Child Support Propaganda in an Election Year

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | April 22, 2004 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

We're all sick of hearing that parents are so bad they must be controlled by government. I'm sure you could make a similar argument about everyone else in society as well. Your political attitude is way far left.

Understanding the problem means understanding that courts used to make judgments based on reasonable judgments, what was true. Now that the Constitution has been abolished in relation to family issues, every family related decision is politically controlled, en masse. That's a very, very bad thing that invited corruption. We've got way too much of that now, and what we must have to fix it is a return to constitutional standards ... including returning family law issues to the control of the states, and family law decisions to the courts to be made in the context of individual rights.

[Rocket1968]

Roger, why are so angry with me? I am not as articulate as I would like, and perhaps I am not making myself clear enough.

I suggest that you read my posts again. I believe that I clearly mentioned that the courts should (and do) have jurisdiction. It appears to me that you are confusing domestic relation laws with government welfare. State courts have always had jurisdiction over family matters. There are federal laws that require uniformity and actually strengthen the full and fair credit clause of the constitution. No longer can individuals flee to other jurisdictions to find more favorable treatment.

It is the welfare state that is the real culprit. In exchange for receiving certain benefits, individuals give up the right to support. Government (as in executive branch) is forced into child support issues. If welfare is reduced the intrusion is reduced. I agree that there is too much government. I see the impact it has on individuals every day. I support welfare reform and elimination of whole programs. I am acutely aware that the system needs major overhaul. I would like to see the standard of need include ALL benefits received and capped. It is outrageous that a 17 year old girl can have a child out of wedlock and the total of all benefits available, including a college education, can total in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars, while intact families struggle to put food on the table.

I have three daughters to put through college. Do I get any help? No. Am I angry? Yes. Do I want to see change? Absolutely. That is why I vote the way I do. I may work for the government, but I am not a big government advocate, but I am not prepared to throw out the baby with the bath water. Until we have real reform, whether you like it or not, there will continue to be a need for people like me. For every horror story, I can cite 10 or more successes.

I have to endure your attitude all the time. I am labeled a lefty simply because I work for the government. You are wrong. I support and work for candidates that want to reduce government, even if it meant my own job. In the meantime, I will do the job I was hired to do.

Rocket

[RogerFGay]

I suggest that you read my posts again. I believe that I clearly mentioned that the courts should (and do) have jurisdiction. It appears to me that you are confusing domestic relation laws with government welfare.

Domestic relations law has been incorporated into the welfare system via welfare reform -- 1975 - present. The primary effect of child support reform was to transform non-welfare family law into the welfare state. That was accompanied by the addition of billions of dollars added to the welfare system budget.

That´s how family law was transformed from a private issue to a public issue, and why the Constitution no longer protects marriage and family issues from government intrusion. And that BTW, is why same-sex marriage has been approved by the courts. Marriage is now seen as a function of government, purely defined by "social policy." As such, and with no other meaningful significance to it as a matter of law, the judges decided that same-sex couples could not be discriminated against.