions entirely. There are still going to be divorces, of course.
> > But the way to deal with the decisions about the circumstances of
> > divorce is BEFORE the marriage occurs.
> >
> > There should be a requirement that all couples contemplating marriage
> > have a comprehensive prenuptial contract that covers all matters
> > likely to arise in any divorce. The government's role in marriage
> > and divorce would be confined to policing the requirement for a
> > comprehensive prenuptial contract and enforcing the terms of that
> > prenuptial contract.
>
> What happens when an issue falls outside the contract? What happens if
> circumstances change entirely in ways that no one could have forseen?
>
> > Privatizing marriage in this would force people to think in advance
> > about the details of their marriages and would prevent parents (or, to
> > be blunt, mothers) from using the children as hostages or profit
> > centers to get money from their husbands. Furthermore, eliminating
> > the possibility of child support except where a prenuptial contract
> > had made provision for it would have another benefit. It would
> > discourage illegitimate births. Unmarried women no longer would be
> > able to have children, knowing full well that the government would
> > force the fathers of these children to pay money to the mothers. Let
> > the normal rules of contract law apply. No piece of paper, no money.
>
> Bear in mind here that I am playing devil's advocate here, for the most
> part. I agree with your general concept, especially making people
> think first, though I do think it has holes, and maybe even a few
> unintended consequences, though I cannot think of what they would be
> right off the top of my head. My point is that it sounds good, but in
> no way would be a panacea, nor would it cover all the bases, so to
> speak. We already have contracts and contract law in other
> (non-family) areas of society, especially business, yet lawsuits
> continue at an alarming pace. Some form of conflict resolution would
> still need to be in place.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...


> There is a pretense that marriage is some kind of meaningful contract.
> It is not. It is nothing more than a ceremony with very little
> contractual significance. Anyone who gets married in the U.S., (or
> anywhere else, but becomes a U.S. resident) has no idea of what their
> obligations will be. State legislatures frequently change those
> obligations through changes in divorce law. They apply these changes ex
> post facto to existing marriages, regardless of the jurisdiction in
> which the marriages took place.

Just when you think you have things figured out, the government turns around
and argues 180 degrees from what they normally do. Check this story out -

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-prosecuting-polygamy,0,7
999530,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

A Utah polygamist is using the recent SCOTUS ruling that said government has
no business interfering in gay and lesbian relationships that occur in the
privacy of the home between consenting adults. The polygamist is ruling his
relationship with his wives fits the same definition applied to gay and
lesbian relationships. BUT the government is arguing the polygamist should
not be allowed to use the SCOTUS decision because he didn't raise it
previously.

The government is trying to prevent the ex post facto use of a recent SC
ruling regarding marriage/relationships, when in divorce and other family
law issues the government regularly argues the newest law and court
decisions should apply.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...


> There is a pretense that marriage is some kind of meaningful contract.
> It is not. It is nothing more than a ceremony with very little
> contractual significance. Anyone who gets married in the U.S., (or
> anywhere else, but becomes a U.S. resident) has no idea of what their
> obligations will be. State legislatures frequently change those
> obligations through changes in divorce law. They apply these changes ex
> post facto to existing marriages, regardless of the jurisdiction in
> which the marriages took place.

Just when you think you have things figured out, the government turns around
and argues 180 degrees from what they normally do. Check this story out -

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-prosecuting-polygamy,0,7
999530,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

A Utah polygamist is using the recent SCOTUS ruling that said government has
no business interfering in gay and lesbian relationships that occur in the
privacy of the home between consenting adults. The polygamist is ruling his
relationship with his wives fits the same definition applied to gay and
lesbian relationships. BUT the government is arguing the polygamist should
not be allowed to use the SCOTUS decision because he didn't raise it
previously.

The government is trying to prevent the ex post facto use of a recent SC
ruling regarding marriage/relationships, when in divorce and other family
law issues the government regularly argues the newest law and court
decisions should apply.

