John McCain Testily Dismisses Fathers' Rights at Iowa Town Hall Meeting
March 16th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesAspiring Republican presidential candidate John McCain contemptuously dismissed fathers' concerns over family law at a mid-day town hall meeting in Cedar Falls, Iowa today. Shared parenting activist Tony Taylor asked McCain if he "would be bold enough to address the issue of equal access to children for fathers that have gone through divorce." McCain testily replied:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, I am not going to overturn divorce court decisions. That's why we have courts and that's why people go to court and get a divorce. If I as President of the United States said this decision has to be overturned without the proper appeals process then I would be disturbing our entire system of government... But for me to stand here before all these people and say that I'm going declare divorces invalid because someone feels that they weren't treated fairly in court, we are getting into a, uh, uh, tar baby of enormous proportions.
In other words, McCain is saying, "the family court issue is a mess. Given the power of the women's groups and the lack of power of fathers' groups, there's nothing for me to gain and much for me to lose in tackling the issue."
It’s unfortunate, but McCain's assessment of the politics of the issue is probably accurate at this point, and is one reason why we can’t get politicians to meaningfully act on our issues. And as unfortunate as McCain’s response is, to be fair, at least answered the question honestly. Whereas most politicians will give some vague, meaningless answer designed to appease the questioner into thinking he was going to do something about the issue, McCain made it clear he had no interest in the issue.
Also typifying the weakness of our movement, McCain's remarks have been very controversial, but not for the right reason. McCain referred to the issue as a "tar baby," meaning a sticky mess, which reforming family law certainly is. Yet "tar baby" also has a racist connotation, and Tony Taylor is black, perhaps the only black person in the room. McCain's use of "tar baby" is being widely reported, and McCain apologized for using the term.
To watch video of the incident, which begins right after Taylor asked his question, click here. To learn more, see the CNN story McCain apologizes after using the phrase 'tar baby'.
Taylor, to his credit, has been traveling around confronting candidates' on fathers' issues, and has been a thorn in their side. He told me that as of today he has yet to receive a meaningful, positive response to his questions from any candidate.
"));
19 queries. 0.380 seconds.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I read the story on CNN, they did not mention Mr. Taylor by name. I am also going to try to contact McCain through his website. All I can find thus far is his "blog". I don't feel I can be sure he would get the message. I do not want to converse with a lacky. I did submit a comment, through email, to politicalticker@cnn.com. Here it is (of course I gave them my contact info, but left that part off here. No offense):
How about forcing McCain to face up to the fact that there is a huge problem in our family court system? He never did answer the man’s question. The man who asked the question was Tony Taylor and he asked if McCain “would be bold enough to address the issue of equal access to children for fathers that have gone through divorce.” Make McCain answer the question! I am a woman and can see that the family courts in our country are a royal mess; they seriously favor the mother’s, and do severe damage to our children.
March 17th, 2007 at 1:48 am
The laws and courts also have an adverse effect on women because a sizable proportion of men (28% in one academic survey) are aware of what's going on in spite of the near total media blackout of the subject, and are avoiding women and relationships with them in droves.
The result is both an ever declining marriage rate and a Great American Man Shortage -- even though never-married men outnumber their female counterparts by four to three in the mid-30s age group); the men most at risk of having their testicles removed via their wallets in a divorce are the first to drop out of the dating/mating scene, though these are the ones who generally are most attractive to women. The net result is that those who have nothing to lose represent a greater proportion of what women have to choose from.
A good question to ask a politician would be something like: "If Paul McCartney were an American citizen, what do you think the effect on marriage is of him losing $50+ million in a divorce which lasted less than four years and which at least in principle he had no power to stop? Do you think his ex should be elevated to a celebrity on a TV show for having pulled this off?"
March 17th, 2007 at 1:50 am
I called Tony from Iraq yesterday and he was at the McCaine event. Tony goes to every event he can to raise this issue. I asked Senator Obama a similar question and it was likewise avoided by all the media.
Tony Taylor is one of my heroes for his efforts and I know we will create a cohesive national movement very soon.
www.iowafathers.com
Ken Richards
Iraq
March 18th, 2007 at 10:33 am
I see family court reform as the biggest issue facing this country at this time, if this is too big for Mr. Mc Caine address then he is not my man for President, simple as that.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:33 am
John McCain nuked his own campaign into irrelevancy anyways. A lot of people really liked him and got very angry at Bush and company with the way they pissed all over him... and he continues to suck up to them. He rose to popularity as a sober war-hero and has since gained a reputation as a pathetic sycophant.
Whether or not you like Bush's cadre, you have to admit that a man who keeps coming back to them after
a) being smeared with nasty "black-love-child" rumors in the primaries, and
b) being ignored during the torture debate despite being one of the few politicians who's endured war torture.
isn't really a very impressive man.
