|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a PDF of the opinion:
http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/co
a/2002/41a01.pdf
Of the three dissenting judges, one was female. There are two female justices on the Maryland Court of Appeals. The 4-3 decision makes this a pretty close call. Maryland bears watching to see if this issue comes to the Court of Appeals again and how it is handled the next time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations to the man who won this decision.
Let's hope (yeah, I am an eternal optimist) that other court systems use this as precedent law.
On the other hand, if we lived in a healthy misandry free society, the vote would have been 7 to 0 rather than 4 to 3 which is cutting it too close for comfort. Or better yet this case would never have evolved because the family law system would not be politicized to the gills to promote a gender femmunist agenda.
But it is a sweet victory just the same.
Let us hope for more sweet victories in 2002 and beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, if we lived in a healthy misandry free society, the vote would have been 7 to 0 rather than 4 to 3 which is cutting it too close for comfort.
Yep. If you read the opinion, though, the dissenting opiners actually had a point. The law provided that a man absolved of paternity had no *future* obligations to the child, but as he was still considered the child's father while not paying child support, he still owed the support.
Naturally, I disagree with that, but I figured I'd point it out.
Another of the dissenting justices goes on a rant about how this decision is somehow going to "destroy parenthood."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since this issue has come up here several times in the last several days I've tried to find out the official position of this site and other men's rights groups to universal DNA testing at birth for all infants. I haven't been able to find out.
Most of the men's sites do not have a policy page that states their positions on issues, or else, I haven't seen it on their sites.
So, does anyone know what the position of the largest or most influential men's rights groups are to this issue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 21, @09:41PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
I'd support universal paternity testing, but not universal DNA sequencing. One is far more intrusive then the other. Farthermore, some renumeration would have to be given to men who were tested and came back negative , if the mother couldn't name the father. At least for these men's time and inconvenience.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo___ My understanding is that paternity testing can 100% exclude the man from paternity but do not 100% confirm he is the father. For that, more extensive genetic testing is required. However it worked though, as long tests prompt a legal father on a birth certificate would be fine with me. A man who was not excluded, could still have the right to request more conclusive tests if he still had doubts as to his paternity. If the test involved sequencing (I'm not sure that it does), that information could be destroyed once he is legally documented as the father on the birth certificate.
I'd still like to know the majority position on this from men's rights activists. Thanks for anyone who can point me in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd still like to know the majority position on this from men's rights activists. Thanks for anyone who can point me in the right direction.
Btw, I'm ambivalent on this one. I can see the pros and the cons, and I'm just not certain right now where I stand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, we like to change positions regularly. Gets boring otherwise.
Actually I'm not sure why we should have a position on everything. I'm not much in favor of relfex position taking.
I think that it would be prudent for the putative father to have the child paternity tested; given that the means exists to determine such matters with certainty it is odd that courts make child support orders against men without ordering such tests.
I'm certainly opposed to laws that attempt to obstruct putative fathers obtaining tests or punishing them for doing so, but if both parents don't want a test I see no reason to force one upon them.
sd
Since this issue has come up here several times in the last several days I've tried to find
out the official position of this site and other men's rights groups to universal DNA
testing at birth for all infants. I haven't been able to find out.
Most of the men's sites do not have a policy page that states their positions on issues, or
else, I haven't seen it on their sites.
So, does anyone know what the position of the largest or most influential men's rights
groups are to this issue?
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since this issue has come up here several times in the last several days I've tried to find out the official position of this site and other men's rights groups to universal DNA testing at birth for all infants. I haven't been able to find out.
I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I tell you that Men's Activism News Network actually doesn't take an official position on many issues. Rather, we report/link to the news and allow people to draw and report their own conclusions. Naturally, the admins here have opinions on all the subjects, but the opinions of the admins are not necessarily the official positions of the site.
Quite honestly, I think it's better for the men's movement if we have common goals, but not common positions on issues. Otherwise, constructive debate about ways in which to achieve our goals becomes mired down by everyone attempting to resolve their own opinions with official positions, and we end up like NOW.
Some men lament how disorganized the men's movement appears to be. I embrace our diversity. :)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