[Kenneth S.]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > There is a pretense that marriage is some kind of meaningful contract.
> > It is not. It is nothing more than a ceremony with very little
> > contractual significance. Anyone who gets married in the U.S., (or
> > anywhere else, but becomes a U.S. resident) has no idea of what their
> > obligations will be. State legislatures frequently change those
> > obligations through changes in divorce law. They apply these changes ex
> > post facto to existing marriages, regardless of the jurisdiction in
> > which the marriages took place.
>
> Just when you think you have things figured out, the government turns around
> and argues 180 degrees from what they normally do. Check this story out -
>
> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-prosecuting-polygamy,0,7
> 999530,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
>
> A Utah polygamist is using the recent SCOTUS ruling that said government has
> no business interfering in gay and lesbian relationships that occur in the
> privacy of the home between consenting adults. The polygamist is ruling his
> relationship with his wives fits the same definition applied to gay and
> lesbian relationships. BUT the government is arguing the polygamist should
> not be allowed to use the SCOTUS decision because he didn't raise it
> previously.
>
> The government is trying to prevent the ex post facto use of a recent SC
> ruling regarding marriage/relationships, when in divorce and other family
> law issues the government regularly argues the newest law and court
> decisions should apply.


As I'm sure you know, Bob, the key to understanding all this is to know
what is the strength of the special interest group involved. The
special interest group representing polygamists is of no significance.
By contrast, although homosexuals are a very small minority in the U.S.
population (perhaps outnumbered by polygamists?), they have
well-financed and hyperactive special interest groups representing them.

At the present rate of going, the rights and privileges of homosexuals
in the U.S. will considerably exceed those of heterosexual fathers. In
fact, in some ways, they already do. Politically correct companies,
such as the one I work for, offer fringe benefits such as health care
coverage, to homosexual partners of employees. However, when a
heterosexual employee's children graduate from college, he can't have
them listed on his insurance policy.

The lesson is that the rights you get depend on the strength of the
special interest group that pushes for your interests. In other words,
the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[Kenneth S.]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > There is a pretense that marriage is some kind of meaningful contract.
> > It is not. It is nothing more than a ceremony with very little
> > contractual significance. Anyone who gets married in the U.S., (or
> > anywhere else, but becomes a U.S. resident) has no idea of what their
> > obligations will be. State legislatures frequently change those
> > obligations through changes in divorce law. They apply these changes ex
> > post facto to existing marriages, regardless of the jurisdiction in
> > which the marriages took place.
>
> Just when you think you have things figured out, the government turns around
> and argues 180 degrees from what they normally do. Check this story out -
>
> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-prosecuting-polygamy,0,7
> 999530,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
>
> A Utah polygamist is using the recent SCOTUS ruling that said government has
> no business interfering in gay and lesbian relationships that occur in the
> privacy of the home between consenting adults. The polygamist is ruling his
> relationship with his wives fits the same definition applied to gay and
> lesbian relationships. BUT the government is arguing the polygamist should
> not be allowed to use the SCOTUS decision because he didn't raise it
> previously.
>
> The government is trying to prevent the ex post facto use of a recent SC
> ruling regarding marriage/relationships, when in divorce and other family
> law issues the government regularly argues the newest law and court
> decisions should apply.


As I'm sure you know, Bob, the key to understanding all this is to know
what is the strength of the special interest group involved. The
special interest group representing polygamists is of no significance.
By contrast, although homosexuals are a very small minority in the U.S.
population (perhaps outnumbered by polygamists?), they have
well-financed and hyperactive special interest groups representing them.

At the present rate of going, the rights and privileges of homosexuals
in the U.S. will considerably exceed those of heterosexual fathers. In
fact, in some ways, they already do. Politically correct companies,
such as the one I work for, offer fringe benefits such as health care
coverage, to homosexual partners of employees. However, when a
heterosexual employee's children graduate from college, he can't have
them listed on his insurance policy.

The lesson is that the rights you get depend on the strength of the
special interest group that pushes for your interests. In other words,
the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> >
> > "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > There is a pretense that marriage is some kind of meaningful contract.
> > > It is not. It is nothing more than a ceremony with very little
> > > contractual significance. Anyone who gets married in the U.S., (or
> > > anywhere else, but becomes a U.S. resident) has no idea of what their
> > > obligations will be. State legislatures frequently change those
> > > obligations through changes in divorce law. They apply these changes
ex
> > > post facto to existing marriages, regardless of the jurisdiction in
> > > which the marriages took place.
> >
> > Just when you think you have things figured out, the government turns
around
> > and argues 180 degrees from what they normally do. Check this story
out -
> >
> >
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-prosecuting-polygamy,0,7
> > 999530,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
> >
> > A Utah polygamist is using the recent SCOTUS ruling that said government
has
> > no business interfering in gay and lesbian relationships that occur in
the
> > privacy of the home between consenting adults. The polygamist is ruling
his
> > relationship with his wives fits the same definition applied to gay and
> > lesbian relationships. BUT the government is arguing the polygamist
should
> > not be allowed to use the SCOTUS decision because he didn't raise it
> > previously.
> >
> > The government is trying to prevent the ex post facto use of a recent SC
> > ruling regarding marriage/relationships, when in divorce and other
family
> > law issues the government regularly argues the newest law and court
> > decisions should apply.
>
>
> As I'm sure you know, Bob, the key to understanding all this is to know
> what is the strength of the special interest group involved. The
> special interest group representing polygamists is of no significance.
> By contrast, although homosexuals are a very small minority in the U.S.
> population (perhaps outnumbered by polygamists?), they have
> well-financed and hyperactive special interest groups representing them.
>
> At the present rate of going, the rights and privileges of homosexuals
> in the U.S. will considerably exceed those of heterosexual fathers. In
> fact, in some ways, they already do. Politically correct companies,
> such as the one I work for, offer fringe benefits such as health care
> coverage, to homosexual partners of employees. However, when a
> heterosexual employee's children graduate from college, he can't have
> them listed on his insurance policy.
>
> The lesson is that the rights you get depend on the strength of the
> special interest group that pushes for your interests. In other words,
> the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I believe you got my point, but just in case - the government normally is
very active in creating changes that affect family law issues and apply them
ex post facto. Yet in the case of the polygamist, the government is trying
to suppress the use of the change ex post facto.

The recent SCOTUS decision regarding "privacy rights" has opened the door
for all kinds of similar arguments regarding relationship privacy. It
appears Justice Scalia was correct in his assessment of the decision impact
after the SCOTUS established privacy rights

[Bob Whiteside]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> >
> > "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > There is a pretense that marriage is some kind of meaningful contract.
> > > It is not. It is nothing more than a ceremony with very little
> > > contractual significance. Anyone who gets married in the U.S., (or
> > > anywhere else, but becomes a U.S. resident) has no idea of what their
> > > obligations will be. State legislatures frequently change those
> > > obligations through changes in divorce law. They apply these changes
ex
> > > post facto to existing marriages, regardless of the jurisdiction in
> > > which the marriages took place.
> >
> > Just when you think you have things figured out, the government turns
around
> > and argues 180 degrees from what they normally do. Check this story
out -
> >
> >
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-prosecuting-polygamy,0,7
> > 999530,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
> >
> > A Utah polygamist is using the recent SCOTUS ruling that said government
has
> > no business interfering in gay and lesbian relationships that occur in
the
> > privacy of the home between consenting adults. The polygamist is ruling
his
> > relationship with his wives fits the same definition applied to gay and
> > lesbian relationships. BUT the government is arguing the polygamist
should
> > not be allowed to use the SCOTUS decision because he didn't raise it
> > previously.
> >
> > The government is trying to prevent the ex post facto use of a recent SC
> > ruling regarding marriage/relationships, when in divorce and other
family
> > law issues the government regularly argues the newest law and court
> > decisions should apply.
>
>
> As I'm sure you know, Bob, the key to understanding all this is to know
> what is the strength of the special interest group involved. The
> special interest group representing polygamists is of no significance.
> By contrast, although homosexuals are a very small minority in the U.S.
> population (perhaps outnumbered by polygamists?), they have
> well-financed and hyperactive special interest groups representing them.
>
> At the present rate of going, the rights and privileges of homosexuals
> in the U.S. will considerably exceed those of heterosexual fathers. In
> fact, in some ways, they already do. Politically correct companies,
> such as the one I work for, offer fringe benefits such as health care
> coverage, to homosexual partners of employees. However, when a
> heterosexual employee's children graduate from college, he can't have
> them listed on his insurance policy.
>
> The lesson is that the rights you get depend on the strength of the
> special interest group that pushes for your interests. In other words,
> the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I believe you got my point, but just in case - the government normally is
very active in creating changes that affect family law issues and apply them
ex post facto. Yet in the case of the polygamist, the government is trying
to suppress the use of the change ex post facto.

The recent SCOTUS decision regarding "privacy rights" has opened the door
for all kinds of similar arguments regarding relationship privacy. It
appears Justice Scalia was correct in his assessment of the decision impact
after the SCOTUS established privacy rights

[The Dave©]

> Kenneth S. wrote:
> By definition, Dave, there are no panaceas. In my view, the question
> we ask ourselves should not be: would my privatizing marriage proposal
> be perfect, and a solution to all problems? Instead, the question
> should be: would the proposal be better than what we have at present?

