From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Supporting children
Summary: "Walking wallets"?
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:33:18 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <4243@unisql.UUCP> wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

>In article <19384@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>writes:

>> Rather, the current law lacks respect both for unbridled sexual freedom 
>> and for "attempted gender equality."  [Matt Rosenblatt]

>	Actually, what the law fails to provide is NOT equal protection to 
>men and women, but equal protection to married men and divorced men:  You 
>can't force a (married) man to provide X dollars for his children.  The 
>legally required minimum is clothes and some food.  You don't _have_ to 
>buy toys, or send them to college, or carry life insurance. 

>	But that changes when you get divorced.  Suddenly, you are legally 
>required to maintain the children (and their custodial parent!) in a 
>certain style, and to carry insurance, and to pay for their college.  
>*That's* the injustice:  child support should be limited to what it costs 
>to support the child, and any extra should be a gift of love rather than 
>the coercion of the State.   [Wharfie]

I agree with what Wharfie writes here.  The current system amounts to
*punishment* of the non-custodial parent -- usually the father -- and
there should be no such thing as punishment where someone has done no
wrong.  Moreover, much of the so-called "child support" amounts to a
a taking of private property, not for public use, nor for the use of
the children whom the father has a status-based obligation to support,
but rather for the private use of the ex-spouse who is the custodial
parent.  The taking of private property for private use is something
prohibited by many State constitutions, but there always seems to be
an exception when it comes to taking men's property to benefit ex-wives 
who are no longer providing *any* benefit to the men.

>	It's got nothing to do with sluts, Matt.   [Wharfie]

I'm afraid I have to disagree here.  I've seen the expression, 
"walking wallets," in this thread of articles.  Is it wrong to
consider fathers as "walking wallets," required to support their 
children on account of an accident of biology?

My position is that it is wrong for society, or the law, to treat
fathers as *nothing more than* "walking wallets."  It is wrong to
deny them the presumption of joint custody.  It is wrong to deny
them visitation with the children who are their own flesh and blood,
just to satisfy the spite and resentment of their ex-wives.  It is
wrong to order them around, as Wharfie describes, in ways that 
still-married fathers are not ordered around.

My remarks about "Studs'n'Sluts" demonstrate my contempt for fathers
who want to be *even less than* "walking wallets."  These are the
Studs who believe that since they never wanted a child to come from
their illicit fornication relationship, they therefore have *no
obligation at all* towards any such child they *did* conceive.  
The *minimum* that a child has a right to expect from his father 
is financial support.  Morally, the Stud and the Slut owe it to
their child to "do the right thing," meaning to get married, make
the child legitimate, and provide him with a loving, two-parent
home.  We can't force them to do that, but we sure as hell can
force them to provide financial support.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit."