From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Summary: No cop-out for studs.
Keywords: FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:06:25 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.

In article <1992Nov16.002858.22934@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
(Kevin Darcy) writes:

>Similarly and connectedly, paternity child support statutes were enacted, on 
>the whole, before RvW, (the last major revision of Michigan's statutes, for 
>instance, was enacted in 1956) when conception was, by law, functionally 
>equivalent to parenthood in many jurisdictions, with scattered exceptions. 
>[Kevin Darcy]

The idea was that when a man engages in the activity -- sexual intercourse
-- that may bring a child into being, he is taking the risk that he will
bring about the birth of a child, and so he ought to be liable to support 
that child.  

>Blind paternity child support made sense then, but not once RvW 
>was handed down, and abortion became a legal option for virtually 
>all women.   [Kevin Darcy]

When RvW was handed down, it meant that a woman may engage in the
child-producing activity without having to take the risk of having
to support any child she may conceive.  Keeping the old law that 
Mr. Darcy calls "blind paternity support" imposes a liability on
men that it no longer imposes on women.  But to say that is not
the same thing as to say that it no longer makes sense.

>For almost 
>20 years, our _lex_ has had insufficient _ratio_.  [Kevin Darcy]

No, there's plenty of _ratio_:  It is better that the one who took
part in bringing the child into the world, rather than the rest of
us taxpayers who took no such part, should support that child.  It's
not _ratio_ that the current law lacks.  Rather, the current law
lacks respect both for unbridled sexual freedom and for "attempted
gender equality."

There is *nothing* in our legal tradition that says that laws that
treat men and women differently are _ipso facto_ "unreasonable"
(= "without reason").  As recently as this month, the voters of
Iowa rejected a proposed amendment to the Iowa Constitution that
would have ruled out unequal gender-based treatment by law.  And
this makes eminent sense:  Men and women are different, and any 
sensible society is going to enact laws that treat them differently.

The old society attempted to provide, in an easy-to-understand way,
for young children, who cannot be expected to provide for themselves,
and for their mothers, who for some period of time while their 
children are young cannot fairly be expected to provide for themselves.
The easy-to-understand way, as explained in George Gilder's _Men and
Marriage_, is that a woman would not consent to sex with a man until
they were married, and a woman would not marry a man until he could 
be counted on to support her and their children.  The law bolstered 
her confidence by *requiring* him to do so.  

The ancients realized that a "Studs'n'Sluts" culture cannot subsist 
without outside support, so they structured their laws to rule out 
any "Studs'n'Sluts" culture.  The "socio-political climate" has
changed, but the fact that "Studs'n'Sluts" activity imposes a great
cost on society has not changed.

Now we are being asked to relieve men of the duty to support their
children.  And why?  It is in order that they should be free to enjoy
sex outside marriage without having to worry about the consequences.
We've already made women free to do this -- a mistake.  No doubt, 
the principle of "attempted gender equality" would demand that we 
follow up this mistake by making the corresponding mistake with 
respect to men.  That's just one more example of why the principle 
of "attempted gender equality" is a pernicious threat to children, 
good men, and good women.  FEMINISMUS DELENDUS EST.

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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"