Michigan A.G. Cox Crows Over Father Defeat

I've also included two comments (at the end) that hit the head of this nail
dead on.

My question is - When is MI going to start passing out NCP's their bright
yellow star to wear?
-------------------------------------------------------------

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/21/...father-defeat/
Michigan A.G. Cox Crows Over Father Defeat
July 21, 2006
NewsLog
Roe v. Wade for Men: Case Dismissed


July 18, 2006

LANSING - Attorney General Mike Cox announced today that Dubay v Wells,
Thomas and Cox, often described as "Roe v Wade for Men," has been dismissed.
The lawsuit, filed by Matthew Dubay in the United States District Court at
Bay City, claimed that Michigan's paternity law is unconstitutional because
the father is compelled to pay child support even if he did not want the
child to be born.

"This is an important victory for the children of this state," said Cox.
"Both parents have a clear responsibility for the support of their child, no
matter the circumstances surrounding conception. The Court upheld that
time-honored understanding today. Michigan will not become the state where
parents can opt out of personal responsibility."

The United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, dismissed
the Dubay v Wells case on Monday. This case was a challenge to Michigan's
Paternity Act, which requires a parent to pay child support. Dubay was
arguing that he could chose not to pay child support because he told the
mother of the child while they were dating that he did not want a child.
Dubay filed the action against the Saginaw County Prosecutor for his
enforcement of the Paternity Act. Dubay also named the mother of the child
as a defendant. The Attorney General intervened in the case to uphold the
Paternity Act and to protect Michigan's children.

In ruling in the Attorney General's favor, the Court stated that "[t]he
fundamental flaw in Dubay's claim is that he fails to see that the State
played no role in the conception or birth of the child in this case, or in
the decisions that resulted in the birth of the child." Thus the Court ruled
that the State did not violate a constitutionally protected right to privacy
that had been the underlying basis of his claim.

The Court relied upon a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case that rejected
the notion that some sense of fairness ought to allow biological fathers to
avoid the financial responsibility of supporting a child as a proxy for the
loss of control of the events that naturally flow from sexual activity.
Accordingly, the Court found that the Paternity Act did not violate the
Equal Protection clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions
either on its face or as applied to Dubay. The Court dismissed all of Dubay's
claims against all of the defendants.

The Attorney General also requested that the Court find the case to be
frivolous. The court agreed, stating this action is "frivolous,
unreasonable, and without foundation and seeks to advance a theory that is
foreign to the legal principles on which it is ostensibly based." The Court
is allowing the Attorney General to submit a claim for his office's attorney
fees.

Since taking office in 2003, Attorney General Cox has made it a top priority
to enforce Michigan's felony non-support laws and raise the awareness of the
problem unpaid child support causes to children in the State of Michigan. To
date, $26,637,755.16 in unpaid child support has been collected, helping
approximately 3,030 children.

For more information, contact Rusty Hills or Nate Bailey, Attorney General's
Office, at (517) 373-8060.

----------------------------------------------------
a.. roger said,

Simple ruling:

Entrapment of men, by women using an unwanted child as leverage, is, and
shall remain, legal.

While I disagree with 'dontmakehermad' on a number of his/her other points,
I do agree with one.
That is, if women did not have the right to abortion, or birthcontrol, the
playing field would truely be level. Both people would then assume the same
"risk" in engaging in sex.

As it is today, the assumption (right or wrong) that the women is on the
pill, or not fertile, or if the women lies about either of these
conditions - can and will result in disaster.

However, this case was not about men wanting to also have the right to
destroy children through abortion. It was about men wanting the same ability
to say "no thank you" to a child they did not want, did not plan, nor are
ready for in their lives at that time.

Just like women have today.

Women today can walk away from the responsibility of parenthood - via
abortion, via RU486, via adoption, via legal abandonment. All of these
"choices" are after conception, and two of them are after the child is
already born and exists in the world.