He could've been the man who saved the Republican party. Now he's a walking joke.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
[...] John McCain Testily Dismisses Fathers' Rights at Iowa Town Hall Meeting–Video Available I discussed the incident Friday when aspiring Republican presidential candidate John McCain [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 8:56 am
[...] question of an unfair Family Court System at a town hall meeting in Iowa. Initially when I read the report of the incident of Glenn Sack's blog, I was angry. The condescending tone and complete dismissal of this [...]
March 20th, 2007 at 7:26 am
where would you be to day if it was.nt for your dad he made you the person you are to day. our forfathers would turn over in thier grave's. 6 year's ago cps took my grandkids from both parent's the mom drink. the dad did nothing.the cps caseworker told him divorce my daughter remarry and he would get the kid's back. what a joke he got divorced remarried two of the boy's were adopted one boy we dont know where he is the oldest granddaughter is 17teen only in the 9th grade all she want's to do is to come home CPS really care's no one care's nomore drug's have taken over people's life's if the dad's we have the real dad's left in this world dont stand up and be acountable for thier kid's give CPS time and they will be telling you what side to butter your bread on yes thing's change people change. my dad was a real man . he came from where a man.s hand shake was his word. where a pone was a pone of cornbread.we need to take bake our life's when i was growing up the teacher's would tell you that's ok you really dont need a education.you will get married have kid's become a homemaker have a husband to take care of you another joke dad's of to day need to wake up take your kid's in your arm's and show them you love them before the state do'se it for you millie
March 20th, 2007 at 9:14 am
The question to McCain was poorly phrased in terms of helping fathers who had already been through divorce. It is true that once the decision has been made there is not much a US President can do or should do.
The question would have been better phrased if it asked if McCain would be willing to help raise consciousness about the unfairness to fathers during the divorce process. But in the end, divorce should not be a federal matter. It is a distinctly a state matter. The federal government is already involved in too many things reserved to the state and local goverments.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:05 am
What!??
You mean like domestic violence, child support, and no fault divorce?
The Bradly Admendment for example, is a federal law. These federal laws are riddled with unconstontutional provisions that should be trashed.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Good Point.
However the question to McCain then should have directly addressed reform or elimination of these federal laws. The question was too vague and McCain could have legitimately seen it as asking for help in overturning divorce decisions - certainly not a federal matter and only possible in a state appeals process.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I see and agree with your point about the wording, however, it's rather appearent that he isn't going to take family reform on, it's a sticky wick and not something for a President to get involved with.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I think McCain's response was a cop-out. It is not a court issue, it is a legislative issue. The courts treat dad's the way they do because they can within the law as it is currently written. The courts don't make the laws they enforce them. We need to change the laws to favor shared parenting and take the court's latitude away in interpreting the laws by making it crystal clear that, barring abuse or other negative issues, both parents should have equal time with their children. McCain, as a current lawmaker, definitely has the ability to create legislation that will make things more equal in the courts. By saying it was a court thing shows he doesn't even know how to do his job as a legislator.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:54 am
Re: McCain.
Observe closely Gentlemen of America...This is what a Liberal-Republican is !! John McCain cannot be counted on to uphold justice for all if he agrees with the current state of affairs that exist in Family Law Courts. The case for reform is overwhelming based on the Constitutional principal of equal protection under the law, and that's just for starters.
Mr. McCain sees nothing wrong with violation of the document he took an oath to protect because he's already done it with his un-constitutional " McCain-Fiengold " !! The greatest threat to America dose not come from without but within. The Courts cannot be trusted to administer the law when they're willing to Agendise it. Remember well what MLK said: "An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere" !! Justice is not open to interperatation, but it apparently is... in Family Law Court.
