|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:59 PM July 13th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Senator Burton:
I recently learned of your efforts to weaken or completely abrogate the California Supreme Court's LaMusga move-away decision. I support the LaMusga decision because: chldren need Father's in their lives, Fatherlessness is the #1 predictor of delinquency in children and teens, equal justice for all means equal justice for all (including Fathers), equal rights mens equal rights for Fathers too, I'm just plain sick and tired of the man-hating agenda of radical feminist and their supporters (who are mostly Democrats) who work ceaselessly to destroy the lives of decent hard working men in the State of California.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the letter I sent
To Senator Burton:
I recently learned of your efforts to weaken or completely abrogate the California Supreme Courts LaMusga move-away decision. I support the LaMusga decision.
Just a few decades ago we were concerned that the Soviet Communists would somehow take over our country and put everyone in some type of oppressive tyrannical socialist workers paradise.
Well, for men who get divorced and are not the custodial parent, this hypothetical horror has happened! But the tyrants and slave masters turned out to be our own crop of self-hating middle aged radical feminist agenda keepers in black robes and like YOU misandric members of state legislatures not Soviet Red Army Commissars!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:58 AM July 14th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Luek:
I like the letter you wrote better than mine. California feminists are some of the most heavily indoctrinated in the radical beliefs of that lunatic group.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:50 AM July 14th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Does this guy have the power to ram this legislation through on his own no matter what others say or do?
As was explained, he has the power to sneak the bill through as an addendum to a bill which has already gone through committee. What Glenn & Co. are doing is forcing his bill into the light and stopping him from using the stealth approach. This has been successful--see the news column at the website
Why aren't we writing to senators and/or representatives who can stop this idiot's bill?
that's round 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:05 AM July 14th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
A goodly number of letters can make a real difference.
I believe the addage you were trying to think of goes:
Wrestle with a pig,
Everybody gets dirty,
The pig likes it.
The one thing the pigs (politicians) don't like is a lot of public opposition to their behavior. I'm hoping a lot of letters get written to this Senator and that this gets a lot of coverage on Glenn's show. California men and Fathers need all the help they can get so if your in Pago Pago or outer Mongolia go ahead and write a letter to this Senator. It can't hurt a thing, and it just might help get more recognition of this assault on Father's rights.
Thanks, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole reason politicians pull this crap is because they think it'll carry favor with whatever special interest group they're pandering to, and that the rest of the voters either wont care or wont notice. In other words, either they don't think it will cost them politically or that they will gain more supporters than they'll lose. If they realize that the number of people who strongly object to their position approaches or equals the number who agree with it, they might rethink their stance.
For another example of bad social legislation, look at all the bullshit "protection of marriage" amendments floating around Congress and the state legislatures. We'll still have no-fault divorce, unhappy marriages, no-child marriages, loveless arranged marriages and Britney-Spears-I'll-get-married-and-divorced-in-le ss-than-48-hours weddings. Rather convienient that the amendments start and stop their restrictions on homosexuals. If senators Rick Santorum and Bill Frist realized that their support of this amendment angered enough consitutents that they could lose their next elections, they might have second thoughts. Same with this state senator in California.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Senator,
While not a resident of the state of California, I would like to voice my displeasure at the proposed bill to allow near un-restricted move away parents. Children are best served when they have access to both parents. I am considering Stanford for graduate school, as is my girlfriend of three years. If we choose to attend, you can be assured that I will be vocal about such local laws, and will certainly take it into consideration when deciding on where to search for jobs. We both plan on having a moderate number of children, around three.
I would hate that if we did get married, and then later divorced, that the custodial parent would have such un-restricted powers over the child, and the other parent's access. Perhaps a better solution would be if one parent wanted to move away they would cede their primary custodian status to the other parent. This of course assuming that the other parent is intrested, willing, and a suitable parental figure. In this day and age where so many studies show the benefits of having both parents connect with their children showering them with love, it seems a poor choice to try and drive the de-facto wedge of distance between a child and parent.
Perhaps another solution, other than the one above, is to reduce or eliminate the child-support payments of the non-custodial parent to the move-away parent. This would allow the non-custodial parent to more easily afford time off from work, and travel expenses to go visit their child at their new location. This assumes that the custodial parent is moving away due to a better job, or living situation, which would decrease or eliminate their need for support. For, if they are moving away simply for the sake of distincing their child from the other parent, for whatever reason, should not be encouraged, or even allowed.
A parental tug-of-war with the children as rope does no one good, and all involved suffer. Why add to such a situation by giving them even more weapons to use, and methods of tugging harder on their children whom are merely stuck in the middle and want only to be loved by both parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLEASE remember to check your grammar, syntax, spelling, et cetera, when you send these to people. I've seen plenty of errors here in the past few weeks (mixing up "women"/"woman", punctuation problems...) and I don't want someone dismissing our case because it's not presented properly. Also, don't include and SHOUTING LIKE THIS or exclamation points. Be civil but steadfast. They'll take a profanity-filled rant and chuck it in the ol' circular file.
I'm not trying to sound snotty; I just want our causes to be taken seriously.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:11 AM July 15th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect the fight will go on, and other attacks will be made by the 30+ radical feminists in California's Women's legislative caucus, (click) Rogue's Gallery of Anti-male Bias and their femi-toady, male sickophants. This legislation may be too new to show up on their legislation page, but other things they have been doing are their. It is of interest to note that they are starting to role domestic violence into the sex offender category.
Ray
(click) California State Capitol
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the information I am trying to convey is as the page comes up initially.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Senator Burton:
I recently learned of your efforts to weaken or completely abrogate the California Supreme Court's LaMusga move-away decision. I support the LaMusga decision because:
Children need the close, active participation of both their father and mother, even more than ever after a divorce. Each plays unique and supporting roles in their children's development and neither's direct contact, contributions and support are disposable.
I am very disappointed in your actions which I feel almost totally disregard the welfare of our children and collectively slap the faces of all fathers in a shortsighted attempt to codify the feminist extremists. I am quite sure that you would not be taking these actions against our children and their mothers if the shoe were on the other foot and fathers were awarded custody of children of divorce most of the time.
I hope my time and effort in sending you this email will not be in vain. I would strongly request that you thoroughly research the importance of fathers in their children's lives and the strong, adverse affects on our children who grow up without the close contact and support of their fathers before taking any action that would hurt or destroy this irreplacable relationship.
If we can say that fathers are irreplacable concerning their children's upbringing, can't we also say that mothers are likewise irreplacable? And if moveaways should be OK in all or most instances, should we mandate that custody of children in divorces be awarded to their fathers in all or most instances, since men would generally be less likely to move away from the mother after meeting a new woman, since fathers generally make more money than the mother and are more tied to their job and location?
Thank you for your time.
cc:
Senator Martha M. Escutia (Chair, Senate Judiciary Comm.)
Gene Wong (Chief Counsel-Senate Judiciary Committee)
Drew R. Liebert (Chief Counsel-Assembly Jud. Comm.)
Larry Doyle (Chief Legislative Counsel-State Bar of California)
Karen Parnk (Deputy Leg. Chair, Office of the Governor)
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
