Fake Conservatives Push Same-Sex Marriage Agenda

2008-09-09
By

It may be time to re-evaluate your wisdom if you’ve ever said that all’s fair in love and politics.

One good thing you can say about Michelle Obama is that she comes right out and says it. An Obama presidency would mean repeal of the Defence of Marriage Act and streamlining adoption for same-sex couples. A more sinister side of the policy debate involves where some of those children will come from – fit and loving natural parents who want to raise their own children. The idea is being pushed by people playing a conservative values game.

I often spend time in Internet discussions, because I like to discuss, and to get a sense of what other people think. Usually, it just serves help satisfy my argumentative urges and increases my knowledge. But this I have to report. Fake social conservatives have found their way into conservative discussion forums and they’re up to no good.

It’s actually pretty easy to do using the well-worked language of “personal responsibility” and feigned fiscal miserliness. If a guy can’t keep it in his pants than he doesn’t deserve rights. Fornication is wrong and it’s a burden on the state to track down unmarried fathers to let them know about their children. If these guys were married like they should be, they wouldn’t have caused the problem. They only have themselves to blame.

In the conservative values game, they’re not pushing abortion, so you add it up. They mean children can be put up for adoption without a father’s consent. The target is an increasingly vulnerable part of the American family population – the children of divorced and never-married parents – made more vulnerable by the systematic elimination of the rights of natural parents, spearheaded by the well-documented legal and social war against fathers. Part of the machinery is already in place in Virginia.

The Putative Father Registry law challenges men to register their non-marital sexual activities with the state. If a relationship results in a child, not having the activity that led to it registered means – to the state – that the father has waived his right to be notified that his parental rights are being terminated.

One year into operation, as any reasonable person would expect, the registry isn’t filled with stimulating sagas of sexual exploitations. “A grand total of 64 men in Virginia availed themselves of this splendid opportunity to create an official record of their sexual activities.” The Daily Press says that in the most recent year for which statistics are available, 33,681 non-marital births occurred in Virginia. The probability of being raised by a biological parent have been significantly reduced in a population of more than 33,000 children, in one year, in one state. The children at the edge of the herd can more easily be snatched by the hungry wolves.

The fake conservatives can seem fairly or even extremely stereotypical, including a great naivete in their knowledge of the current state of family politics. A first tip may be when encountering a persona that seems far too stereotypical – a rather standardized leftist conception of the mean-spirited intransigence of traditional moral convictions. If that isn’t enough, watch for signature intolerance and reliance on bigotry – attacking groups of people – especially men and fathers. If the person you’re dealing with cannot be reached through information and reason – you found one.

458 views

  • David R. Usher

    Hi Roger,

    “In the conservative values game, they’re not pushing abortion, so you add it up. They mean children can be put up for adoption without a father’s consent.”

    Excellent analysis. There is another reason. Republicans are big on private enterprise, and have lots of buddies that make small fortunes doing adoptions.

    There are many ugly business enterprises that destroy marriage by encouraging/entitling women to have children out of wedlock, and then placing them in a position where they are weak and either give up the child or have it removed for neglect.

    Parental rights are, in fact, close scrutiny rights protected at the federal level. Putative Fatherhood registries are unconstitutional. The state has a duty to uphold the parent rights of the mother with the same vigor they protect parental rights of the father. Mothers usually know who the father is. There is no excuse for states not requiring disclosure and positive DNA testing before giving her benefits.

    Where states fall over backwards to collect child support, but refuse to lift a finger to identify fathers for purposes of parental rights, it is prima facie evidence that putative fatherhood registries are unconstitutional.

    Missouri was one of the first states to pass a putative fatherhood registry. The Republican sponsor in the Senate was adamant about passing it, irregardless of all constitutional arguments. He would not reveal what his reason was. I know what it was: Carmen Schulz, who was Director of Social Services, had exported herself to heading up an adoption agency, and DFS wanted the business.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    The current political corruption is unending – and just as morally corrupt as anything history has to offer.

  • Squiggy

    Roger, are you saying the state wants you to come up and say “I had sex with Mary Jones on September the first at around midnight?”

    Do you have to go up to the courthouse and get a form? I suppose you have to file one copy with the county registrar, and keep one for your records. What if you don’t know her last name? For the guys who really get a lot, this could be enormous. There is absolutely no way this crap could work, and I can’t imagine any way this was written with (honest) good intentions.

    If this is what I think it is, this may be the most big-brother-like nonsense yet (and I’m assuming Stalin is the big brother).

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    There is absolutely no way this crap could work, and I can’t imagine any way this was written with (honest) good intentions.

    Here’s a comment on it by Glenn Sacks.

    Oh – early in the morning I guess – I had already linked Glenn’s article to my article. Anyway – it seems to be about faking justification for use of presumptions again – this time a presumption that a father has no interest in a child – presumptively waives parental rights – so they can get mothers more quickly and easily putting children up for adaption – without a father’s consent.

  • MartianBachelor

    That 64 number certainly explodes that feminist cliche of guys really being nothing but little-boy braggadocios. I suppose the damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don’t “explanation” for the low numbers is that they’re all hit-and-run types trying to evade their “responsibilities”?

    BTW – Do these sorts of the laws require the woman in question to be certified fertile before a filing in necessary? Because if she’s not, what’s the point?
    Ok, it’s a rhetorical question.

    Every other culture the planet has ever known has gone about the regulation of sexuality and reproduction via its females. We’re the first to try it via the regulation of males, no matter what lengths or insanity we have to go to to try doing it this way… so at the very very least this is an interesting anthropological experiment.

    > Mothers usually know who the father is.

    This is the one thing I’d take issue with. If it were true, the plot lines of soap operas and romance novels wouldn’t be what they are, and both Maury and Springer would have been out of business long ago.

    There is much evidence from biology for the idea that women actively promote sperm competition as a means to further their pursuit of reproductive success. It’s a way of testing men’s abilities to ensure their fitness. And it’s something which is increasingly emphasized as large segments of society devolve (socially) to a system of feral reproduction.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    MartianBachelor;

    > Mothers usually know who the father is.

    I think when things like that are said, it’s important to notice the words like “usually” as indicating not always, and then apply some common sense if you can’t get your hands on hard data. In support of the theory you mention, the actual percent of children who are not children of presumed fathers is suprisingly high – it was surprising to me, in any case.

    But children are born about 9 months after conception, and I suspect that most women can bring that down to at least a few suspects in cases where it’s not just one. Again, that’s just an idea about percentages. I’m not saying there are only a small number of very loose women in the world.

    One set of statistics that could give a false result shows the difficulty the welfare system has in establishing paternity, even when mothers’ cooperation is required as a condition for continued benefits. There is evidence that many women could identify fathers much more quickly and easily, but that they’re playing the system in a variety of ways.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    I think some of the fake conservatives showed up to rate the article.






Search