In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, fathers wrote:

>  wrote:
> > Rex Ballard wrote. 

> >You need to PAY YOUR CHILD SUPPORT -if you expect to be able to vote in 
> the primaries and the next election. 

	(20 other revocations of the constitution cited)

> >That little gouging of 50% of your after-tax income just went up to about 
> 75% of your after tax income. 
> 
> >Your dad took early retirement, just turned 65, and were looking forward 
> to enjoying their pension.  Uncle Sam won't be sending them anything 
> until you are "paid up".  Your parents can eat "cat food".
And so can you - "daddy".

> =======

> Gentlemen, HR4 is sexist, pure and simple. Yet fear not, men will put up with
> it.
>
> Imagine recreating slavery, but saying "Don't worry. We'll be fair. Only
> those who belong to the gender that didn't become managers in great numbers
> will be affected."
> 
> Similarly, child-support orders seems neutral...until you look at the
> "disparate impact" (called DISCRIMINATION) they make on men.

The entire divorce law amount to ex-post-facto law in the first place.  
Judgements are based on the conditions at the time of the divorce, not at 
the time the "Marriage Contract" was signed.

How many men were ever trained in the terms of the Marriage Contract.  
The marriage vows say "I promise...til death do us part", how many men 
read the actual LAW governing marriage.  How many men sought the advice 
of a lawyer before getting married or conceiving a child.  No sane man 
would sign a contract that says - in effect "If she decides that she is 
dissatisfied or bored with the relationship I agree to provide her with a 
lawyer who will help her get custody of the kids and the majority of my 
after-tax income.

My mother was raped - by a man.  My wife was raped - by two men.  My 
sister was raped - by a man.  My wife was molested - by a man.  Why 
shouldn't one of THEM pay the child support?  I on the other hand have 
endured "blue-balls" for 20 years - rather than implicitly or explicitly 
"expecting" sex.  I have been doing community service 20-30 hours/week 
for 30 years as a volunteer.  Yet I get to pay for the crimes of other 
men.  My most horrible crime - a peculiar taste in wardrobe.

Give the draconian measures of HR4 - this could be a CAPITAL CRIME.  If 
they chose to imprison me - they would insist on putting me with other 
men.  Since I have never been violent - I would be raped.  Since many men 
in prison are HIV Positive, there is a high probability that I would be 
exposed.  This would lead to a AIDS (likely to occur earlier because of 
poor medical care) and death.

> The central issue is WHO GETS THE KIDS. Whoever gets them wins the game. Men
> have made way for women in the workplace. Women have not done the same at
> home. So the get the kids, and with that everything else. 

The laws - as currently ejudicated and enforced, require that a man prove 
that his wife is guilty of misconduct that presents a clear and present 
danger to the children.  EVEN if your wife was recently institutionalized 
for serious emotional disorders - including homocidal feelings toward the 
children, the entire burden of proof is on the Father.  The father must 
also pay for his wife's defense.

> The wonder, the sheer overwhelming wonder of it all, is men ACCEPT that!

They aren't given much choice.  Unless you are independently wealthy, or 
have unlimited access to free legal services, the costs of prosecuting 
your wife, and providing for her defense, can quickly deplete the 
resources of multi-millionaires.  Bill Gates could loose everything in a 
custody battle.

> Well, maybe guys really ARE unaware, insensitive, stupid, ball-less, foolish
> creatures who shouldn't be around families.

Unaware yes.  I knew more about environmental laws and communications law 
by the time I was 15 than I knew about matrimonial law - until after my 
wife announced her engagement to a man she met in a locked psycho ward.
THEN I was told what my options, responsibilities, and obligations were.

> Men could have stopped this any time they wanted to. If they gave a hoot
> about something other than work, beer, and sports (like equity, fairness,
> etc.) they could have fought back. They chose not to.

Most men can't afford to fight back.  If they have low net-worth, low 
income potential, and limited future prospects, they get off pretty 
easy.  If they spent 20 years training and developing themselves to be 
able to provide for a woman and her children in exchange for a loving 
relationship with a wife who would be his lover, partner, support (in 
whatever form is mutually agreeable) for LIFE, they are very likely to be 
a major target for lawyers and social workers who are trying to keep up 
the payments on their Corvettes (or their Ex-Wive's Corvettes).

> Will any group fight this bill? No. They grouse online, but that's all.

The bill was vetoed.
Invitations have been sent encouraging members of this group to draft a 
new - workable - version of this type of "welfare reform".

> Kiss your rights goodbye, gents. You're the new whipping-boys of the world.

That is exactly what I am.  I am being punished for the crimes of other 
men - because I have the deepest pockets.  I get to pay for the crimes of:
The men who raped my mother, my sister, my wife, my lover prior to 
meeting leslie, the man who tried to rape me, the men who told women I 
was starting to be emotionally intimate with that I was gay before 
getting them pregnant and leaving them to fend for themselves, and of 
course, the guy who didn't notice the wedding ring on my wife's finger 
when he decided he was going to have an affair with her and then marry 
her.  I get to "Pay the bill" for about 25 men who have hurt the women I 
have loved most.  The thanks I get is 20 years of guilt-edged celebacy.

I couldn't support a system where a man is allowed to rape his wife, 
force her to have the child, beat her into submission, gets her hooked on 
heroine or cocaine, and then feed an anonymous tip to the Officer as she 
goes to pick up another "dime-bag" for the old man.

> I mean, why act? Better to spend another 300 years seeing if we can find a
> "goal,"...while cattle prods fire in our butts. And "family" means NO MEN.

My wife is married, I can't go back to that family.  My request is to be 
able to have the opportunity to marry a woman who has children and have 
the wife/lover/friend I have wanted all along.  I can't do that when 
there isn't enough left of my paycheck to buy more than a rented 
efficiency in a rooming house, or a rented room in a 2 bedroom condo.
I have spent most of the 5 years since my divorce in "shares", "rooms", 
and "no-tell motels".  This isn't the best place to bring your date at 
the end of a few "hot dates".

> -Robert 

	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Jan 16 17:34:10 1996