I’ve often criticized the Christian Right’s policies on marriage. My complaints are:
1) They ignore the true threat to marriage and parents’ rights–the family law system.
2) They do nothing to defend fathers’ rights, which are particularly vulnerable under the current system.
3) They bash gays, who haven’t done anything to anybody and deserve to be left in peace.
4) They waste an appalling amount of time and effort on non-issues like gay marriage while millions of children have been needlessly separated from the fathers they love and need.
The latest is a new New Jersey campaign from the National Organization for Marriage. Conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher, an otherwise intelligent lady who has inexplicably decided to fritter away her time on gay marriage, recently sent Opponents of gay marriage launch all-out N.J. campaign (Newark Star-Ledger, 11/29/07) out to her elist. The article states:
“A national campaign to block gay marriage came to New Jersey this week as conservative groups began airing radio advertisements and bombarded a key lawmaker’s office with as many as 200 phone calls an hour.
“The National Organization for Marriage debuted a radio ad warning ‘powerful special-interest groups want to redefine marriage,’ and the N.J. Family Policy Council sent out an e-mail urging people to phone legislative leaders and Gov. Jon Corzine.
“Leaders of both organizations said they were trying to block an effort to legalize same-sex marriage during the lame-duck session of the Legislature that ends Jan. 8, when new lawmakers are sworn…
“Brigid Harrison, a professor of political science and law at Montclair State University, said the anti-gay marriage campaign may be aimed not just at lawmakers, but at voters casting their ballots in the presidential primary on Feb. 5.
“‘This is something that is a wedge issue,’ Harrison said. ‘It drives people to the polls.’”
While the NOM is wasting time and sizeable sums of money bashing gays and gay marriage, New Jersey marriages are being shredded and fathers are being manhandled in family courts. A few examples:
1) Earlier this year a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling did away with even the pretense of meaningful judicial oversight of restraining orders (aka protection orders). According to After-Hours E-Filing Allowed for Domestic Violence Cases, TROs (New Jersey Law Journal, 7/24/07), all that is now needed for a restraining order is for the woman to give testimony over the phone to an on-call judge. The judge then issues the order electronically, so it’s immediately enforceable. In other words, all a woman has to do is pretend to be frightened over the phone and her husband gets booted out of his own home and will be arrested if he tries to visit or call his own children. To learn more, see my blog post New Jersey Does Away with Any Pretense of Meaningful Judicial Oversight of Restraining Orders.
2) A recent New Jersey appeals court reaffirmed a decision mandating that a man must pay alimony to his ex-wife–who killed their son. To learn more, see my blog post She Killed His Son but He Must Pay Her Alimony
3) Sharp anti-father custody bias. For example, in the study “Child custody arrangements: a study of two New Jersey counties” published in the Journal of Psychiatry & Law, New Jersey mental health experts researched hundreds of custody cases in two New Jersey counties, Bergen (one of the wealthiest) and Essex (one of the poorest). Rich man or poor man, for these New Jersey fathers it didn’t matter–in either county they won custody in only one out of every 20 cases.
The “defenders of marriage” at the NOM probably don’t have a clue about any of these cases and about the myriad ways children are being separated from decent, loving fathers in family court. It’s not as important as the “threat” from gays.
To learn more, see my blog posts:
Some Thoughts on Mary Cheney’s Baby and the Christian Right’s Hypocrisy
Protecting Gays from Domestic Violence Is ‘Promoting Homosexuality’?
Sorry Honey, I Guess It’s Over
Anti-Male Bias among Christian Conservatives
|
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
amfortas said,
There are several distinct ‘fronts’ in our war, the war against marriage and men, the war on society brought to us by feminism, the war against men being waged by corporate advertisers, the war on our minds by the media, the ‘education’ war against our boys, and I have even seen you, Glenn, take an active part on several at once.
Yes, people like Maggie Gallagher choose to direct their efforts against gay ‘marriage’, but that’s the front they want to fight on. Let them do it and you can direct your efforts where you choose. Its a multi-headed Hydra out there.
December 8, 2007 at 2:10 am
mruffolo said,
After three years, I could not overlook the anti-male sermons delivered from Willow Creek Community Church.
http://www.willowcreek.org
It did not help that I learned that Willow Creek was established promoting feminism. In Church speak, it’s called egalitarianism.
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/229
There are biblically functioning churches in America, however, more effort and patience is needed to find.
December 8, 2007 at 9:49 am
Roger Knight said,
Jibber jabber about gay marriage, and the donations flow in.
Jibber jabber about father’s rights,
And while we would like to help the Child Support Crusade has bled us dry!
It is the donors who are the blockheads.
December 8, 2007 at 9:57 am
jmdiaz said,
December 8, 2007 at 4:52 pm
The Vicar said,
Not in this case you can’t.
December 9, 2007 at 7:58 am
The Gonzman said,
The very same bunch which has brought you the devaluation of fathers are now campaigning for gay marriage.
You ask yourself why. You read up on it. You think about it. It is *NOT* coincidence.
The problem, Glenn, with you and people like jmdiaz is that you have drank the kool-aid put out by such people that opposition to the “Gay Agenda” is opposition to the “Gay.” It’s not. It’s the “Agenda” part that makes my skin crawl. Look in places like the Netherlands, Canada, et al where they gay lobby has gotten what they want. Are they satisfied? No. Are they trying to have people prosecuted for disagreeing with them? Yes.
Ask yourself next, then - Why is it that these groups have ties to US groups? And moreso, WHY IS IT THAT EVERY SINGLE COMPROMISE ACCOMODATION PROFFERED THAT WOULD FORSTALL SUCH A TAILSPIN AS IS OCCURING IN THOSE PLACES HAS BEEN REJECTED?
December 9, 2007 at 8:23 am
David R. Usher said,
For about the 20th time, I am hauling you out on the carpet on the SSM issue. It is a critical issue. If you think I am kidding, take a look at NOW’s new “Freedom to Marry” week initiative. It is all about any woman marrying any other woman regardless of sexual orientation.
http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/freedomtomarry2007.html
http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/points.html
“* The right wing is telling women they have to marry a man in order to get married—holding relationships of women with men on a pedestal. Not allowing women to marry other women promotes a patriarchal society where a woman’s economic security is dependent on her relationships with men.
* Feminism is about having choices and opportunities. Women are free to choose a partner and should have the opportunity to marry or not marry their partner regardless of gender.
Glenn, if you want to be considered a real men’s advocate, you have to oppose same sex marriage.
Since you are deaf and dumb on the same sex marriage issue, I will do you the favor of making this post in capital letters. Please consider yourself special, here, because I have never had to do this before to get somebody’s attention. Please paste it everywhere around the house, and on the dashboard of your car, until it sinks in.
THE REASON WHY N.O.W. HAS PUSHED SSM SINCE THE EARLY SEVENTIES IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT IF ANY TWO WOMEN CAN MARRY EACH OTHER, WOMEN WILL BE ABLE TO SEIZE FULL CONTROL OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AND LEAVE MEN WITH NOTHING EXCEPT CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS AND PRISON. EVERY LEGAL MEANS TO EXECUTE N.O.W.’S ULTIMATE AGENDA FOR FEMINIST SUPREMACY IS IN PLACE, EXCEPT THE “RIGHT” FOR ANY TWO WOMEN TO MARRY.
If you fail to grasp this issue, I regret that I must do a major story going after you for your support of the most radical of all feminist initiatives in the history of the movement. I strongly advise you recant, and get back on the rails on this issue.
December 9, 2007 at 2:31 pm