Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Flangan Explains Judicial Child Snatchers...

Having talked about Gregory Flanagan before I will refrain from lengthy discourse as to his person, but a question comes up... I know a girl named Evan and a boy named Kelly. Could Gregory be female? Just a thought...

The title of this article: Judicial Child Snatchers Threaten the Integrity of the Mother-Child Bond

The real beauty of this article is that there are virtually NO sources. Truth in opinion reigns online... hopefully (or I would assume) the readers of the Liberation Journal are not that educated (or smart). Otherwise how could they read such unsubstantiated garbage?

BTW, who is this guy liberating anyway? Women from the idea that they should not have an unparalleled advantage in family court, the judiciary from following rules of law, people from their senses, Congress from legislative fairness...

This article is much better than the first, almost pure opinion...

Some people now want to take away the right of men and women to set the terms of their marriage, divorce and custody arraignments. They deny the natural right of women to first custody and control of the relationship-marriage terms. They want to equalize custody between the father and mother despite the fact that most marriages break up because of the conduct of men, and that most divorcing couples agree that the children belong with their mother, therefore any equalization of custody would be an unequal denial of the rights, needs and desires of most men, women and children. (Oh lord, where do I start. Take away the right of men and women to set the terms of their marriage, divorce and custody arrangements... he really means take away the right of women to dictate all of these things. Why on earth do women have a natural right to marriage and custody terms? Both marriage and the creation of children are joint ventures, barring severe mental illness or incapacity of one of the parties, the dissolution of such should also be joint. There is no god given right to women to dictate matters of family or marriage. Once men were primarily in charge of both but after women declared equal rights wouldn't the prudent presumption be that of equality? As for most marriages breaking up because of conduct of the men - this is just false (notice no sources for any of these statements). Here is a related study: Child Custody Policies and Divorce Rates in the United States, but if you don't want to read it all, here is a relevant paragraph: If one investigates the simple question, "who initiates divorce," we find from the Monthly Vital Statistics Report May 21, 1991 (NCHS, 1991), that from 1975 to 1988, in families with children present, wives file for divorce in approximately 2/3 of the cases each year. In 1975, 71.4% of the cases were filed by women, and in 1988, 65% were filed by women. While these statistics alone do not compel a conclusion that women anticipate advantages to being single, rather than remaining in the marriage, they do raise that reasonable hypothesis. If women can anticipate a clear gender bias in the courts regarding custody, they can expect to be the primary residential parent for the children. If they can anticipate enforcement of financial child support by the courts, they can expect a high probability of support monies without the need to account for their expenditures. Clearly they can also anticipate maintaining the marital residence, receiving half of all marital property, and gaining total freedom to establish new social relationships. Weighing these gains against the alternative of remaining in an unhappy marriage may result in a seductive enticement to obtain a divorce, rather than to resolve problems and remain married. Granted, the author could still claim they are unhappy because of the men's conduct... but give me something to work with. Show some numbers... that is purely speculation and refutable speculation, but I won't waste any more time on this specific assertion. Finally, if most couples agreed to a custody arrangement, they wouldn't have to go to court!! The courts have no problem rubber stamping custody arrangements in which the mother is the sole custodian. This preference is what men's groups are so up in arms about!)

From what I have read by Mr. Flanagan up to this point, I would peg him as a worshiper at the altar of NOW. Imagine my surprise at the following:

Largely because of the work of feminazi groups, no fault divorce has now imposed on people in all 50 states while denying the right of men and women to set the terms of their own marriage and its termination, this has had the effect of harming women and children. (Did he say feminazi!? I understand some of his argument- that the women's movement created no-fault divorce laws. However, how no-fault eliminates the ability for the family to make decisions is hazy. Women can now leave whenever they want and almost always reap the benefits - the home, the children, the support... Do they want to not be able to leave the marriage - would they like to be able to kill their spouse in some type of ornate divorce ritual - are they stigmatized by the label divorcee?)

This legislated political kidnapping threatens to advance toward an affirmative action scheme where preferences would be given to the father to counter past discrimination in custody cases, leading to quotas to see that fathers get custody fifty percent of the time, even though 90% of couples agree that the mother should get custody, and in fact, courts already favor fathers in disputed cases, that needs to be looked into to determine if that is in the best interest of the child. (Um, could this guy be less informed? First, he still hasn't been able to explain the "political kidnapping" so I guess he is referring to no fault divorce? Fault divorce would require a finding of fault by one of the parties...maybe he thinks more name calling would be helpful in family courts. Multiple other problems: 1) Cases that are in court are there because they are contested... the parents don't agree that the mom should have custody and then get a call from a judge ordering them into court to battle it out. Judges love it when parents make arrangements out of court; it demonstrates the parents ability to work together. 2) No legal quota system has ever been proposed. Ever. 3) Again, I reiterate, if 90% of couples agree to the mother having custody -- then only 10% wind up in court. I don't think the 90% is a remotely valid number but I'll go with it for agreements sake. 4) Where is the evidence courts favor fathers in contested cases. Oh I forgot, there isn't any valid support...

This movement further undermines the integrity of marriage and poses such a threat to mother's rights that it may lead to fewer women getting married out of fear that the license may be used in court to take her child away from her, because it takes away from a woman the ability to protect her and her children by entering into the marriage covenant with a man who promises to stay with her and their children, so that she is able to be secure in the trust that her children will remain with her. The only way a child should be taken away from one's mother is if the mother is unfit, or, of course, if she has made a prior agreement that surrenders partial or full custody, or the child prefers to be with the father. The mother must give her explicit consent to any arraignment for joint custody or equal consideration between the father and mother upon divorce. In the absence of such permission, a child belongs with his or her mother. (God help this man if he ever gets divorced and has children. I cannot imagine how fun it would be for his wife to read from some of his "articles" in court. Okay, as we have discussed, women initiate divorces far more than men so the covenant argument is nullified. As for the rest of this I can only assume Mr. Flanagan really needs to get laid and is therefore is trying to seem super sympathetic to women. He cites no sources for his absurd contention that mothers have a "natural" right to custody. Parents have a natural right to PARENT their children. No parent should be denied this right unless they can be found unfit. Having a child is joint venture. This is a natural right supported by the Constitution, Bill of Rights and legal precedents (even if it is not always adhered to as it should be). To propose mothers should give "permission" is dangerous, biased and inherently discriminatory. Not to mention completely ridiculous. One parent doesn't hold ownership rights to the children over the other parent.

Oh god, I can't do this anymore.... just read the article. He goes on to say men should come to an agreement with the mother privately concerning custody (as if it's that easy); he reiterates that mothers have a natural right to custody...

But I will include something from the last paragraph: If the state can steal people's children away from them after divorce, it opens the once unthinkable idea of licensing homopervert relationships and using them as an excuse to give equal consideration for custody to queer partnerships formed by former married spouses. (Isn't the state effectively stealing children from their fathers? )

This guy makes me so frustrated (that was probably his intention and now he is smirking in some dark room of his rent controlled apartment and stroking himself while he gazes at the gay porn pictures carefully taped to his walls-- isn't it generally that the most outspoken are the biggest examples of the described behavior. Think of William Bennett and the Book of Virtue). Huh, I wonder how he will feel about that inference.

Please feel free to email me relevant thought or statistics. I feel as though the two posts on Gregory Flanagan were hurried and not as well documented as they should have been. I just felt so rushed to say something about his deplorable position on the importance of family-- the ENTIRE family.

Read the article here: Liberation Journal

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on Blogwise Blogarama - The Blog Directory Blog Directory