Glen Sacks recently
covered the issue of military men
who return from a tour of duty to
find themselves stripped of their
parental responsibilities or facing
jail because they are behind in child
support. The military divorce rate
is higher than that of the general
population; therefore, military men
are at greater risk for being treated
like second class citizens. So what
incentive men into joining the military
when they are guaranteed t be treated
as second class citizens as a Father
both inside and outside the military?
Joining or being in the military is
an act of patriotism and is a noble
act; but what if that patriotism does
not take into account the Stalinist
(anti-)Family courts? The Wisconsin
Plan, the plan most state base their
(anti-)Family Law, is modeled after
the Stalinist Russia's Family law
code; right down to the percentage
taken from men to "support their
children". Never mind the inherent
difference in the Communist and Free
market system; twenty-five percent
of a communist's income where taxes
are not taken out and housing is provided
by the state is far different from
taking the same percentage from a
free market's income where taxes and
housing account for a significant
percentage of overall expenditures.
Since the goal of Communism is to
achieve a socialist utopia where everything,
including children, are 'owned' by
the collective, by what right did
the United States adopt such a policy
that is foreign to our Constitution?
At the start of our union, the Common
Law defined that a unmarried woman
held 'title to the custody' of her
children and married men held 'title
to the custody' of his children. Title
being the indication of the right
of property which protected the children
from state involvement. Then around
1830 or so the judiciary, without
citing any organic law, began to introduce
the 'Tender Years' doctrine; which,
at the time was gaining popularity
in Britain and in Europe. Despite
the fact that parent's rights with
respect to their children was a 'right
of property' with greater protections,
judges began interfering with this
right of married men but not the identical
right of unmarried women. But wait
a minute, doesn't a right of property
require a jury trial in the United
States? Does the judiciary have the
right to increase judicial discression
in a Constitutional Republic where
jury trials are a sacred right? Aren't
jury trial a check on government -
and in this case judicial - tyranny?
The answer historically given by government
apologists has been the legislature
must be called upon to change the
laws. But what about the rights of
the citizens? The Federalist and Anti-Federalist
papers debated the various ways tyrannies
that could arise in this Republic.
These debates clearly state that each
person is a sovereign individual and
has certain (God given) rights that
the state can not intrude on.
Hence the state does not, via the
legislature or judiciary, have the
right to arbitrary change certain
things; in this case a right more
precious than that of property. Nowhere
in either the Common Law or Federal
or any State Constitution(s) does
it say the parent child relationship
is defined by the state. The Common
Law only allowed the state to interfere
in the parent child relationship if
the child needed rescuing. Only governments
based on Marxist philosophies allow
the state to make decisions for children.
Even in the case of divorce, the Common
Law did not allow any judicial discretion
by the state; except in the extreme
case where the child needed rescuing.
A country that was founded on God
given rights means that those rights
are inalienable or unalienable. The
Protestant Founding Fathers included
scripture in the Federalist papers.
They believed that the individual
stood before God, not the collective.
Common Law and Natural Law rights
were derived over the millennium to
correspond to human nature in a free
societies. When the state defines
rights or makes itself the fountainhead
of rights it can use Orwellian logic
to redefine rights and hence individuals
are no longer sovereign. Historically,
when the state (re)defines behavior,
million must be re-educated or killed
in order to further the state's ideology;
e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot,
..., etc., and their fellow ideologues
all had a dream; that dream turned
into a nightmare for tens of millions.
These variations on Marxism tallied
more victims in the name of achieving
an ideal collective utopia than any
other cause or disease in the history
of mankind. It has been said that
Marxism is a good idea just applied
to the wrong species; they fail to
point out the human toll of this forced
ideology has resulted in which makes
it more than just a bad idea.
The state has decided that the right
to recreational coitus is solely a
female right. Men who engage in any
form of sex which result in seminal
discharge are at risk for 18 to 24
years of indentured servitude, involuntary
servitude, slavery, and state peonage.
Even thirteen year old boys who are
raped can expect to have their lunch
money confiscated by the state in
the name of the greater good of the
collective (i.e., society). Women,
on the other hand can treat each act
of coitus according to her free will
given the choices of the pill, the
morning after pill, an abortion, a
late term abortion, dropping the child
off at safe-house, giving the child
up for adoption, or even raising the
child alone. Under Common Law, the
marriage or comparable contract or
accepting children outside of a contract
of their own free will was the only
way to bind a man to the care and
maintenance of offspring. The person
with the title to the custody of the
children and enjoyed their companionship
had a reciprocal obligation to support
the child(ren).
Today that reciprocal relationship
has been abolished. Divorced or never
married men have less rights than
criminals yet these men may never
have committed a crime.
When we see that the armed forces
are well behind in their recruiting
efforts because of the war we should
also ask why should men participate
in their own destruction? They should
not. Volunteering for the armed services
is a noble endeavor but since men
are the only ones in combat and they
are currently being treated like second
class citizens - both inside or outside
the military - men should ask themselves
if they should boycott this noble
profession until their rights and
this Republic is restored. This call
for a boycott should be echoed by
all fathers rights groups across the
nation. Men should not die to protect
the right of the government to treat
them as second class citizens.
Mark
P.S., bcc'ed to a couple few groups
and organizations
-=-=-
... "Single acts of tyranny may
be ascribed to the accidental opinion
of a day; but a series of oppressions,
begun at a distinguished period, and
pursued unalterably through every
change of ministers, too plainly prove
a deliberate systematical job of reducing
us to slaves." -- Thomas Jefferson
* TagZilla (http://tagzilla.mozdev.org)
|
