Greek, that sounds a bit sexist.
Well, I'm general a rather radical feminist...but my belief in equal treatment under the law trumps even that.
First, child support is a joke in this country, and rarely enforced anyway.
Apparently it worked well enough that your mother had to pay it.
Plus, you have parents pulling the guilt trip and telling a child to live with them simply to force the other parent to have to pay child support. for the sheer pleasure of jerking their chain.
Well, as part of my belief that the courts need to be more equitable in giving custody, I believe this can be fixed. If one is willing to care for the child without child support and is financially capable of doing so, they should have a preference in custody over one who does not fulfill this requirement.
Secondly, and more historically, it's the mother that has provided the lion's share of nurturing and care. It's what we do. Are there exceptions? Yep, but it's not the standard that men are the nurturers in our society.
We need not encode the failings of our society into our system of jurispurdence which should be blind to such matters as gender...again I assert, equal treatment under the law. It is in large part the failure of the family court system to achieve this equality that I believe we would be better served by eradicating marriage and allowing the standard civil court system to deal with the proceedings.
It is the standard that more men run off and abandon their families than women do, though the inverse happens.
That's utter non-sense, infact an out-right lie, not supported by any facts, and if you do have any I ask you present them. Three relevant studies are referenced on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce
(footnotes 11 to 13) and they reveil that the overwhelming majority of divorces are filed by women, between 2/3rds and 95% infact. It seems that the norm is that it's women who do the abandoning.
And, it's typical for the woman to be less equipped to provide for her children despite education, due to employers not promoting mothers to high paying positions. You have a lot you left out of your scenario.
I'll admit that there are difficulities in the system today in the United States, though the situation has improved substantially over the last 40 years and continues to improve rapidly. However, in the case of women who has taken off time to raise kids, her position is of her own creation and there I will express no sympathy. If one wants to be a social reactionary and can find a benefactor to support them in this endeavour, that is their right in this Republic, but they must accept the consequences of their actions if their benefactor decides to cease supporting their social reaction. Perhaps this risk will serve as a warning to future generations, will reduce the number of women who leave the workforce when they have children, which in turn would actually reduce the amount of discrimination in the workplace (much of this discrimination is based on the assumption that many women will leave when they have children, thus it's not worth spending the financial resources to promote them and train them for a new position that they are less likely to remain in than a man...reduce the influence of the social reaction, you remove this cause of discrimination and advance the cause of equality), and it would help our economy by increasing the number of people contributing to it while not increasing the strain in the form of the number of people it must support. Fortunately this particular reactionary movement is decreasing due to the economic realities of the day and it's dangerour effects will hopefully be minimized in the next generation.
As far as courts go, they are run by humans. Frequently humans that have the same weaknesses as the people they preside over. There has been, and always will be (in this age) corruption. I know all about judicial corruption, try finding out your child has been molested by a family member...and the father that knowingly allowed it still got visitation.
Umm, there are many details that have been left out, so I can hardly start shouting along side you about judicial corruption. Had there been a criminal conviction in this case (yes, we do have a real standard of evidence, and the concept of innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers is amongst the most important principles in this republic, and yes defending this principle is more important than defending a given child, the court MUST act according to the requirements of due process or else it is nothing but a kangaroo court. Then was this particulary man convicted before a jury of his peers of some form of neglect? If not, there are not grounds on which the court could justly deny his visitation. Our courts must be governed by the law and the overarching principle of due process, they can not rule on rumors, hunches, whims, and feelings.
If the government isn't going to stop legislating car seat laws that change every year, costing us money to fund the manufacturers, then they aren't likely to get out of the marriage business. It strikes me a bit odd that a single person whines about a tax credit for married folks, when it's a bloody heck of a lot harder to be married than single.
When the tax burden is inequitable it is certainly within my right to object. And it's not just single people who are harmed by the current tax code, also harmed are those who are married but both spouses work and contribut to our country's economic well-being, infact they are hurt worse than we who are single (if I was in that situation I'd see no reason to marry civilly, it would only be an economic disadvantage). The only people who are advantaged are those where only one spouse works, the other being a detriment to our economy and often a threat to our egalitarian principles. Furthermore, the current tax code encourages this social reaction by discouraging the second spouse from working if the first spouse has a good job. So, quite frankly, I believe I have good cause to 'whine' when these social reactionaries are failing to hold up their portion of the tax burden, thus shifting it to the more responsible members of society, thus essentially asking us to fund their assault on the egalitarian ideals of western civilization. Quite frankly, they are free to live their lives as they wish, but I object to them having their social ideology subsidized by my hard earned tax dollars...so this has to be one of the better absurd governmental policies to protest...errr, how did you refer to exercising first amendment right in matters of public policy? 'whine' about.
Throw in a few children, and you need all the tax breaks you can find, probably to fund those idiotic car seat laws that place children in car seats at 12. we just got word on that one, so it's sticking in my craw.
Again, it was your choice to have a large number of kids...while that is your right according to the laws and principles of our Republic, it is not your right to have them subsidized by our tax dollars. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't have had them.