McCain is Right on Fathers’ Rights
But Does He Know It?
After Barack Obama’s Fathers’ Day speech, analysts have been confident in criticizing his tired, old, business-as-usual, anti-father, anti-family stance. For some who didn’t get the real message through the flowery rhetoric, his choice of running mate “Old White Man†Joe Biden tipped the scale. If you are in favor of sanity, against bone-crushing arbitrary government intrusion and out-of-control pork-barreling, against the destruction of marriage and family, these aren’t your guys.
What about the alternative, John McCain? Fumbling federal social policy on marriage and family has been a decades-long bipartisan affair. So it isn’t a foregone conclusion that voting Republican will help much. We have to wait and see whether his choice of running mate for example, will bring some clarity to his positions. What do we know – or think we know – so far?
In his personal life, John McCain resented the long absences of his own father, who was commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet during the Vietnam War. But as he grew up and began his own family, he felt more empathy with his dad. There seems to be no sign that he is anywhere near anti-family or anti-father in his heart.
McCain is a member of the U.S. Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood “sponsored by the National Fatherhood Initiative.†Here is where cause for concern begins. “Responsible fatherhood†is a promotional phrase for programs that create a sort of new Orwellian federalism while serving the more traditional dystopian goal of bleeding enormous amounts of money from taxpayers and the programs’ subjects. The National Fatherhood Initiative, started by Republican Party insiders, promotes the agenda.
Despite this very direct involvement in fathers’ rights issues, McCain has done little to discuss them publicly. According to About.com:
John McCain has not publicly taken a position on father’s rights issues, feeling that they are best addressed in the states and in the courts. In response to questions in town hall meetings and other settings, McCain has made it clear that he has no particular interest in the father’s rights debate.
But the commentary under the heading “Protecting Marriage†on his campaign website brings us right to the core politics of the war against fathers, marriage, and the family.
As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question.
The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.
As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society. They did so to ensure that the voices of America’s families could not be ignored by an indifferent national government or suffocated through filibusters and clever legislative maneuvering in Congress.
What remains to be seen is whether he can break away from the Republican Party’s habit of massaging the importance of marriage and family with one hand while destroying the institutions with the other. First, he must correct a fundamental and critical error in the reasoning his campaign brings to the discussion – the strange idea that it is somehow possible to debate family policy in a way that does not involve fathers’ rights issues. Recognition of the enormous and fundamental overlap would go a long way.
Serious analysts are well beyond simply blaming “activist judges†for the destruction of marriage and family. They are rightfully to be blamed, but it is for not exercising their role as defenders of the Constitution against arbitrary government intrusion – led by the US Congress in this case, implemented by state legislatures – rather than legislating from the bench. We need to know whether John McCain is prepared to push to get the federal government out of the domestic relations business or whether judges will continue to serve as scape-goats to preserve the status quo.
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
August 27th, 2008 at 5:34 am
“John McCain has not publicly taken a position of father’s rights issues, feeling that they are best addressed in the states and in the courts. In response to questions in town hall meetings and other settings, McCain has made it clear that he has no particular interest in the father’s rights debate.”
*Senator* John McCain is apparently out of touch with reality here. Whether or not father’s rights issues are best addressed in the states is no longer pertinent after years of federal government intrusion into these institutions. I notice he said nothing about that or the need (much less his intentions) to return these issues to the states and get the federal government completely out of the picture. This is a real problem with McCain IMO. He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth and not saying anything in the process.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:16 am
John McCain like most politicians is foremost interested in keeping his “cushy little job” so he does not even atemp to stand up for fathers rights,that would royally piss off the feminazi’s. He would lose his “cushy little job” and have to get a real one.
What the fathers rights groups and any group interested in cleaning up the “utterly corrupt family law system” need to do is ORGANIZE. There are way more of us then there are of the feminazi’s and their evil supporters.
Once a politician like John McCain realizes that to keep his “cushy little job” he has to stand up and vote for civil rights laws that restore, enforce and protect the parenting rights of not only fathers, but mothers, grand parents and other who care about the children in this country. Once we do that the feminazi’s and the other “wrong thinking”would be social engineers will fade into history, bad ideas that violated peoples God given rights and nearly destroyed society. Bad ideas that finally, the decent people had to rise up and get rid of.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:29 am
IMO, reading this points to the true problem: there should be no “father’s rights”. Or “mother’s rights”, for that matter.