Women have these choices today.
But men only have the responsibility to cover her behind when she makes her
choice.

It simply is not equitable. She assumes no risk.

July 21, 2006 at 3:32 pm
-----------------------------------------------
a.. jeremy said,

"However, this case was not about men wanting to also have the right to
destroy children through abortion. It was about men wanting the same ability
to say "no thank you" to a child they did not want, did not plan, nor are
ready for in their lives at that time."-Roger

Exactly. It's about giving men the same option that women have - the option
to decline parenthood out of wedlock. A window of opportunity to give up
paternal rights and responsibilities for whatever reason. It's exactly what
women have had for many years. What's more, women would retain all their
current options - except the option to force a man to be a father against
his will.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
I've also included two comments (at the end) that hit the head of this
nail
dead on.

My question is - When is MI going to start passing out NCP's their bright
yellow star to wear?
-------------------------------------------------------------


http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/21/...-father-defeat
/
Michigan A.G. Cox Crows Over Father Defeat
July 21, 2006
NewsLog
Roe v. Wade for Men: Case Dismissed


July 18, 2006

LANSING - Attorney General Mike Cox announced today that Dubay v Wells,
Thomas and Cox, often described as "Roe v Wade for Men," has been
dismissed.
The lawsuit, filed by Matthew Dubay in the United States District Court at
Bay City, claimed that Michigan's paternity law is unconstitutional
because
the father is compelled to pay child support even if he did not want the
child to be born.

Here is the decision in case you are interested in reading it:

http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/la...f/06-11016.pdf

My favorite part is on page 11 where the judge covers his ass about the laws
being one sided. He said the right to privacy, which earlier he agreed is
not in the Constitution, extends to decision-making between sexual partners
regarding conception and birth. And any disagreements between the parties
are a private matter. And a disgruntled party who fails to reach accord
gets no relief under the law.

What a "cute" way of saying the decision is the mother's unilateral decision
while making it sound like the father is the bad guy for not reaching an
agreement with the mother.

"This is an important victory for the children of this state," said Cox.
"Both parents have a clear responsibility for the support of their child,
no
matter the circumstances surrounding conception. The Court upheld that
time-honored understanding today. Michigan will not become the state where
parents can opt out of personal responsibility."

Except when it comes to getting an abortion or not paying CS while on
welfare or abandoning the child at public drop off points or giving a child
up for adoption.

"Dusty" wrote in

LANSING - Attorney General Mike Cox announced today that Dubay v Wells,
Thomas and Cox, often described as "Roe v Wade for Men," has been
dismissed. "This is an important victory for the children of this state,"
said Cox. "Both parents have a clear responsibility for the support of
their child, no matter the circumstances surrounding conception.

So it comes down to degenerate cheating adulterers like Mike Cox to define
our morale laws.
Come on Mikey, give us all some more tears of shame for the camera when you
got caught screwing your wife's best friend, but you want to be the champion
for these draconian policies of oppression

**** you, you God dam hypocrite!

"Chris" wrote in message
news:91jxg.4989$Mz3.1979@fed1read07...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
I've also included two comments (at the end) that hit the head of this
nail


Hey guy check your computer even on the other side of the international
dateline it is NOT November 25th, 2006 yet.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
I've also included two comments (at the end) that hit the head of this
nail
dead on.

My question is - When is MI going to start passing out NCP's their bright
yellow star to wear?
-------------------------------------------------------------


http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/07/21/...father-defeat/
Michigan A.G. Cox Crows Over Father Defeat
July 21, 2006
NewsLog
Roe v. Wade for Men: Case Dismissed


July 18, 2006

LANSING - Attorney General Mike Cox announced today that Dubay v Wells,
Thomas and Cox, often described as "Roe v Wade for Men," has been
dismissed.
The lawsuit, filed by Matthew Dubay in the United States District Court at
Bay City, claimed that Michigan's paternity law is unconstitutional
because
the father is compelled to pay child support even if he did not want the
child to be born.

