The Declaration of Independence states that one of the self-evident truths is that all men are created equal.
This does not mean that any two human beings are exactly alike in any respect. They are born different with different natural skills. They acquire different tastes and develop along different lines. They vary in physical strength, mental capacity, emotional stability, inherited social status, and many other ways.
All men are created equal in just three ways. They are treated as equals by God, law, and the protection of their rights. The task of society is to accept people in all their vast array of individual differences, but treat them as equals when it comes to their role as human beings.
The assumption of numerous states of joint legal and sole physical custody to the mother is clearly not acknowledging the equality of men and women. The law is essentially saying that based on their sex at birth, parental rights are already decided in the case of a custody dispute later in life. The protection of the mother’s right trumps dad’s rights to custody. The claims of “primary caretaker” and the “tender years” doctrine are interpreted as assumptive roles of the mother. Notably, the “tender years” doctrine was rewritten as “primary caretaker”, yet holds the same assumptions. The duties assumed by mothers and fathers are not deemed equal in importance. “The best interests of the children” is the official terminology of the courts to disguise their bias against fathers. The best interests standard is skewed to favor the mother, giving her the benefit of all custodial interests, because of her “physical birthing” of the child.
The laws regarding custody fails the equality before the law standard of the constitution. This standard means that every man’s [male and female] is tried by the same law governing any particular case. Simply, it means there are no different laws for different classes and orders of men [as there were in ancient times]. (Constitutional writer Clarence Carson.)
The Declaration also refers to the equality of rights….Each man is equally entitled to his life with every other man; each man has an equal title to God-given liberties along with every other. (Clarence Carson, The American Tradition [ Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.; Foundation for Economic Education, 1970], pp. 112-13.]
God does not distinguish the rights of women from that of men when it comes to the custody of their children. There are many reasons why God would desire the maximum amount of time be spent with each parent, as equally as possible. Fatherless homes, and those where the role of the father is diminished to four days a month is devastating to the well-being of the child and to society as a whole. Countless studies show that fatherless homes, as well as diminished father time, leads to higher incarceration rates, higher teenage pregnancy, higher drug use, higher suicide rates, and several other social ills. Many fathers commit suicide once their children are taken from them simply because they were born male.
The states are increasing the costs to society by destroying countless lives while benefitting itself through higher federal funds (based on child support cases), higher employment rolls, and more influence in the personal lives of Americans. They “create” social ills so they can “govern” the fallout.
Mothers do not benefit either as this process is typically used to get as much child support, property, and alimony as possible. The kids are just the pawns used to get what they want. The mothers become dependent upon their check each month, often doing little or nothing to improve their positions. Many of them come become dependents of the state gratuity program, failing to see the value of fathers to a child’s upbringing. Experience has demonstrated that government gratuities are as corrupting and debilitating to one group as it has been to the Native Americans. Entitlements, by legal rulings, financial handouts, or otherwise are debilitating to any group, because it fails to provide the incentive for one to better themselves. The Creator has imposed on every human being of normal mental capacity, among many: The duty of parents [not just mothers] and elders to protect, teach, feed, clothe, and provide shelter for children and; the duty to become economically self-sufficient.
The truth is that just around 15% of women believe in taking everything they can from the dad when divorcing. Yet, this group gains full physical custody and joint legal custody nearly 100% of the time. The assumption is that the children are better off in one home, than splitting time between two, even when they live in the same school district. This assumption is merely a theory with no statistical support. In fact, nearly all studies show the social problems that result from removing the father from the children’s lives. Ironically, and hypocritically, the courts will allow joint physical and joint legal custody when the parents both agree to it. If they agree to it, it is legal, but the court itself will not recognize the same agreement [joint physical and joint legal custody] in its rulings when custody is contested. It is all or nothing, and means the mother wins nearly 100% of the time. This is neither equality before the law nor equality of rights.
If every person is entitled to protection of his life and property, the decision of custody is not one for the state to determine. In the interests of the children, they [the courts] may decide that for joint physical and joint legal custody, the parents have to live in close proximity, and partake equally in their upbringing. Beyond that, the presumption should be one of joint physical and joint legal custody.
The power of the government to strip one parent of their parental rights based on sex automatically cancels out the principle of “guaranteed equal rights.” What government has the right to penalize a person based upon their sex and yet call itself a true republic with an equal protection of rights?
A summary of Benjamin Franklin’s views, taken from Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 10:64, on counter-productive compassion includes:
- Compassion which gives a drunk the means to increase his drunkenness is counter-productive. (Ibid., 5:538.) [Many women are having multiple children with multiple fathers and collecting child support from each one of them.]
- Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counter-productive. (Ibid., 5:123.) [Mothers who won’t release themselves of their own self-interests in the name of their children are dependent and weak.]
- Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter-productive. (Ibid., 3:135-36.) [The desire to better oneself is hindered by the desire to keep the ex-husband paying her out of his hard-earned money.]
- Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counter-productive. (Ibid., 3:136-37.) [These are dependent, weak women who will not strive to excel at anything unless forced to by the actual need.]
There is nothing that should construe the compassion that should be shown to the true needy and deserving. Any support should be expected to decrease yearly, as a person should pursue a better, more independent life.
Franklin expressed “calculated” compassion intelligently when he wrote: “To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary ever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good. (Ibid., 3:135.)
Highlights from the writings of the Founders suggest the following in regards to helping those in need:
- Do not help the needy completely. Merely help them to help themselves.
- Give the poor the satisfaction of “earned achievement” instead of rewarding them without achievement.
- Allow the poor to climb the “appreciation ladder”—from tents to cabins, cabins to cottages, cottages to comfortable houses.
- Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it to the point where it becomes habitual.
- Strictly enforce the scale of “fixed responsibility.” The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is the family; then the church; next the community; finally the county, and, in a disaster or emergency, the state. Under no circumstances is the federal government to become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt it would corrupt the government and also the poor. No Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare.
This excerpt of highlights come from the book, “The 5000 Year Leap, Principles of Freedom 101,” by W. Cleon Skousen, 2006, p. 121.
The current child support payment scheme clearly promotes futility, dependency, and weakness.
The unalienable rights of each individual, mother and father alike, is well stated by John Locke in one of his writings.
“The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which…teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property…And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another.” (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, Great Books of the Western World, vol. 35 [Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952], p. 26, par. 6.
The law of Nature then would not make a father a subordinate of the mother in custody disputes, and in the process allow him to be destroyed.
William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, state in part: “…no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them [nature rights, such as life and liberty], unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.” (Commentaries, 1:93.) Divorce in itself is not a forfeiture of rights. An individual cannot be said to forfeit his rights simply because he is born a male. This is a violation of the law of nature. Furthermore, the right to parenting is an inalienable right endowed to us by the Creator.
Among the unalienable rights endowed to individuals by the Creator is "the right to a fair trial" and the "right to beget [father] one's kind." There can be no fair trial if the presumption is in favor of the mother in a winner take all custody battle. Secondly, if their is an unalienable right to father a child, their is presumptively a right to also raise that child equal to that of the mother.
If we are a country founded upon the law of Nature as provided us by our Creator, why has Minnesota and other states, interfered with the unalienable rights of fathers? The results are devastating, yet our legislators sit idly by, ignoring its effects. Government remains larger than it needs to be, refusing to acknowledge its error in determining disputed custody cases. The attorney general has the power to intervene when this is challenged and yet sits on its backside, ignoring the problem. The blood of thousands is on the hands of everyone with the responsibility of serving the public interest, the constitution, and above all, the Creator.
Comments
Post a Comment