The question is more basic: each man needs “Men’s Rights”. In this society, men are hosed on various levels. For the discussion to be limited to “father’s rights” is a win in and of itself for the radical feminist. What about false rape accusations? VAWA and IMBRA? Murderesses and female child abusers getting no real punishment?
And societal attitudes. Would a man by himself help a small child that wasn’t his? Men have been so demonized.
Yes, the fact that the issues are only couched as “father’s rights” is a big win for radical feminists. Mommy vs. Daddy: how limiting.
Notice it was always “Women’s Rights”, NOT “mother’s rights”. It wasn’t a “mother’s right” to an abortion, but a “Woman’s Right”. Until those of like minded men quit allowing the issues to be categorized under different umbrellas, the unity necessary will continue to be diluted.
Sorry, I’m not a father. Personally, father’s rights don’t affect me. But I’m for the concepts. The ideas should be put forth as a part of “Men’s Rights”, not as a separate issue or area.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Randy – I see your point; but this is more basically about human rights and civil rights. It’s only the circumstances – that fathers have been stripped of basic rights – that gave rise to the fathers’ rights movement. Another specific category of civil rights, known as “family rights” can describe a group of rights that until recently were universally recognized as derived from fundamental constitutional rights, and that would be just as useful as a label. Women and children are also in fact victims of the loss of these civil rights (but mostly fathers – or at least fathers lead the battle). The root cause of the problem is the federal intrusion into domestic relations law.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
But this battle is about the loss of rights by many non-fathers. A significant number of men are victimized by mothers who untruthfully and often purposely mis-identify the fathers of their children.
This causes real damage to these non-father men, the children’s real fathers, and the children themselves… all for the benefit of (usually) bad mothers and the lawyers (and psyches, etc.) who profit from extending the lies.
Yes, a battle for civil rights and human rights currently being denied many men, extended family members, and especially fathers and their children.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
McCain has it right on the most important issue facing our society.
When it comes to the issue of …“lifeâ€â€¦ everything else is a distant second.
This is what a “woman’s right to choose†boils down to.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/22week/01_22.jpg
Children’s, father’s, and men’s rights begin with an end to abortion.
August 27th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
McCains position on father’s rights is as feminist as Obama. At a whistle stop he was asked about it, his response was that divorce is not a federal issue – it is up to the courts.
This ignores the fact that state family law is controlled by federal pass-through funding that turned the annilation of marriage and men into one of the most profitable industries for trial lawyers.
Both parties have done what feminists want, and neither will do otherwise because trial lawyers are the unelected fourth branch of government controlling the other three.
I can already tell you for sure who the winner will be in November: trial lawyers. The only difference is how they go about doing it.
Wade Horn was a feminist stooge: His “fathers count” bill was simply a child support collection program. NFI became a boot camp telling men they should be responsible fathers — by paying child support. Not one nickel of federal funding can be spent helping fathers get to be fathers.
After starting up NFI, he took a position in the Bush administration as the Undersecretary for child support enforcement. I was in personal communication with him until then.
There is nothing in these elections for men, marriage, or intelligent women who prefer marriage. This election is already sold to stupid women who have been sold the feminist dream of “doing it all” on less money, waiting for some pandering politician to help them out of the mess they got themselves into.
August 27th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I met with McCain briefly at the Southern Republican Leadership conference last year in Memphis. I wanted to get his position on VAWA and find out what he would do to restore marriage as the social norm. His response was to duck out as quickly as possible saying that he didn’t have any comment.
That’s McCains’ position on marriage, father’s rights, and the futures of women and children.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I suggest treating Sarah Palin like other candidates; particularly looking for an opportunity in a town hall style open forum of any kind where a question can be asked. John McCain and Mitt Romney for example, both received questions from fathers / fathers’ rights advocates. Try to think of a way to ask a question such that it doesn’t fall into the “states should do that” trap. In other words, the question would need to refer to federal law and its problems without being so long that you’d get cut off. There is apparently no definitive information available, except that she tried to exempt child support debtors from having energy rebate checks intercepted – which does not seem anti-father to me.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:46 am
[...] Roger F. Gay McCain is Right on Fathers’ Rights But Does He Know It? 2008-08-27 at 4:29 am · Filed under 2008, Activism, Analysis, Conservatism, Current Events, [...]
September 25th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Antimisandry.com – ok, so they posted this article and I decided to register to respond to comments on the site under the article. But I was unable to register. I recognize some names of people who post here. Anybody know about a tech. problem with registration? I filled in the required stuff, but each time I clicked to register, the message response only said that I needed to fill in the information to register.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Look again.