“It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put on the troubled seas of thought.”
–John Kenneth Galbraith
It seems almost impossible to make up a story like this one. An AP story in the Chicago Tribune claims that the state of Michigan is giving a father “a choice.†Pay the medical cost of his daughter’s birth or marry the girl’s mother. Ahhh, fathers rights.
Gary Johnson, – the father – not Rebecca Witt, – the mother – is being billed by the state of Michigan for $3,800.00 for the birth of their daughter. The Michigan Legislature passed a law five years ago that would wave the hospital costs for fathers who are willing to marry the child’s mother. Johnson appears willing.
However, it appears that no one in the Michigan Legislature understands or appreciates the concept of equal rights. A man and a woman have a child and only the father is expected to pay? Does that somehow seem like equal rights to the Michigan legislators? Have Michigan legislators somehow missed the equal rights battles – pun intended – of the 20th and 21st centuries?
In 1971 Representative Martha W. Griffiths of Michigan – also a lawyer and a judge – presented to the U.S. House of Representatives House Joint Resolution No. 208. That boys and girls, is the equal rights amendment. When the ERA was presented to the voters of the great state of Michigan it was overwhelmingly supported by both men and women.
This is one of those stories that just continues to defies logic. Jack Battles, – see above pun – apparently has no sense of equal rights, history or irony. It is Battles office that enforces paternity rulings, child support and other aspects of family law claims, “It’s totally up to them.†Battles says, “Until Johnson can produce a marriage license, “they have to pay.†Just where does Battles get the them or they from? Unless the AP has the story wrong, it is Johnson – the father – not Witt – the mother – that is expected to pay. Johnson is a him not a them.
Johnson and Witt claim that they do want to get married, however, Witt – the mother – wants the marriage to be her choice and not the choice of the state of Michigan. “I don’t think anybody should tell me when to get married,†said Witt. As for Johnson, he says that he respects Witt’s decision. “It’s a woman’s dream to have the best wedding she can have,†Johnson said.
Perhaps there is someone in Michigan, other than Battles, who actually believes this is somehow, as this story is titled, “a fathers choice.†Johnson is willing to marry Witt, however, Witt refuses. The irony here gets even better.
It is generally agreed that Michigan Representative Griffiths is the person most responsible for including the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title VII in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is it just me or is it obvious that the concepts of equal rights and sex discrimination mean little to nothing to Battles or the Michigan legislators?
