I heard legends from the tribal elders that the Democrats also supported something called “traditional marriage”, way back then.
You’ve heard the stories of the betrothed gay couples who’ve scoured the market for test cases waiting to happen – Christian photogs, bakers, florists and other vendors who politely tried to opt out of participating in ceremonies they don’t believe in. They were sued into compliance or bankruptcy, or both.
And now, in Canada – a Christian jeweler who actually made the rings for a lesbian couple, who were favorably impressed with his work…
…until they discovered he didn’t personally believe in same sex marriage. The idea of having their finely-crafted rings made by someone with impure thoughts – thoughtcrime! – sent them running to Big Gay Inquisition to smite the infidels.
Rod Dreher narrates:
Were this a Monty Python sketch and not a horrifying power play, the tendering conversation would presumably have proceeded like this: Customer: We are a lesbian couple who would like you to make us a wedding ring. Business owner: Okay. I do not support gay marriage, but I will serve you as anybody else. This, I understand, is how it works. Customer: You can’t deny me service simply because you hold different views from mine. Business owner: Indeed. I have no intention of doing so. Society is better off when our differences remain private. Customer: Okay, let’s do business. Business owner: Great. Customer: Your private views are disgusting. You can’t make me do business with you. Give me my money back or I’ll unleash the kraken. If this is to be our new standard — and time will tell — it would be useful to know what legal protection our recalcitrant firms will reasonably be able to recruit to their side. In both Canada and in the United States there already exists a pernicious imbalance in the supposedly free marketplace. If a browsing consumer doesn’t happen to like the politics or the race or the religion of a given business owner, he is quite free to decline to associate with it. Thus do some progressives like to skip Chick-Fil-A, an openly Christian business; thus do some conservatives prefer to avoid Apple, whose owner Tim Cook irritated them during the Indiana fight. By that very same law, however, it is strictly verboten for a business to discriminate against customers they themselves dislike — even if they feel that by fulfilling their legal obligations they will be violating their consciences. Are we really going to add to this already lopsided arrangement a general right to break contracts after the fact? Are we going to hand the integrity of our signed arrangements over to the whim of the mob? And if we are not, what are we to expect the government to do about those whose consciences now demand that they renege on their word?
Granted, it’s Canada.
On the other hand, it’s Canada – the prototype shop for all the stupid bits of social engineering leaking into the Western Hemisphere.
…my commentary about Pope Francis is largely irrelevant. While we’re all on the Jesus Team, he’s not in my chain of command.
And I know, I know – is “infallability” is, doctrinally, entirely a matter of theology.
All I know, goy that I am, is that many more remarks like this and people are going to start mistaking him for Joe Biden.
Preface: I frequently joke that progressives have developed a habit of turning todays’ satire into tomorrow’s policy.
Conservatives have long known that, no matter what a family’s income level, the best way to stack the odds in a kid’s favor is to:
- Have the kids in wedlock
- Stay together
- Actually raise the kids
Poor families that do this have kids who stand a decent chance of making it out of poverty. Rich families who don’t often have kids that slide right back down the economic ladder.
You’d think this’d be something that no “progressive” would, or could, mess with.
And you’d be wrong; a couple of (naturally) Ivy League philosophers are pondering the notion that a strong, loving family background is just unfair:
‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’
Once he got thinking, [philosopher Adam] Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.
So, what to do?
According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.
‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’
Quite a few conservative critics stop with that quote – Swift doesn’t advocate abolishing the family or the role of parents (which isn’t to say he doesn’t support a radical redefinition of “family”, either).
But the “philosophers” (and the ABC reporter who wrote the story, Joe Gelonese) had a choice of angles to take: either “intact, involved families have a positive effect”, or “intact, involved families are unfair”. And in the world, and with the media culture, we have today, the most depressing thing about this story is that it doesn’t surprise me they took the angle they did.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Ramsey County doesn’t use District Court Judges to hear Family Law cases, they use Referees who hold hearings, swear witnesses, take testimony, and recommends Findings and Conclusions for final Decree to be signed by the real judge. Anybody out there interested in spend all day, every day, listening to divorcing couples bicker? Oh, and you also get to wallow in domestic abuse and listen to excuses from juvenile delinquents.
On the other hand, it pays well.
The Second Judicial District has the following job opportunity available:
Applications accepted until 4:30 p.m., March 27, 2015
How much worse than “having teenagers” could it be?
How debased is the English language, as it relates to politics in the US today?
The Democrats are chanting in unison that a bill regulating abortion is “extreme”.
No shock there.
What’s “extreme” is that it would ban abortion of fetuses after the 20th week of gestation.
20 weeks. Five months. Over halfway there.
More importantly, long after pain is known to register with the “fetuses” – and exactly two weeks earlier than children have survived premature delivery.
When the “fetus” is fully formed in every particular; just not developed quite enough to survive on its own yet; 22 weeks involves working medical miracles; 24 weeks is difficult as hell and touch and go – but doable.
Note to infanticide supporters; say what you will about a “woman’s right to choose” – but when the “choice” involves something that is physically as well as morally indistinguishable from “a baby”, you’re not making any friends outside your echo chamber, provided they know what the actual story is. Barring abortion of a “fetus” that is two weeks away from being a viable human being is not extreme. Allowing it certainly is.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Courts struck down obsolete “one-man-one-woman” marriage laws because gays were treated unfairly.
Incest laws prevent birth defects . . . but gay couples don’t have that problem. So should gay cousins be allowed to marry? And what about Muslim cousin arranged marriages – shouldn’t we respect that culture?
Once you begin pulling out the foundation stones of the social framework . . . .
What, in all honesty, prevents any group of two or more people with legal standing to sign contracts from getting “married”, anymore?
When gay marriage activists sold the idea of same-sex marriage, their key points (other than the “if you disagree you are teh bigot!” that most of the lower-information supporters prattled endlessly) were:
- The idea that marriage is purely about raising children is obsolete – people who don’t intend to, or can’t, have children, are married all the time, even in churches.
- With the idea of procreation left out of the equation, why, really, shouldn’t two people who love each other be able to be married?
This, of course, introduced some new questions; if, indeed, “love” is the basis for marriage, why can’t three or more people love each other enough to get married, by that same token?
There was one other case I’ve been wondering about for the past few years; what kind of “love” do we mean, here?
Who Wrote The Book Of Love?: There are different kinds of love; the Bible breaks “love” down into three categories:
- “Eros” – physical attraction
- “Philos” – “brotherly” love, or deep friendship
- “Agape” (pronounced: “ogg-OPP-ay”): unconditional love – usually associated with divinity, sometimes also of the “Greater love hath nobody that they lay down their life…” variety.
The Vapours: With that in mind, gay groups in New Zealand are up in arms over a couple of guys – Travis McIntosh and Matt McCormick, who happen to be longtime utterly heterosexual pals – who got married as part of a radio station promotion.
They are not amused:
Otago University Students’ Association Queer Support co-ordinator Neill Ballantyne, of Dunedin, said the wedding was an”insult” because marriage equality was a”hard fought” battle for gay people.
“Something like this trivialises what we fought for.” The competition promoted the marriage of two men as something negative,”as something outrageous that you’d never consider”, Mr Ballantyne said.
LegaliseLove Aotearoa Wellington co-chairman Joseph Habgood said the competition attacked the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.
“The point of this competition is that men marrying each other is still something they think is worth having a laugh at …
Both of these gentlemen bring up two responses:
Yuk It Up: In a free society, marriage – no matter who is doing it – is always worth having a laugh at. There is no right not to be offended.
More seriously?: Mr. Habgood’s organization’s name, “LegalizeLove”, should give you a hint here.
Gay activists convinced a plurality of representatives that “marriageable love” didn’t just involve people who practiced “Eros” in the heteronormative manner.
So why must marriageable love include “Eros” (to say nothing of “Eros” between just two people) at all? By the standard we’ve been convinced/forced to accept, all love is equal. Why not “Philos?”
(And if the “Deep brotherly love” is only “love of Rugby”, as indeed seems to be the case? Love is love, dammit!)
Cue The Outrage Industry: Perhaps it’s time for “Philos” activists to take to the streets to fight for Pal Marriage. To combat the “Homonormative” hatred that is denying rights to other people whose love for each other is no less valid than that of any gay couple.
Childcare is hard to find in Minnesota – a state where daycare costs are already among the highest in the nation, per-capita.
And it’s even harder in Greater Minnesota.
Eight months before her due date, Angie Steinbach started calling day cares to reserve a spot for her baby.
Nobody had an opening as far as Marshall or Willmar — both a 45-minute drive away. Steinbach got on waiting lists “behind people who hadn’t even conceived yet,” she said.
When Steinbach’s boy was born, her husband — who had just earned a degree in computers — planned to stay home with their son. The couple didn’t find a way for them both to work until a relative tipped them to an opening at a child care in Granite Falls.
“You just don’t realize until you actually experience it firsthand just how bad the shortage is,” said Steinbach, community development director for the city of Montevideo.
Large parts of rural Minnesota don’t have enough child care for working families. Finding a place for newborns is especially difficult.
The piece does a fairly useful job of citing the economic problems that the shortage is causing.
What it doesn’t do is explain how the DFL’s strategy of raising the cost and crimping the supply of childcare with its daycare union jamdown is going to help anything.
The second-biggest problem this nation faces today – behind the fact that our financial system, left to run the way it is today, is going to crash sooner than later – is the fact that too much of our government operates outside the law.
Of course, that fact grabs headlines when Obama’s administration tramples the law to oppress conservative groups – and by “headlines”, we mean “not in the mainstream media”, but headlines nonetheless.
It even gets notice on the retail level when government’s agents – the cops – make up the law as they go along.
But in the long term, it may be most toxic when the “justice” system decides it can operate outside the law. Whether it’s a corrupt, pettifogging Mike Nifong bending the rules to help his re-election bid…
A judge has ordered Matthew Hindes to appear in court or face contempt, despite the fact that he’s out at sea and there’s a federal law meant to help those who are deployed.
Sailor Hindes already won custody of his daughter – four years ago. Now he’s a crewman on, concidentally, the USS Michigan ,a ballistic missile submarine.
The Serviceman’s Civil Relief Act (SCRA) was designed to protect servicepeople from being ambushed by legal actions (foreclosures, lawsuits, and yes, custody battles) while they’re deployed and defending the country, frequently in situations where keeping focus on their jobs is a matter of life or death for them and – in the case of a submarine crew – 150 other men. By law, judges are to stay all actions for a minimum of 90 days while servicepeople carry out their duty to this country.
But Hindes’ ex-wife filed a motion in their apparently ongoing custody battle. And – SCRA notwithstanding – the judge has declared herself above the law, and is demanding that Hindes crap out a miracle:
But circuit court judge Margaret Noe in Michigan denied that protection for Hindes. The Daily Telegram quotes the judge, “If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother.” But sailor Hindes argues the child was taken from the ex-wife four years ago for neglect.
Let’s not mince words: Judge Noe is a martinet, and a pig, and a “human” only in the strictest biological sense of the term. She is unfit to walk on the same street as Hindes, much less suspend the law in regard to his case. She is a piece of animal offal with two legs and a law degree.
Military lawyers are now joining the effort to get a delay in the case. In the meantime Hindes remains deployed serving his country.
I hope those military lawyers start with tossing Noe’s actions thus far. And then impeach “her” from the bench. And then clap her in the stocks to be pelted with garbage and jeers, especially from other serving servicepeople, not to mention the rare custodial father. Then it’d be nice to deport her to North Korea, where she belongs and into whose ruling class she would likely fit nicely, at least ideologically. And I hope they film the whole thing, to show it to any other petty government functionary who tries to operate like the law is their personal byotch.
That’d be merciful. “Judge” Noe should be happy I’m not this nation’s absolute ruler. Then, things would get nasty.
To: Gay rights supporters doing the end-zone happy dance (to an impeccable techno beat) over the lynching of Brandon Eich
From: Mitch Berg, uppity libertarian-conservative Christian
Re: Forgiveness and Memory
To all of you who are doing the end-zone happy dance over the ouster of Brandon Eich as CEO at Mozilla? A couple of points:
The “H” Word: I’m one who believes the word is very, very over-used in our society today – but it applies here: if you have ever, even once, said “politics is too nasty, vitriolic and rancorous”, but support the Eich ouster, then you are a hypocrite.
And The “F” Words: A lot of libertarian conservatives – including, on some facets of the issue, yours truly – did battle with our own tribe on this issue, supporting the idea of same sex unions to one degree or another (in my case, I support civil unions, while wanting government out of the business of sanctioning civil statuses altogether). I didn’t expect much better out of Big Gay – any more than I do out of any other Big Left movement – but I know a lot of libertarian-conservatives are feeling burned today. Many of us will forgive, but we don’t forget.
Wind, Whirlwing, Et Al: Read Matt Walsh’s piece on the subject. We’ll talk. Oh, yes. We will.
That is all.
Most people – even pro-“choice” Democrats – h favor some sort of restriction on later-term abortions, like the proposed 20 week limit in Texas:
A recent WSJ/NBC news poll has some data that might shock Democrats: Wendy Davis and her sneakers aside, a plurality of Americans support 20 week abortion bans of the kind passed in Texas. Forty-four percent of respondents said they would support the ban, with 37 percent opposed. And the numbers get more interesting the further down you dig. WSJ:
The Journal/NBC poll showed a complexity of views on the bans. More women than men supported the state bans, 46% to 40%. Even college-educated women, a group that strongly supports abortion rights, tipped toward favoring the 20-week restrictions.
And, of course, when you expand the field of questioning from 20-week bans to late-term restrictions in general, the support gets even higher. As Gallup found, “One of the clearest messages from Gallup trends is that Americans oppose late-term abortion.”
As much as liberals genuflect to Europe, you’d think that the fact that even France and Germany put even tighter time limits on abortion – 10-12 weeks, the last I checked – would start even some of them thinking.
And maybe it has, if this poll tells us anything.
One of the least useful arguments against gay marriage was “so it’s about love? So if you love your goat, or a child, you could marry them?”
Neither goats nor children (age of consent laws notwithstanding) have standing to sign contracts, of course. It’s kind of a strawman.
But the other, inevitable part of the argument is “so what about polygamy?”
Remember – it’s all about love, and civil rights. And groups of people most definitely do sign contracts. So who are we to hold our antiquated “monogamous” standards over polygamists’ heads?
No, it’s not a strawman:
What’s magical about the number two?
In fact, you could argue that there is an even better argument for polygamy than for same sex marriage. For one thing, there’s a long tradition (just look at the heroes of the Old Testament.) It’s also intimately tied to religious practice, which means that by prohibiting polygamy, we might also be undermining the “free exercise thereof.”
Why should we impose our values on others?
Now, you might say that there is historical evidence to support the fact that polygamy is bad for women and children. This is sophistry. The truth is that right now about half of all marriages end in divorce, and lots of kids are already struggling, so it’s not like traditional marriage is a panacea. Besides, nobody is forcing you to be a polygamist. This is a choice.
And unlike gay marriage, which is entirely a modern Western social construct, Polygamy has occurrred througout human history, including our own.
There are practical reasons, too. It’s harder and harder these days to make ends meet. As a man, I can only imagine how much more efficient it would be to have one wife in the workforce and another wife at home with the kids. This would be much better for the children than shipping them off to some nursery school. And having three parents is a lot better than having just one … or none.
Yesterday’s SCOTUS decision, and last fall’s election in Minnesota, had clear-ish verdicts; “marriage” is “about love” and “civil rights”.
So what – legally – is the difference between a monogamous and polyamorous family unit, since those are the standards?
The GOP minority in the Senate managed to filibuster the daycare union jamdown last night – as in “up until 7AM”.
It wasn’t a “filibuster”, per se – the GOP added over 80 amendments to the jamdown, and debated them vigorously. As of sixish AM, they’d gotten through a couple dozen, with dozens to go, and Tom Bakk tabled the bill. There are other things to get done.
Like maybe a budget.
The jamdown may come back. But so will the amendments.
Cross your fingers, and stay tuned. The good guys may pull this one off.
I’ve long said that the upside to any change in the law recognizing “gay marriage” would be that finally, once and for all, we could dispense with the notion of the Magic Gay Couple; more loving, more solid, more just-plain-worthy than all of us dirty imperfect Breeders.
Cable TV host David Tutera and his, er, husband are well on the way toward resolving this cultural problem:
On Tuesday, People magazine reportedTutera is divorcing Ryan Jurica. They married in Vermont in 2003 and had a domestic partnership in California. The two had been together for 10 years and are expecting twins via a surrogate in July.
Tutera filed the divorce papers in Los Angeles Superior Court on April 19, citing “irreconcilable differences,” according to People. He has been separated from Jurica since Jan. 1 and is seeking full custody of the children. Tutera does not want to pay spousal support and requests Jurica take responsibility for the legal fees.
The breakup saga took a wild turn Wednesday when TMZ reported Jurica filed his own papers in Connecticut. He reportedly claims the TV host has a sex addiction and visits prostitutes.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Science has spoken. We must ban divorce, for the future health of the children.
You’re not a science denier, are you?
Joe Doakes from Como Park writes to the Minnesota Bar Association:
To the Chairman:
The amendment to prevent gay marriage from being court-imposed on equal protection grounds, was defeated. Gay marriage is only a matter of time. Our statutes are mostly gender-neutral already, it won’t be hard to adapt to “spouse-spouse.” But after we substitute individual rights for Judeo-Christian tradition as our intellectual model for marriage, why should equal protection stop at two spouses?
A billion people live in plural marriages in Muslim nations. Minnesota has an active and growing Muslim population. Muslims in England and Canada have obtained government benefits for multiple wives on equal protection grounds. Why should equal protection stop at welfare benefits; why not all civil rights flowing from marriage, the same parade of horrors used to justify gay marriage?
Adapting the statutes for three spouses will be trickier than for two. Must the Senior Wife consent to adding a Junior Wife? Do the Junior Wife’s children receive less child support? When the Junior Wife divorces, does she get a third or only half of the Husband’s half? If one woman has two husbands, who pays child support? Who gets custody – the departing biological mother or the remaining primary caregiver?
Lawyers advise clients to make contingency plans; well, we should take our own advice. The Bar Association should establish a Plural Marriage Legislation Committee now, so we’re ready when the time comes. It’s only a matter of time.
After all, why should be westerners be imposing our values on them?
And all those years we spent browbeating the H’mong out of child marriage? What right did we have, really?
If two people – or five people, or one adult and a 13 year old girl – love each other, what right do we have to get in the way?
It’s about love, right?
On most issues, I’m pretty detached – clinical, really. Politics, really, is mostly just politics.
But my blood shot from Scandinavian cool to full boil yesterday with the news that our plutocratic playboy rent-a-governor vetoed the Custody Reform bill we talked about earlier this week:
Gov. Mark Dayton has vetoed the final bill of 2012, an attempt to change the child custody formula to guarantee parents more time with their children
“Both proponents and opponents make compelling arguments in support of their respective positions,” Dayton wrote in a Thursday letter to the Legislature, after opting not to sign the custody bill, essentially issuing a pocket veto of the legislation.
Right now, Minnesota law presumes that both parents in a custody settlement will get a minimum amount of time — 25 percent of the year — with their child. The bill would have increased that minimum to 35 percent.
Supporters of the change said it would give non-custodial parents more quality time with a child than every other weekend and two weeks during the summer — a breakdown that doesn’t even equal 25 percent of the child’s year.
The bill isn’t the bill that I wanted – which would have created a rebuttable presumption that joint physical custody was in the best interests of the children involve.d
No, this will merely created a presumption (rebuttable, of course) that children should have 35% of their time with the “non-custodial parent”, and that this calculation should be used in calculating child support. .
And that would have been very, very much in the “best interest of the children”:
Opponents said the new formula took control away from courts and was designed to represent a parent’s interest more than the child’s.
That is a completely meaningless phrase – one that the bill’s various opponents have been chanting mindlessly ever since the veto came out, and can only have come from someone who doesn’t have children, or has never dealt with chidlren of otherwise-capable divorced parents.
What could be more in the “best interest of the children” than spending more time with both parents?
In his letter to lawmakers, Dayton said there was too much uncertainty about how the change in the custody formula might affect children. But he urged lawmakers to take up debate on the issue again during the 2013 session.
When, he hopes, a DFL majority will make it a non-issue. Otherwise, he’ll veto it again.
Look – Governor Dayton’s veto was loathsome unforgiveable, and I hope he answers to a higher power for it someday. But it’s understandable; he’s acting at the bidding of the radical feminists who are among his most vital constituents. And radical feminists hate any divorce reform – because that would involve reforming the transfer of money from men to women that has sprung from the de facto alimony system that the child support system has become.
But I’m not as angry with Governor Dayton – who, let’s be honest, isn’t doing any of the thinking, he’s just doing what his shareholders tell him to do – as I am with the legislators of both parties who cut the guts out of the original reform proposal (which would have created the rebuttable presumption of joint physical custody). They, not our playboy plutocrat rent-a-governor, are the ones who see and hear the pain caused by the barbarism of our current divorce system.
(Yes, I’m looking at you, Steve Smith; if you run in the primary, I will do everything I can to see that Cindy Pugh crushes you without mercy).
With all of the billionaire-pork-bill signing and job-creation-bill-vetoing of the last week of the legislative session, there is one curious omission,.
It’s HF 322, the bill to change Minnesota’s family court laws to provide a rebuttable presumption of joint physical custody in divorce cases.
That means that unless there is a clear, compelling reason not to – substance abuse, criminal record, gross inability to raise kids, record of abuse and so on – that the parents will be presumed competent to share custody of the children.
That is as opposed to the current system, where the presumption is that full custody will be awarded to the parent that ticks off the greatest number of evaluation criteria from a list of about a dozen that judges use; whichever parent “wins” the most of those criteria “wins” physical custody, and child support, and the whole nine yards.
If you’ve read my blog for any length of time, you’ll know it’s been a hot button topic of mine forever. Raising kids is hard enough with a functional family. The number of social ills that trace back to the huge number of single-parent households is absolutely overwhelming.
The bill was presented to the Governor on May 11, with plenty of bipartisan support.
And it’s still sitting on his desk.
Of course, two key DFL constituencies – radical feminists and lawyers – oppose the bill. The feminists dislike the loss of child support money and the fact that joint custody puts a legal hurdle over women taking “their” children and going anywhere they want to go regardless of the kids’ relationship to a father they deem unnecessary and seemingly (to look at their rhetoric on the issue) presume to be a drunk abuser anyway.
The lawyers’ line is “if a couple can’t agree on enough to stay married, how are they going to agree on raising kids together”. But the current system deliberately introduces the stress of a winner-takes-all system into the dissolution of the relationship – the prospect of “losing” ones’ children – which heaps piles of emotional stress (and the billable hours they bring!) onto an already awful situation. Lawyers oppose the presumption of joint physical custody because it trims down the cash cow of divorce.
Why won’t the governor sign this bill?
I’ve had not a few things to say about the family law system in this country, and in this state, over the years. The disintegration of the family is a plague on the society – and needs to be addressed.
But while we’re working on fixing that, there’s some slightly-lower-hanging fruit to deal with; the divorce and child custody systems.
As I noted earlier this week, there’s a proposal in the Senate to create a “rebuttable presumption” that joint physical custody is, in fact, in the best interests of the children in divorces.
Joe Doakes – a lawyer – writes:
I was a divorce lawyer for a dozen years in the late 80’s-early 90’s. My experience and research is 20 years out of date but I think [the proposal to create a presumption of joint physical custody] is still good law.
Minnesota divorce law contemplates two kinds of child custody: legal custody (which parent makes decisions about the kid’s religion, education, medical attention) and physical custody (which parent does the kid live with).
Legal custody is usually shared because even if Mom and Dad can’t live together, they generally can set aside their differences long enough to make important decisions about health and education. The proposed law would not change that.
Minnesota’s physical custody statute 518.17, 2011 Minnesota Statutes, sets forth a list of detailed factors the Court must consider before awarding physical custody to one parent or the other when joint custody is sought. The fundamental test is “best interests of the child.” One of those factors is “primary caretaker” and the factors to determine who that was, were set forth by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Pikula v. Pikula, 374 N.W.2d 705 (1985) as:
“ . . . (1) preparing and planning of meals; (2) bathing, grooming and dressing; (3) purchasing, cleaning, and care of clothes; (4) medical care, including nursing and trips to physicians; (5) arranging for social interaction among peers after school, i.e. transporting to friends’ houses or, for example, to girl or boy scout meetings; (6) arranging alternative care, i.e. babysitting, day-care, etc.; (7) putting child to bed at night, attending to child in the middle of the night, waking child in the morning; (8) disciplining, i.e. teaching general manners and toilet training; (9) educating, i.e., religious, cultural, social, etc.; and, (10) teaching elementary skills, i.e., reading, writing and arithmetic. . . . “ Pikula, at 713. [case attached]
For convenience, I’ll call this the “primary caretaker” system as that seems to be the emphasis.
And these factors that undercut the notion that “the system is biased against men” – it’s really a matter of counting up how many factors each parent “wins” – and points you to the truth; it’s biased against traditional male gender roles. Parents can be “tied” on every single factor in determining custody – every single factor – but if the children spend four days a week with Mom as the main caretaker, and three with Dad, then that’s the factor that’ll settle custody.
From what I’ve read in the news accounts, there doesn’t seem to be any dispute about the basic facts: the primary caretaker system gives Mom custody 85% of the time; single-mother households struggle with poverty; and children raised in poverty in single-parent households fare less well than children raised in poverty from two-parent households.
Mothers are different than fathers; there’s a reason humans evolved to have one of each in the “ideal” household. Girls who grow up with impaired relationships with fathers statistically grow up with self-respect issues, depression and all sorts of trouble finding surrogate daddy figures in their lives. Boys without fathers simultaneously grow up unable to process anger effectively and, perversely, risk averse; mothers are not generally temperamentally the physical risk-takers among kids’ parents.
There doesn’t seem to be any dispute with the conclusion that the primary caretaker system is an abysmal failure for many children.
From those facts and that conclusion, it seems fair to say that the primary caretaker system is NOT in the children’s best interests.
Now, saying the primary caretaker system is bad doesn’t mean this proposed legislation is good. But if we’re convinced the primary caretaker system is not in the children’s best interests, then it follows that we have a moral obligation to junk it. For the children.
There are arguments against the presumption of joint physical custody. Feminists insist that it’ll allow “abusive fathers” to raise children; the law would, in fact, allow proof of abusiveness to “rebut” the presumption – which would give men actual legal rights, which irks feminists. Currently, as many as half of all allegations of abuse during divorces are shown to be false, raised purely to affect the custody process. And it works. Requiring allegations of abuse to meet a legal standard to rebut the presumption of joint custody would be a huge step forward. That’s why feminists hate the proposal.
The “family law” lobby’s objections, if anything, are more cynical. Their line is “if a couple can’t get along well enough to settle their differences enough to stay married, how can we possibly expect them to act in their kids’ best interest?” Of course, one of the reasons divorces are so ungodly emotional is because it’s a winnter-takes-all system that costs hundreds of dollars an hour and ends with one party – usually the father – exiled from the kids’ lives. The system – and the worst of the lawyers who earn their living from it – carefully fan that fear.
Any legislator, GOP or DFL, who opposes this proposal is going to get a molten-hot earful from me.
I’m going to go back to Dave Mindeman’s piece at mnpACT, about the most recent Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey of Minnesota politics, for the numbers on some issues that don’t pertain to Governor Dayton and the Legislature.
Minnesota’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is headed for a close vote. 48% of voters say they support it while 44% are opposed.
I neither support nor oppose the Amendment, but I have a fearless prediction; if the PPP poll, which trends a little left and features a left-heavy sample, calls it a four point race today, it’ll be 49-41 in November.
Let’s go back to the whole “people like their own bastards” bit: Mindeman, mindful of the poll results, asks:
So, WHERE is the DFL candidates for MN-02 and MN-06 ? MN-03 and MN-08 seem to have multiple candidates in the mix …. if there are going to be any coattails from the top to help the State Legislature candidates, doesn’t there need to be someone in every district ?
There are two answers: First, it’s further evidence that people like their own bastards; while national polling shows that Congress is less popular than Slobodan Milosevic, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to know that John Kline and Michele Bachmann will win their districts by 30 and 15 points respectively, even if the Dems endorsed Zombie JFK to run for the office.
“Even though Congress is unpopular?”
Yep. As noted earlier today, polls of legislative bodies as a whole are almost always misleading. Congress may be unpopular; Kline and Bachmann are not.
BTW … do you think the mature approach that Governor Dayton has taken on the Vikiings stadium has helped … even if the taxpayers don’t want to pay for it, they sure don’t want to the lose the business … and obviously the Governor is trying.
If by “mature approach” Mindeman means coming out of his closet long enough to croak “Uh want ivverbaddy to git to WOARK and sulve the prollum”, then retreating to the closet and letting the Legislature, the cities, the counties, the NFL and Wilf do all the work? It may or may not be “mature”, but it’s certainly easier on the poll numbers.
The other day, Sally Jo Sorenson at snarkblog Blue Stem Prairie wrote:
Just this morning Bluestem observed that we simply can’t make this stuff up about the Republican Party of Minnesota when it comes to scandal and mayhem.
And if she could make stuff up, she’d be writing for Cucking Stool.
But I digress:
Tonight on 45 Local News’ 9:00 p.m. broadcast, Jay Kolls reported that Representative Steve Smith had an “inappropriate relatioship” with a staffer, who was reassigned to a different area of the House, before leaving employment at the chamber. The report is the be expanded on KSTP 5 at 10.
Well, here’s hoping the good, conservative citizens of Mound toss his ass and replace him with someone better. Smith is an adequate Republican; his Taxpayers League score is on the low end of the GOP average; Mound can elect better.
But Smith has been standing smack in the face of shared-parenting legislation in the House for years. Provided he’s replaced by a conservative Republican, I wouldn’t shed a tear if he was disappeared from the House this fall. He’s been playing into the hands and filling the coffers of the Wahhabi Feminists for way too long.
I’ve written about this before; I think the bill requiring a referendum on a Marriage Amendment is…:
- …a bad idea because I don’t think it’s the sort of stuff that should be in the Constitution.
- …a great idea because it’ll undercut the DFL in the 2o12 elections. “But you’re playing politics with civil rights, Berg!” Yeah, I’m the first person that’s ever done it, too. Cry me a river. The fewer representatives and the less power the DFL has, the better our state will be. That is an unalloyed good.
- …and, finally, a good idea because it will, for the first time, force single-sex marriage activists to make a case for their cause to the people, rather than lawyers, pols and judges. If there is any merit to the idea, they’ll have to be damn good at explaining it.
That last is an important one; the gay marriage activists I’ve been talking to are really, really bad at it.
Indeed – without exception, the best,most intelligent, most articulate cases I’ve heard for defeating the amendment have come not from liberals and gay marriage proponents, but from libertarian conservatives like Rep. John Kriesel and GOP Comms guy, Craig “Captain Fishsticks” Westover. Without exception.
As to the libs? These are the arguments I’m hearing:
“Proponents Are Nothing But Bigots!”: Well, some no doubt are. For the vast majority, myself included, it’s more a matter of “you want us to fundamentally change an institution that, for all of humanity’s infinite variations, and all of the institution’s zillion permutations, has one consistent feature throughout every society on earth going back to when time was recorded verbally; they all feature a guy and a gal, sometimes at least one of each”. There may be a reason to change our minds on that; being called a “bigot”, or any names, really, isn’t one of of them.
“You advocate a Jim Crow , “separate but equal” law!”: We who advocate civil unions, but leaving the state out of “marriage” as a religious institution, have been getting this one lately.
It’s nonsense, of course; “Jim Crow” was about taking peoples’ rights away; civil unions do no such thing. “Separate but equal” was about keeping populations from intermingling; it’d be absurd to claim that civil unions do any such thing, unless they’re performed at a “Gays Only” courthouse and could be adjudicated and dissolved only by gay judges.
This one leads us to the closely-related…
“You’re all hung up on a word“: There’s a smidgen of merit,here – and at least it veers away from browbeating. But it peters out just past “smidgen”.
Most of us who oppose, on some level or another, Single Sex Marriage do so on religious grounds – but not everyone cares about religion.
Atheists can marry in our society, and most don’t bother with churches or their traditions. They get married by justices of the peace, or by “Elvis” in Vegas, or ship captains or bus drivers or whatever authority signs civil contracts. It’s “separate but equal”; it’s indistinguishable in every way from a civil union. It confers no different rights than a church marriage – or a civil union.
There is no difference.
So I’m going to suggest that both sides are “hung up on the word” pretty equally.
“We do not vote on civil liberties!”: Now, we’re getting somewhere. It’s a good principle, in principle. It’s also rubbish; we vote on civil liberties all the time. It took activists eight years of nonstop smashmouth organizing to get the human and civil right to keep and bear arms put into Minnesota law in a meaningful way – and that’s a right that’s in the Constitution. The real one, I mean.
No, the big question is, is there a “civil right” to marry at all, much less someone of the same gender? On the one hand, someone – the tribe, the church/Islam/your tribe’s witch doctor/government/whatever people believe in – has always said who could marry, and how; outside of whatever the institution was, people pretty much just shacked up otherwise. Like they do now.
On the other hand, rights are not granted by the state; they are endowed to us by our creator, whatever you believe our Creator is. And if you are a Tenther, you know that rights not specifically granted to the Federal government are supposed to be reserved to the states and The People. Individual states have always taken on the whole notion of “who can marry whom”.
And so while in principle “we don’t vote on civil rights”, we do observe laws; we are a nation ruled by laws, not men (that’s another principle), even, hypothetically, if those men are judges. And so whether you believe it’s right or nice to vote on civil liberties or not, them’s the facts. Make your case.
I’m ambivalent about the amendment,for reasons I’ve spelled out over and over on this blog. I support civil unions. And I doubt I’ll ever bother getting a state license to marry, even if I ever do marry again. I oppose real, actual hatred aimedat anyone, gays included – and I have put more on the line to back that up than most people, “progressive” or not.
And so when the DFL and the gay movement’s “best” line in support of SSM is “you’re a bigot”, “you support Jim Crow” and “you are a moron”…
…well, let’s just say they may need to work on their messaging before 2012.
As I’ve pointed out in the past, I’m deeply ambivalent about pretty much everything in the Gay Marriage mix; gay marriage itself, sure, but straight marriage too, and amending the constitution to protect it as well.
Yesterday, if you were at the Capitol, you saw a Madison-like outpouring of support for gay rights and opposition to the Amendment. And by “Madison-like”, I mean “largely Metrocratic”.
But while I’m ambivalent about gay marriage (I support civil unions, but don’t plan on ever getting a government marriage license, even if I do get married ever again), I think there is one uncontrovertible fact; the DFL’s motivations in opposing the Amendment were purely, and just a tad cynically, political.
Call From Pauline Kael: The left’s approach on gay marriage, thus far, has been to get it instituted by fiat, either by politicians (former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome) or the courts. It’s a fact that gay marriage has never passed a public referendum, not even in “progressive” cesspools like Oregan.
But there are polls that indicate that people are changing their tune; that people actually support gay marriage.
So is the landscape changing? It depends on the polls you believe, of course; I’ve seen surveys of likely voters that indicate most Minnesotans oppose it; there are others, of course. We’ll see – in November, 2012. I strongly suspect most people do, in fact, oppose gay marriage because…
What Happened In 2009? Last night, during the Madison-like surge of lefty outrage on Twitter, a “progressive” sniffed at me:
Sir- the agenda is Rights. DFL Benson: My conscious comes first, my constituents second, and my desire to be reelected, third.
Which makes a good chanting point. But it doesn’t stand up to history.
Four years ago,the DFL took control of the government in Saint Paul. Two years ago, the DFL had absolute control of Minnesota government, except for Governor Pawlenty. Had they wanted to push a gay marriage law, they could have. It would have been vetoed – but they’d have made their moral case to take to the voters.
And don’t forget that they could have passed a constitutional amendment, as the GOP just did, and bypassed the Governor completely.
And yet they dawdled for four years, and made no significant effort toward Gay Marriage. None. Zero.
If the DFL’s stance were “about civil rights”, about immutable libertarian principles, as Rep. Benson grandiloquently claimed, they’d have used their absolute majority to do something,
Contrast that to the GOP, which introduced the Constitutional Amendment immediately.
Leaving aside whether it’s good to vote on civil rights or whether Gay Marriage is a civil right, here’s a question: which is the stance of a party that believes that they are going to win a referendum?
I suspect the DFL ignored gay marriage (and their gay supporters) for four years because they knew the votes weren’t there throughout Minnesota; that if they voted for legislation pushing gay marriage, they’d get shredded statewide. They’d be kissing any outstate seats goodbye; they’d shave some of their majority in the Arrowhead and in the Twin Cities; few people oppose Gay Marriage less than Afro-Americans and Latinos; they might even jeopardize Tim Walz’ seat.
My thesis – this was never about principles, about liberty, about fairness for gays. This is about votes. The DFL believes they’ll lose them – lots of them.