You’ll have to amend the Constitution to do so. Laws that guarantee child support for children born during marriage but deny child support to children born out of wedlock violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Gomez. v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973). States are under no obligation to provide any children with a child support obligation from a non-custodial parent, but if they choose to do so they can’t discriminate on the basis of legitimacy and illegitimacy.
Geez, Two, I was kinda mentally composing what I would say, and you did it well and far more succinctly.
Let’s start our own party, it’s all the rage! The Two Many Brassy Cats Party! W00T!
I don’t mind amending my statement to include all children in or out of marriage. I know far too many men who have kids they didn’t want and struggle to afford.
Fair enough, but there’s a reason state governments spend a lot of time, money, and manpower enforcing child support obligations. It’s because it would be even more expensive to the state if they didn’t. Census figures indicate that somewhere around one out of every three to four custodial parents is below the poverty line (cite). If those parents aren’t receiving any child support payments at all, taxpayers are going to be taking up the slack in the form of providing millions of dollars more in public assistance. Voters generally don’t care for the idea that they should have to pay higher taxes so that non-custodial parents can continue to have consequence free sex.
I don’t think the state should support people having babies they have no business having in the first place, so I don’t think that the burden would or should ever fall to the state. Strengthen access to birth control and abortions. Something like half of all children aren’t planned for.
Voters already pay for people to have free sex - it’s called WIC, welfare, and Section 8 housing.
WIC is actually a pretty good example of what I’m talking about. WIC eligibility in my state is calculated with the federal poverty income level using gross household income, including child support. Not having child support puts more people below that level and more people on WIC. Less child support means more taxpayer support.
I apologize. I had misread your earlier posts and thought that she herself considered BC to be against the Catholic church. I see now that it’s a question of access.
You do know that some people who live in section 8 housing are there for reasons beyond their control, right? People who are disabled and have limited income and limited means to support themselves frequently need Section 8 Housing. they should live in barracks why, exactly?
Again, not everyone who is in Section 8 or on welfare has children.
Walter, I’m not talking about the guys who built the fucking railroad, I’m talking about the guy who pissed on my rug!
Joe
I don’t believe in animal rights. Or at least, I’m very skeptical. If you worry about the plight of chickens while millions of humans suffer from poverty and injustice, and are dying of curable diseases due in no small part to that very injustice, then I think your priorities are skewed.
Y’know, gays keep saying they are BORN that way, but it flies so much in the face of evolutionary theory that a genetic adaptation that has such a negative effect on one’s ability to propogate into the next generation, that I just can’t buy it. I have no problem with gays marrying or leading free lives like the rest of that, but “born that way” … sorry, I have yet to see a convincing demonstration that it could happen that way.