I agree completely on this point. Striving for something better than
what we have at the moment, regardless of subject matter, is always a
step in the right direction. I've never understood the mindset that
says we can't change something simple because the change would not fix
literally everything.

<snipped>

> What happens if something crops up that is not covered in the
> prenuptial contract? The answer is that the spouses have to work it
> out, perhaps using some conflict-resolution mechanism included in the
> prenuptial contract.

To be honest, I just don't see this happening. Human nature isn't like
that. If people could reason and get along for the common good, then
communism would work. Communism fails, in part, because it doesn't
factor in the greed of human nature. Even in business, conflicts occur
and lawsuits get filed even when the subject is clearly covered in the
contract. All it takes is a he said/she said disagreement as to the
definition of something.

I like the idea of pre-nuptual contracts, but a complete system to deal
with the eventual breakdown of some of these contracts would still be
necessary. Even if all the judge said was "It's in the contract.
Honor your agreement." most of the time, I think that's reality.

> Businesses frequently have to provide for ways
> of settling problems not covered in their contracts. Increasingly,
> they rely on arbitration. What they DON'T do is say: "Oh, let's not
> think about that. Let's just leave it up to chance, and let it be
> decided on terms established (possibly many years ahead) by whatever
> state or national legislature can claim jurisdiction over our
> business."
>
> I appreciate that you are being devil's advocate here. However, the
> technique of acting as if the status quo is perfect is very widely
> used by those who want to keep things just as they are in domestic
> relations law. It's a technique that is completely invalid. (To take
> only one example, the feminist organizations resist custody reform by
> acting as if the status quo, which is sole maternal custody, is
> perfect. However, by now we know very well that sole maternal
> custody has been a disaster for children, and is an incentive for
> divorce.)

I did not intend to sound as if the status quo would be preferable to
what you propose. I feel the status quo is grossly unacceptable. As I
said above, a set in the right direction is always a good thing. I
just wonder if your proposal takes everything (or, as much as can be
foreseen) into account.

THe way our society has developed, I do not believe it is even possible
to fix everything in one fell swoop. It has to be done incrementally
to get people to accept it. In fact, I believe that this method is
exactly what is done to us by our politicians now on issues that they
know we wouldn't go for if we saw what was really happening.

[The Dave©]

> Kenneth S. wrote:
> By definition, Dave, there are no panaceas. In my view, the question
> we ask ourselves should not be: would my privatizing marriage proposal
> be perfect, and a solution to all problems? Instead, the question
> should be: would the proposal be better than what we have at present?

I agree completely on this point. Striving for something better than
what we have at the moment, regardless of subject matter, is always a
step in the right direction. I've never understood the mindset that
says we can't change something simple because the change would not fix
literally everything.

<snipped>

> What happens if something crops up that is not covered in the
> prenuptial contract? The answer is that the spouses have to work it
> out, perhaps using some conflict-resolution mechanism included in the
> prenuptial contract.

To be honest, I just don't see this happening. Human nature isn't like
that. If people could reason and get along for the common good, then
communism would work. Communism fails, in part, because it doesn't
factor in the greed of human nature. Even in business, conflicts occur
and lawsuits get filed even when the subject is clearly covered in the
contract. All it takes is a he said/she said disagreement as to the
definition of something.

I like the idea of pre-nuptual contracts, but a complete system to deal
with the eventual breakdown of some of these contracts would still be
necessary. Even if all the judge said was "It's in the contract.
Honor your agreement." most of the time, I think that's reality.

> Businesses frequently have to provide for ways
> of settling problems not covered in their contracts. Increasingly,
> they rely on arbitration. What they DON'T do is say: "Oh, let's not
> think about that. Let's just leave it up to chance, and let it be
> decided on terms established (possibly many years ahead) by whatever
> state or national legislature can claim jurisdiction over our
> business."
>
> I appreciate that you are being devil's advocate here. However, the
> technique of acting as if the status quo is perfect is very widely
> used by those who want to keep things just as they are in domestic
> relations law. It's a technique that is completely invalid. (To take
> only one example, the feminist organizations resist custody reform by
> acting as if the status quo, which is sole maternal custody, is
> perfect. However, by now we know very well that sole maternal
> custody has been a disaster for children, and is an incentive for
> divorce.)

I did not intend to sound as if the status quo would be preferable to
what you propose. I feel the status quo is grossly unacceptable. As I
said above, a set in the right direction is always a good thing. I
just wonder if your proposal takes everything (or, as much as can be
foreseen) into account.

