|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>"Setting aside the blatant attempt to portray moveaway moms as abused waifs fleeing from the depredations of slavering males, if even the NOW is beginning to recognise that it takes more than weeping over the hardships of women to move public and/or official opinion, then perhaps our work has not been in vain."
I think we're misreading NOW's comment. NOW would NEVER under any circumstances EVER take the side of a man over a woman. They say often that they are interested primarily in the best interests of the children, but that's just a smoke screen.
Let's look at their quoted comment again:
>"... the decision "binds the lives of many women and men, for that matter, who are trying to provide safety and economic opportunity for their families."
What they're REALLY saying is that men and women (don't forget that women get custody of the children in divorce 99% of the time) who are primarily responsible for their children's safety and economic security are being thwarted by this decision binding them to each other. (They threw "men" in there just so they can sound more unbiased and as though they are primarily interested in the best interests of the children.
What the California Women's Law Center said is how NOW and all the other women's groups REALLY feel:
>The California Women's Law Center called the decision "a huge step backwards... A tragic day for children, a tragic day for the rule of law and a tragic day for scholarship," said Carol Bruch, a University of California, Davis, law professor.
Most important of all, we cannot become complacent based on this one victory here because none of these women's organizations will accept this as the final word. They'll be back fighting to get this reversed in one way or another, on one, if not many fronts. What they lose in the courts, they get through legislation. What they can't get through legislation, they get through the courts. And when all this fails, they'll find other ways through deceit and deception.
You can take that to the bank.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:40 PM May 2nd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"What they lose in the courts, they get through legislation."
You are exactly right Dittohd. In fact they've already done this. The earlier court decision in Burgess essentially said that a custodial parent has the presumptive right to move away with the child while the non-custodial parent has the burden of proving that the move would harm the child. This of course puts a huge strain on fathers, *especially* low income fathers. Then the LaMusga case came, which is what this article is about, and the courts started re-visiting Burgess in light of new evidence about the harms of moving children away from their fathers. While LaMusga was pending, the feminists quickly and swiftly passed a law in California that says "It is the intent of the Legislature to affirm the decision in In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, and to declare that ruling to be the public policy and law of this state." See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdoc ID=52298114175+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
So the CA Supreme Court, when they finally got to hearing LaMusga, was unable to "overturn" Burgess, since the feminists used their political power to pass the above statute. But it looks like the CA Supreme Court at least recognized the seriousness of severing father-child relationships in move-aways, and they decided this case as best they could, by *interpreting* Burgess in a more father-friendly manner (as opposed to overturning it).
The feminists are now trying to pass another law that says a move away can't be subject to "undue delay" while a court evaluates the harmful effects on children. And there will be more to come.
But the LaMusga decision is still a BIG victory. It sends a strong message to trial courts and appellate courts that they cannot just rubber-stamp move-aways, and, most of all, it sends a stong message to the entire legal profession that fathers DO matter.
There were dozens and dozens of feminist groups who submitted amicus (friend-of-the-court) briefs on this case against the father's side.
You're so right that this is not over. But it is something to celebrate.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“binds the lives of many women and men, for that matter, who are trying to provide safety and economic opportunity for their families”
They say often that they are interested primarily in the best interests of the children, but that's just a smoke screen.
NOW’s statement is directed at that portion of the population that has been in a coma for the past 30 years, believing that maybe they can be convinced that NOW supports the child and a gender blind system.
The test is to ask yourself if NOW would take the same position if fathers were overwhelmingly custodial parents and were moving the kids thousands of miles from the non-custodial mothers. Even NOW’s media-savvy henchwomen would gag trying to sell that one to the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:06 PM May 3rd, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that they seem to feel the need to SOUND un-biased is interesting in and of it's self, don't you think?
What has happened that would make them feel that way, when they never cared in the past as to whether or not they seemed biased or not?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that 'men' had to be put in the statement (this is NOW - one of the more 'forward' of the groups) shows in a small way that public perception and opinion is changing. It may only be a tiny change at this point but even one step foward is an 'advance'. It will be a long slow process - and the emphasis needs to be on people's personal 'values' and changing those to realize that men can be good caregivers and should be involved in children's lives. The fight isn't with the lawmakers or the courts but with the 'public' and changing things there - the laws and courts will follow.
Think about civil rights - the laws were put in place in the 1960's and we are just seeing the public accept is as something that just is. After the law is in place - the attitude that people are raised with need to change in order for the law to be effective.
Change one person's attituce and if they can change one more's and then so on...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:21 PM May 4th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
With the exception of rape, abortion, domestic violence, and the bogus wage gap, NOW has always tried to use gender neutral language, knowing full well that they were aiming at gender specific results. This is how they con the public into believing they're the guardians of gender justice even though the name reads National Organization for Women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0503/p01s02-usju.htm l
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