"This is an important victory for the children of this state," said Cox.
"Both parents have a clear responsibility for the support of their child,
no
matter the circumstances surrounding conception.

........ but only ONE parent has the rights that go along with such
responsibilities.

The Court upheld that
time-honored understanding today. Michigan will not become the state where
parents can opt out of personal responsibility."

The United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, dismissed
the Dubay v Wells case on Monday. This case was a challenge to Michigan's
Paternity Act, which requires a parent to pay child support. Dubay was
arguing that he could chose not to pay child support because he told the
mother of the child while they were dating that he did not want a child.
Dubay filed the action against the Saginaw County Prosecutor for his
enforcement of the Paternity Act. Dubay also named the mother of the child
as a defendant. The Attorney General intervened in the case to uphold the
Paternity Act and to protect Michigan's children.

In ruling in the Attorney General's favor, the Court stated that "[t]he
fundamental flaw in Dubay's claim is that he fails to see that the State
played no role in the conception or birth of the child in this case, or in
the decisions that resulted in the birth of the child." Thus the Court
ruled
that the State did not violate a constitutionally protected right to
privacy
that had been the underlying basis of his claim.

The Court relied upon a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case that rejected
the notion that some sense of fairness ought to allow biological fathers
to
avoid the financial responsibility of supporting a child as a proxy for
the
loss of control of the events that naturally flow from sexual activity.
Accordingly, the Court found that the Paternity Act did not violate the
Equal Protection clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions
either on its face or as applied to Dubay. The Court dismissed all of
Dubay's
claims against all of the defendants.

The Attorney General also requested that the Court find the case to be
frivolous. The court agreed, stating this action is "frivolous,
unreasonable, and without foundation and seeks to advance a theory that is
foreign to the legal principles on which it is ostensibly based." The
Court
is allowing the Attorney General to submit a claim for his office's
attorney
fees.

Since taking office in 2003, Attorney General Cox has made it a top
priority
to enforce Michigan's felony non-support laws and raise the awareness of
the
problem unpaid child support causes to children in the State of Michigan.
To
date, $26,637,755.16 in unpaid child support has been collected, helping
approximately 3,030 children.

For more information, contact Rusty Hills or Nate Bailey, Attorney
General's
Office, at (517) 373-8060.

----------------------------------------------------
a.. roger said,

Simple ruling:

Entrapment of men, by women using an unwanted child as leverage, is, and
shall remain, legal.

While I disagree with 'dontmakehermad' on a number of his/her other
points,
I do agree with one.
That is, if women did not have the right to abortion, or birthcontrol, the
playing field would truely be level. Both people would then assume the
same
"risk" in engaging in sex.

As it is today, the assumption (right or wrong) that the women is on the
pill, or not fertile, or if the women lies about either of these
conditions - can and will result in disaster.

However, this case was not about men wanting to also have the right to
destroy children through abortion. It was about men wanting the same
ability
to say "no thank you" to a child they did not want, did not plan, nor are
ready for in their lives at that time.

Just like women have today.

Women today can walk away from the responsibility of parenthood - via
abortion, via RU486, via adoption, via legal abandonment. All of these
"choices" are after conception, and two of them are after the child is
already born and exists in the world.

Women have these choices today.
But men only have the responsibility to cover her behind when she makes
her
choice.

It simply is not equitable. She assumes no risk.

July 21, 2006 at 3:32 pm
-----------------------------------------------
a.. jeremy said,

"However, this case was not about men wanting to also have the right to
destroy children through abortion. It was about men wanting the same
ability
to say "no thank you" to a child they did not want, did not plan, nor are
ready for in their lives at that time."-Roger

Exactly. It's about giving men the same option that women have - the
option
to decline parenthood out of wedlock. A window of opportunity to give up
paternal rights and responsibilities for whatever reason. It's exactly
what
women have had for many years. What's more, women would retain all their
current options - except the option to force a man to be a father against
his will.