Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (503021)	12/3/2003 3:05:00 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 769670

There is no justification for changing the definition of the word marriage.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (503021)	12/3/2003 3:28:39 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 769670

Just what kind of equal rights are we talking about? It seems the reproductive rights of men are unequal to women. Not only unequal but punitive and unfair. The courts seem to be talking favorably of marriage and family here as if it has some historical value to society. by Cathy Young THE LEGAL BATTLE OF GERALD MISCOVICH, the Berks County man who wants to stop paying support for a child he didn't father, is just one in a series of recent cases that raise hard questions about fatherhood and men's reproductive rights in this age of gender equality and technological progress. These cases make it clear that we will never have true reproductive equality until the law treats both men and women more fairly. That means, among other things, revisiting our notions of a man's reproductive obligations and rights. Miscovich's ex-wife, Elizabeth, got pregnant soon after they married. In 1989, when the boy was 2, she left her husband, and they reached an agreement on child support and visitation. Two years later, a DNA test showed Miscovich was not the father. But he is still forced to pay child support. Under Pennsylvania law, dating to the 16th century, a child born to a married woman is her husband's child, tests or no tests. Now, Miscovich is challenging this principle before the U.S. Supreme Court. Will he have any luck? In 1989, the high court upheld a similar California law in a very different case - in which the plaintiff wanted to be a dad. Michael Hirschensohn fathered a child in a long-term relationship with a woman who was legally married but separated; when she eventually went back to her husband, Hirschensohn was barred from seeing his daughter. The courts rejected his lawsuit, despite his bond with the girl and DNA test results, on the grounds of "the state's interest in preserving the integrity of the matrimonial family." Whether they assert the right to be parents or not to be parents, men aren't getting much sympathy. Biological fathers who challenge adoptions are often reviled for seeking to rip the child from a loving family after failing to take paternal responsibility. Men seeking relief from paternal obligations are seen as selfish cads. Men who don't want to be fathers are told they should have exercised their choice (through contraception, sterilization, or abstinence) before they had sex. Ironically, these are precisely the arguments pro-lifers make about women. When directed at women, "You play, you pay" is widely seen as callous and punitive; when directed at men, it's widely accepted. Even many abortion foes make an exception for victims of child abuse or rape. Men aren't allowed even these excuses. If a woman seduces an underage boy and has a baby, the boy, legally a victim of statutory rape, is still liable for child support. In a bizarre Alabama case, a woman deliberately got pregnant by having sex with a male acquaintance who had passed out after drinking; she later bragged to friends that it saved her a trip to the sperm bank. The courts ordered him to pay up. And then there's Miscovich, who not only didn't intend to father a child - he says he was "paranoid" about birth control - but didn't father one. The point isn't that he has no genetic link to the boy (neither do adoptive parents); it's that he is a victim of a painful betrayal compounded by the legal system. One could argue that in these disputes, the fathers' claims conflict with children's needs - for economic support or, in the case of disenfranchised biological fathers, for a stable family. But surely fairness to the man counts for something, too. (Why, for example, does Miscovich have more of an obligation to provide for his ex-wife's child than her current husband?) And there are other issues at stake. If we want to promote responsible fatherhood, which is ultimately in the best interest of children, is it wise to tell men that their rights as fathers can be arbitrarily denied? Is it wise to give women incentives to engage in reproductive fraud and produce children who may get the money but won't have a father's love? For years, the biology of reproduction placed an unequal burden on women. Today, technological and social progress has given women control over their fertility, and in many ways, it's men who are at a disadvantage. They are less able to escape the consequences of sex; their bond with their children is fragile. We hear a lot about irresponsible fathers who abandon women and children. But in many cases, it's irresponsible or egotistic mothers who victimize men and children, and they are equally blameworthy. No social or legal change can bring about true reproductive equality as long as only a man can become a parent without his knowledge. If we want fathers to respect the father-child bond, society - and women - must respect it as well.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (503021)	12/3/2003 10:51:58 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769670

The trick for Dean is to rail against Washington in public and rally insiders behind the scenes, party strategists say. "There's a danger some will call it hypocritical . . . or some of his original Internet warriors won't understand he needs to consort with those they feel are the enemy," said Democratic strategist Jenny Backus. Many Washington Democrats, especially veterans of the Clinton administration, are wary of Dean and skeptical of his chances of defeating President Bush in 2004. Several southern Democrats in the House and Senate have told their leaders in recent weeks that Dean would be a drag on congressional candidates and damage the party's image in key regions, according to a top party leader. Some party leaders agree. Although Dean's supporters are lobbying Democratic governors such as Jim Doyle of Wisconsin for endorsements, the former Vermont governor has scant public backing from former colleagues. Still, many establishment Democrats are warming to Dean, in part because there is a growing perception he is pulling away from the pack -- even though most voters have not tuned in to the campaign. "There's a sea change going on," said former DNC vice chair Lynn Cutler, a Dean supporter who attends the meetings with lobbyists. At Tuesday night's book-signing party for former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright, Cutler said she was inundated with requests from Democrats who formerly were cool to Dean but now want to help him out. A former Clinton Cabinet secretary is expected to endorse Dean this week, and one friend of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said the former first lady sounds increasingly intrigued by Dean. Clinton did not want to discuss her relationship with the candidates, her spokesman said.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (503021)	12/3/2003 10:52:59 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769670

is this hypocrite ?? While Dean has criticized Bush for relying on fundraisers known as "Rangers," who collect at least $200,000, and "Pioneers" who round up $100,000, Dean has his own roster of party insiders raising big bucks. Dean's $100,000 club includes Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), former Virginia lieutenant governor Donald S. Beyer, Washington lobbyist (and former candidate in Maryland's 8th Congressional District) Terry Lierman, former DNC national chairman Steve Grossman, movie director Rob Reiner and DNC member Pam Eakes. In early September, Lofgren raised more than $200,000, the largest amount collected for Dean's campaign at a single event. The fundraiser at her home was attended by more than 1,300 people, some of whom donated $1,000 each. The event was co-hosted by former San Jose mayor Susan Hammer, along with Silicon Valley business figures and local elected officials. Lofgren says other congressional supporters of Dean meet at her house once a week to discuss strategy with Dean headquarters.