THe way our society has developed, I do not believe it is even possible
to fix everything in one fell swoop. It has to be done incrementally
to get people to accept it. In fact, I believe that this method is
exactly what is done to us by our politicians now on issues that they
know we wouldn't go for if we saw what was really happening.

[Kenneth S.]

I think we're pretty much in agreement on this, Dave. Universal
prenuptial contracts would be a great improvement on what we have at
present. They should cover everything that typically now is in the
hands of judges (or is haggled over by the spouses, knowing full well
that a judge will decide if they don't). Thus, issues such as child
custody, division of assets after divorce, etc., would be covered in the
prenuptial contracts. Domestic relations laws, and judges, would have
nothing to say other than, "Follow the rules in your prenuptial
contract."

Although I regard privatizing marriage as the best solution to current
problems, unfortunately we are a long way off that now. I think one of
the biggest problems is one that you do not mention, which is the
outrageous lawlessness of so many judges in the U.S. They are the one
of the largest categories of scofflaws to be found.

We have had many, many indications from judges in this country -- from
the U.S. Supreme Court on down -- that they do not set much store on
what the constitution or individual laws say. The basic principle of
these judges is: follow your gut, and "if it feels good, rule it."

In the present situation in the U.S., judges have a history of
disregarding explicit provisions of prenuptial contracts. The judges
use the utterly phony "contrary to public policy" argument to overrule
agreements entered into by competent adults, and to open the door for
judicial meddling in matters that have already been settled privately.
Of course, one would hope and expect that, if we ever got to the point
of privatizing marriage, public attitudes towards arbitrary and
capricious action by judges would have changed. If that happened, the
judges would no longer be able to get away with disregarding explicit
provisions of the law or of private contracts.

By the way, it would be possible to advance towards the goal of
privatizing marriage by small steps, such as the covenant marriage
option that a few states now offer.


The Dave© wrote:
>
> > Kenneth S. wrote:
> > By definition, Dave, there are no panaceas. In my view, the question
> > we ask ourselves should not be: would my privatizing marriage proposal
> > be perfect, and a solution to all problems? Instead, the question
> > should be: would the proposal be better than what we have at present?
>
> I agree completely on this point. Striving for something better than
> what we have at the moment, regardless of subject matter, is always a
> step in the right direction. I've never understood the mindset that
> says we can't change something simple because the change would not fix
> literally everything.
>
> <snipped>
>
> > What happens if something crops up that is not covered in the
> > prenuptial contract? The answer is that the spouses have to work it
> > out, perhaps using some conflict-resolution mechanism included in the
> > prenuptial contract.
>
> To be honest, I just don't see this happening. Human nature isn't like
> that. If people could reason and get along for the common good, then
> communism would work. Communism fails, in part, because it doesn't
> factor in the greed of human nature. Even in business, conflicts occur
> and lawsuits get filed even when the subject is clearly covered in the
> contract. All it takes is a he said/she said disagreement as to the
> definition of something.
>
> I like the idea of pre-nuptual contracts, but a complete system to deal
> with the eventual breakdown of some of these contracts would still be
> necessary. Even if all the judge said was "It's in the contract.
> Honor your agreement." most of the time, I think that's reality.
>
> > Businesses frequently have to provide for ways
> > of settling problems not covered in their contracts. Increasingly,
> > they rely on arbitration. What they DON'T do is say: "Oh, let's not
> > think about that. Let's just leave it up to chance, and let it be
> > decided on terms established (possibly many years ahead) by whatever
> > state or national legislature can claim jurisdiction over our
> > business."
> >
> > I appreciate that you are being devil's advocate here. However, the
> > technique of acting as if the status quo is perfect is very widely
> > used by those who want to keep things just as they are in domestic
> > relations law. It's a technique that is completely invalid. (To take
> > only one example, the feminist organizations resist custody reform by
> > acting as if the status quo, which is sole maternal custody, is
> > perfect. However, by now we know very well that sole maternal
> > custody has been a disaster for children, and is an incentive for
> > divorce.)
>
> I did not intend to sound as if the status quo would be preferable to
> what you propose. I feel the status quo is grossly unacceptable. As I
> said above, a set in the right direction is always a good thing. I
> just wonder if your proposal takes everything (or, as much as can be
> foreseen) into account.
>
> THe way our society has developed, I do not believe it is even possible
> to fix everything in one fell swoop. It has to be done incrementally
> to get people to accept it. In fact, I believe that this method is
> exactly what is done to us by our politicians now on issues that they
> know we wouldn't go for if we saw what was really happening.