Liberal-Republicans like John McCain... who are more politician than statesman...are a far greater threat to freedom than Terrorism. Doing the right thing has never been popular and to stick a wet finger in the air to determine which way the political wind is blowing is not leadership but playing politics with the masses ( Can anyone say: Bill Clinton ? )
What is needed ?? Bold men willing to look beyond their lifetimes, not the next election.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I hope you have room to include all I am about to say. JeanB hit the nail on the head. Fathers and husbands are treated in divorce court as though we are barely equivalent to garbage (I know from personal experience how unbelievably cruel the system really is; I was "tried and convicted" in Probate Court in New Bedford, MA), but if you only knew the damage suffered by the children, you would cringe. Apparently, the courts really don't care about them, either. Not if my experience was any example (and I've heard enough horror stories to know that my experience is typical). No, I'm not talking about emotional damage caused by two parents splitting up. I'm talking about children suffering financially. I'm speaking of money that I saved and set aside over the years for my daughter's college education ($15,000 to be exact), money that the court allowed her mother to take, simply because she has a lower-paying, full-time job (her choice, by the way, since for sixteen years she had grown quite comfortable receiving $200 (tax free) from me each and every week under the pretense of "child support" (I accurately refer to it as "pretense" simply because, in addition to providing this "support" money to mom, I continued to buy my daughter's clothing, consistently provide her school lunch money (for more than 12 years), pay for all activities she has been involved in over the years, and so much more. This, in addition to the $11,000 I had to pay in legal expenses just to prevent mom from getting even more (yes, she actually was going after my retirement, more child support and having me pay her legal expenses throughout all of this charade!). Believe me, I can go on and on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that at 15 and 1/2 years of age my daughter begged the court to allow her to live with me. The court said no. That's right, the court said no. At sixteen, she simply left and came to live with me. Although all "child support" payments to mom ceased, the court ruled that mom would have absolutely no responsibility for my daughter's college education and no financial responsibility whatsoever! As a result, my daughter and I continue to seek scholarship and other monies necessary for her to attend a good college in the fall. There is something definitely wrong with a child support "formula" that is so cruelly slanted against fathers and does not take into consideration the tax benefits for the custodial parent (i.e. mom). This is so terribly unfair to a dad who wants nothing but the best for his daughter. Hey, maybe one day soon someone will take on this issue head on. In the meantime, the good Sen. McCain certainly will not get my vote, and I will pass the word.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
In response to this item in your column, I wrote to McCain at his official email address, which is: mccain.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?ID=64
This is a copy of the message I left:
"Dear Senator McCain:
I am an Independent and a strong supporter of yours, but I must write to you regarding
what I view as a "missed opportunity" in your recently reported answer given at a
campaign stop when you were asked to comment on the need for the courts to reconsider the
issue of equal access to children for fathers in divorce cases. I realize family law may
be a "thorny" issue for politicians in this day and age, but by recasting the question,
which I believe was general in nature, as a request for you to give your opinion on a
court ruling in a specific case, showed, in my opinion, an unfortunate and disingenuous
approach not in keeping with your prior direct responses on issues of importance. I
believe the United States needs courageous leadership now more than ever. Each day, this
nation's incredibly gender-biased judiciary system, brazen tramples on the civil rights
of men in its divorce rulings. Often, the victims are men who have put themselves in
harm's way to defend the very freedoms systematically being denied them because of
gender. I hope you will correct this "oversight" at the next possible opportunity and AT
LEAST weigh in on the serious degree to which gender bias has become a pervasive issue in
the family law system. Whether you realize it or not, this issue is becoming an
increasingly broad-based male concern in a nation where the divorce rate is now well over
50 percent. Just ask any man who has been subjected to the widespread use of perjurious
"ex parte" petitions how they feel about this issue, and you will quickly see what I'm
talking about. Thank you for listening."
I would encourage everyone to write to him there and to keep the tone civil. The more reasoned responses he gets from men, the more he and his advisors will have to consider at least "modifying" his future responses to such questions. Let's make him aware of the size and scope of the potential constituency for this issue!
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 am
Dear Senator McCain:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT
The rights of parents to the car, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247: U.S.D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538. D.C. Conn. (1981).
Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NF. 2d 858; 68Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205: US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).
The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. “A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and reasonability. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549: 434 US 246, 255-56, (1978).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence –live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution – No state can deprive an person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws. Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).
The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 T 2d 12.5, 1242-45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI (1985)
No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child. Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).
A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S. 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983).
A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).
Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.
The United States Supreme Court held that the “old notion” that “generally it is the man’s primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials” can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family and only male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).
Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality, 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F 2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).
State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).
The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah’s Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).
The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982), State’s power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment…Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the US Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights…Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those pre-existing fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental “liberty” interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the “Constitutional underpinning of … a recognition that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life.” The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F 2d 1328, (1981).
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 am
Dear Senator McCain:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT
The rights of parents to the car, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247: U.S.D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538. D.C. Conn. (1981).
Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NF. 2d 858; 68Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205: US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).
The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. “A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and reasonability. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549: 434 US 246, 255-56, (1978).
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
interesting statement from Senator McCain. I will be following him this Friday night and Saturday morning while he campaigns in central New Hampshire.
I have a copy of his book "Faith of my Fathers" that I want him to sign.
The write up about the book on the back cover contains such quotes as " Senator McCain learned about life and honor from his grandfather and father both Four Star Admirals in the U.S. Navy. Both their careers and their courage helped prepare McCain for the biggest challenge of his life when, as a Naval Aviator, he was shot down over Hanoi in 1967 and seriously injured". and Faith of My Fathers is about what McCain learned from his father and grandfather, and how their example enabled him to survive.
