I fully accept that that is your contention. Unfortunately, under the laws of the State of Texas and the United States, it is an erroneous contention.
Thanks for playing, and have a nice day. Next!
Sua
That’s nice that you think so. Could I perhaps bother you to provide a legal citation that establishes that proposition? Texas law will be fine. Thank you for your attention to the matter.
Ha,ha… real clever. Let me clue into something. I am under no olbigation to fulfill your request for a “cite”.
Feel free to refute any statement that I make, but please, try to use a semblence of logic.
No, I will not be bothered. Like I told Hamlet, feel free to refute any statement I make, but use some logic, as I have when I have made my contentionls.
As you “will not be bothered” to provide any authority for your legal claims, I hope you will understand that I will no longer be bothered to feed you.
Oh really, under the laws of the State of Texas, huh?
That’s funny, because Texas State Law only extended the “duty of support”, that** previously existed** within a marriage, to a man’s “legitimate” children.
And what makes a child “legitimate”? Why, that would be marriage.
The Texas legislature did not confer any benefits, it only extended benefits that previously existed within a particular institution (marriage).
Therefore, since the Texas legislature did not confer any benefit, no “equal protection” issue existed.
Were it not so comical, it would be sad how some so desperately cling to a worldview constructed by little more than fairy-tales that make the believer “feel good”. And when evidence arises that contradicts the facade, the believer mimics a young child’s tantrum of denial when confronted with the fact that Santa Clause doesn’t really exist.
And good day to you too, madame, it’s been laughable.
Good God, “Gomez v Perez”, a Supreme Court case stemming from Texas law has been repeatedly cited throughout this entire thread.
I said that “child-support” had it’s origins in the dissolution of the marriage contract. Texas law, prior to “Gomez”, backed up that contention.
BTW: You ain’t feedin’ me nuthin’ but empty rhetoric. Use your head for a change and THINK.
Ta.
Sua
That is because Texas laws were in error prior to the ruling in Gomez. The “duty of support”, if it is to exist at all under the law, exists for all a man’s children. That error was corrected just over thirty years ago. The original legal implementation enforcing this “duty of support” is not definitive and binding for all time.
Enjoy,
Steven
Oh yeah, that is unless a woman makes the “choice” to raise “her” child herself and not reveal the identity of the biological father.
So much for the “duty of support” for that child.
Believe me, I am enjoyin’.
It is absolutely mind-boggling as to how some hold the legislatures and judiciary as sacrosanct.
The American justice system was founded on the principle of fairness and equal justice through the unique concept of the Rule of Law. Are we now willing to abandon this noble principal in favor of the emotional feel-good-ism that can be attained through what could be described as arbitrary law?
In my local area, we have a young man charged with homicide for accidentally causing the demise of a fetus. Yes, the young man’s actions were careless, stupid and even idiotic. Yes, he was acting in complete disregard for the safety and welfare of others and a severe punishment is certainly warranted, but to charge this man with homicide is to abandon the primary tenet on which our system of jurisprudence was founded.
Any dictionary one refers to will define “homicide” as the killing of one human being by another. Contemporary legal precedents have determined that fetuses do not enjoy the legal status of human beings. Fetuses are destroyed, killed or terminated on a daily basis out of mere convenience. To sanction the willful destroying of a fetus in one instance and label it “freedom of choice” and punish the accidental destroying of a fetus in another instance and label it “homicide” is repugnant to the rule of law and is more closely akin to the tyranny of rule by decree.
No matter how you spin it, two different legal statuses for the same entity cannot be reconciled in an honest and fair judicial system. It is only compatible with the tyranny of Rule-by-Decree.
George C. Collinsworth
A liberal’s worst nightmare; A redneck with both a library card and a concealed-carry permit
Neither the state nor the dissenting justices argued that the Texas law was valid because the duty of child support arose from the marriage contract in Gomez; rather, the state argued that it should be excused from having to provide for illegitimate children in its laws becasue of the complex factual questions that inevitiably arise surrounding parentage. The dissenting justices argued that the case should have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and didn’t reach the merits.