[Kenneth S.]

I think we're pretty much in agreement on this, Dave. Universal
prenuptial contracts would be a great improvement on what we have at
present. They should cover everything that typically now is in the
hands of judges (or is haggled over by the spouses, knowing full well
that a judge will decide if they don't). Thus, issues such as child
custody, division of assets after divorce, etc., would be covered in the
prenuptial contracts. Domestic relations laws, and judges, would have
nothing to say other than, "Follow the rules in your prenuptial
contract."

Although I regard privatizing marriage as the best solution to current
problems, unfortunately we are a long way off that now. I think one of
the biggest problems is one that you do not mention, which is the
outrageous lawlessness of so many judges in the U.S. They are the one
of the largest categories of scofflaws to be found.

We have had many, many indications from judges in this country -- from
the U.S. Supreme Court on down -- that they do not set much store on
what the constitution or individual laws say. The basic principle of
these judges is: follow your gut, and "if it feels good, rule it."

In the present situation in the U.S., judges have a history of
disregarding explicit provisions of prenuptial contracts. The judges
use the utterly phony "contrary to public policy" argument to overrule
agreements entered into by competent adults, and to open the door for
judicial meddling in matters that have already been settled privately.
Of course, one would hope and expect that, if we ever got to the point
of privatizing marriage, public attitudes towards arbitrary and
capricious action by judges would have changed. If that happened, the
judges would no longer be able to get away with disregarding explicit
provisions of the law or of private contracts.

By the way, it would be possible to advance towards the goal of
privatizing marriage by small steps, such as the covenant marriage
option that a few states now offer.


The Dave© wrote:
>
> > Kenneth S. wrote:
> > By definition, Dave, there are no panaceas. In my view, the question
> > we ask ourselves should not be: would my privatizing marriage proposal
> > be perfect, and a solution to all problems? Instead, the question
> > should be: would the proposal be better than what we have at present?
>
> I agree completely on this point. Striving for something better than
> what we have at the moment, regardless of subject matter, is always a
> step in the right direction. I've never understood the mindset that
> says we can't change something simple because the change would not fix
> literally everything.
>
> <snipped>
>
> > What happens if something crops up that is not covered in the
> > prenuptial contract? The answer is that the spouses have to work it
> > out, perhaps using some conflict-resolution mechanism included in the
> > prenuptial contract.
>
> To be honest, I just don't see this happening. Human nature isn't like
> that. If people could reason and get along for the common good, then
> communism would work. Communism fails, in part, because it doesn't
> factor in the greed of human nature. Even in business, conflicts occur
> and lawsuits get filed even when the subject is clearly covered in the
> contract. All it takes is a he said/she said disagreement as to the
> definition of something.
>
> I like the idea of pre-nuptual contracts, but a complete system to deal
> with the eventual breakdown of some of these contracts would still be
> necessary. Even if all the judge said was "It's in the contract.
> Honor your agreement." most of the time, I think that's reality.
>
> > Businesses frequently have to provide for ways
> > of settling problems not covered in their contracts. Increasingly,
> > they rely on arbitration. What they DON'T do is say: "Oh, let's not
> > think about that. Let's just leave it up to chance, and let it be
> > decided on terms established (possibly many years ahead) by whatever
> > state or national legislature can claim jurisdiction over our
> > business."
> >
> > I appreciate that you are being devil's advocate here. However, the
> > technique of acting as if the status quo is perfect is very widely
> > used by those who want to keep things just as they are in domestic
> > relations law. It's a technique that is completely invalid. (To take
> > only one example, the feminist organizations resist custody reform by
> > acting as if the status quo, which is sole maternal custody, is
> > perfect. However, by now we know very well that sole maternal
> > custody has been a disaster for children, and is an incentive for
> > divorce.)
>
> I did not intend to sound as if the status quo would be preferable to
> what you propose. I feel the status quo is grossly unacceptable. As I
> said above, a set in the right direction is always a good thing. I
> just wonder if your proposal takes everything (or, as much as can be
> foreseen) into account.
>
> THe way our society has developed, I do not believe it is even possible
> to fix everything in one fell swoop. It has to be done incrementally
> to get people to accept it. In fact, I believe that this method is
> exactly what is done to us by our politicians now on issues that they
> know we wouldn't go for if we saw what was really happening.