Maybe he will listen to a fellow former Naval Aviator, yet this one has not been able to be with his children for 599 days now, and why doesn't MY children deserve the same inspiration he got from his father?
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Wow. First chance I have had to get back to this one. First, thank you Jon Reisfeld for providing the contact information. I will make use of that for sure! Second I feel I need to respond to MartianBachelor, this posting was all the way at the top:
"The laws and courts also have an adverse effect on women because a sizable proportion of men (28% in one academic survey) are aware of what’s going on in spite of the near total media blackout of the subject, and are avoiding women and relationships with them in droves."
From personal insights, I can say that you are correct. My own boyfriend was very leary of getting involved with anyone else after all he was put through (twice), and I totally understood. I am very thankful he was willing to take that chance on me, and I'll be damned if I will ever make him regret it. We have a deal, something we came up with together in an attempt to avoid going through "hell" again, not the way we did anyway. We agreed that if either one of us ever decides we want out of the relationship just come out with it. No head-games, no teary "but why?!" Just say this isn't working out, do explain why because we owe each other that much after (now) over 5 years together, and then move on. There will be heartbreak from at least one side, maybe even both, but we have to act like grown-ups at some point. No temper tantrums allowed!! I guess wisdom does come with age. Sometimes, at least. We are both middle age, if anyone wonders or cares. Great postings here all around.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Well I just got back from a John McCain Town Hall meeting. Got there early and got a set front row center wearing my old Navy Flight Jacket and holding a copy of his book so he will notice me.
I did get a question to him referring to his book Faith of my Fathers.
What I asked was he got influence on support from his father and grandfather which got him through his stay in Hanoi, yet there are millions of children and fathers who because of the divorce courts will never have the same opportunity for support that he got.
His answer was politically prepared than the one he gave Mr. Taylor in Cedar Rapids. But it still was a run around, speaking of single parents coming from economic environments, and that more faith based programs will help cut down on divorce rates, but there was nothing he could do to repair the problem.
I also gave him a copy of Stephen Baskerville article in the Oct 24, 2005 issue of The American Conservative titled The Fathers' War about how military members parental rights are violated, along with how my has been.
And I did get him to sign my book.
More updates tomorrow after tomorrow's town meeting
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Intersting, David Z. Good for you for getting in front of him and pushing the issue. Of course, McCain missed the point again in what sounded like a carefully-crafted response. Slowing the escalating divorce rate through more faith-based initiatives might be nice -- although the notion strikes me as EXTREMELY NAIVE. However, maybe there's hope here. If McCain thinks curbing rising divorce rates is "doable" -- at any level -- then he certainly shouldn't run away from our issue: sensitizing the courts, i.e., judges, to the rampant gender-bias they have permitted to get under their "robes" so to speak, and urge them to behave impartially once more -- particularly in matters of child custody.
March 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Just came back from another McCain Town Meeting. While this time he didn't call on me for a question I would like to think it was because he remembered me from the night before and avoided it. If that's true, then he knows this is an issue that will not go away.
I did get a chance to say "support shared parenting" while he was speaking to reporters.
Can't wait for the next candidate to come through central New Hampshire.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:16 am
What a coward. He loved the Vietnam War; maybe he should move back to Vietnam and stay there. He's useless enough over here.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I am glad that Glenn Sacks gave that Liberal Republican John McCain the print he deserves. This man is no Conservative...just switch parties John & good ridence.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Just because a man fathers a child, does not give him equal rights to that child. If the couple is legally married, that's another matter. Most of the time a man would get a woman pregant and droped out of sight ; not caring at all. That being the case, the man has no rights. On the other hand , if they are legally married; the man has equal rights to the child he fathered. He also has equal duty to give that child all he can give to the development of that child. And what he gives should be only for that child, not for the mother or new boyfriend or husband. The law should be the same if the child is biracial, duel citizenship, or whatever.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
On my last blog of August 8, is what John McCain believes. That's what I also believe. He is pro-life, not pro-death. The best solution to birth control is abstinence. But human nature being what it is. A female has options . What are those options? One is to have an abortion and kill the baby. Specially if the husband or lover wants to. He should have thought of that before he put his pinus inside the vagina. The female might want the same thing if the husband or lover is not going to support her and the baby. She might argue that she has a right to her body. And she is correct in saying that. But it is not her body that she is killing or aborting. It is the baby's body that she agreed to delivered live ;when she decided to open up her legs for the male to penetrate her. The other option is adoption. There are countless couples who can't produce children. They want to adopt. There are many clinics that will give you the support and help you need. It is as easy to abort and kill as it is to give life. And you will know the kind of man who puts his pinus inside your vagina is.