Gomez wasn’t an anomaly of a sneaky Court; quite the opposite. It was firmly in line with precedent. The Court had previously ruled that Equal Protection prevents the invidious discrimination against illegitimate children in bringing wrongful death cases, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968), and state worker’s compensation claims, Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972). It would go on to similar decisions concerning government benefits, Social Security Claims, etc. However, even if none of the above were true, it still wouldn’t explain how the decision in Gomez undermines Roe, or why none of the post-Roe cases of the last 30 years addresses this conflict.
Well, kinda. Society REALLY pressures the woman to reveal the identity of the father. Tons of social programs, such as social security, ask for this kind of info. Holding back the identity of the father causes serious inconveniences. In many states it is considered outright ineligibility for many programs.
Still it is possible, which brings us to your next misunderstanding. The word “duty”. It is not something that has to be done under all circumstances, it is something that one must do if it is NEEDED. Being a male citizen of the US I have registered with the Selective Service. I have a DUTY to serve in the armed forces if called. DUTY kicks in when NEEDED.
Fathers have the DUTY to support their children IF adequate support is not currently being provided. If the mother doesn’t ask for child support and the child is being adequately provided for, then the state keeps out of it.
Enjoy,
Steven
Quite so. Moreover, the Texas law that Gomez invalidated–imposing a duty of support for legitimate children but not illegitimate children–was not based on any theory of marital contract. The case law is quite clear, all the way back to Lane v. Phillips, 6 S.W. 610, 611 (1887), that the reason there was no duty to support illegitimate offspring was public policy. As the Texas Supreme Court put it in Lane, statutes requiring support of illegitimate children recognize “not only the high moral obligation the father is under in such cases, but also the natural obligation which the common law, for reasons of public policy, refused to enforce; for it would be difficult to justify a law embracing or imposing a personal obligation, upon the sole ground that its enforcement would compel the performance of a merely moral duty. There is a natural obligation on one who out of wedlock has brought a child into existence, to support it during the years of its inability to take care of itself.” (Lane, incidentally, held that an unmarried couple and their children were a “family” entitled to a homestead exemption under Texas law.)
Now, now, honey… don’t you worry. Just because you cannot afford the “choice” that you made, we’ll get that mean ol’ man to pay for your “choice”.
I suppose I have a misunderstanding of the word “choice” too.
So, a father’s “duty” is arbitrary and again, dependant on the mother’s “choice”.
Strawman. The man had a choice here too. Keep it zipped.**
Probably.**
Nope, dependent on HIS choice. Arbitrary, yes. Biology and all that rot.
Enjoy(your last meal at my hands),
Steven
Semantics! Differentiating between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” is based on the marital contract.
Much like the natural obligation a woman has not to abort her child. But…
What I’m enjoyin’ is rubbin’ a liberal’s nose in the stench of its own ideology.
Anyway, here’s what it all boils down to.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinions concerning the issue of abortion, it has to be acknowledged that a Supreme Court ruling has certain legal ramifications. As a result of the Roe vs. Wade decision, a woman’s pregnancy was determined to be autonomous and protected by a constitutional right of “PRIVACY”.
The Supreme Court ruled that it is solely a woman’s personal “choice” to either bring a child into the world, or to terminate a pregnancy without any regard for the wishes of the man involved.
Therefore, for child support laws to be consistent with the application of law that our system of jurisprudence demands, a certain relationship must exist between a birth mother and a biological father. If the birth mother has the legal means of a “contract” of marriage or an “implied contract” of a sustained relationship with the biological father of her child, only then should the law be applied to require that man to provide support for a child that is the result of that relationship.
If a birth mother does not have the obligatory contract with the biological father, then that man should not be required to support a child that the birth mother unilaterally chooses to bring into the world. The only other scenario that would justify the application of child support law is if an adult male impregnates a girl under the age of consent.
For the State to require an individual, not bound by contract, to be financially responsible for a “private” concern of a second party, not only violates the rule of law, it violates the very essence of freedom, liberty, and justice that America stands for.
Oh, and this bears repeating:
"Were it not so comical, it would be sad how some so desperately cling to a worldview constructed by little more than fairy-tales that make the believer “feel good”.
And when evidence arises that contradicts the facade, the believer mimics a young child’s tantrum of denial when confronted with the fact that Santa Clause doesn’t really exist."
It’s been a hoot.
G. C. Collinsworth