This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
|
law:start [2013/02/17 22:26] kingsley |
law:start [2015/01/22 11:48] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| ====== Law ====== | ====== Law ====== | ||
| ===== Paternity Suits ===== | ===== Paternity Suits ===== | ||
| - | {{:kingsley_on_his_soap_box.png?200|}} | + | {{ kingsley_on_his_soap_box.png?200|}} |
| - | I was the Reproductive Rights Chairman of the National Center for Men. | + | |
| - | It seems to me that improving paternity laws to give men a limited time to irrevocably decide whether or not to accept parenthood would have several benefits. | + | I dream of a world where every child is wanted, and all parents are voluntary. |
| - | - It would reduce discrimination. Women have not been forced into parenthood since Roe v. Wade in 1973. To be fair, men should not either. The Constitution's 14th ammendment requires equal protection. | + | I dream of a world with fewer people, less pollution and less discrimination. |
| - | - Not rewarding women who trick or trap men into fatherhood with unqualified child support should reduce the out of wedlock birth rate, overpopulation and their associated social ills. | + | |
| + | Here's how I think we can get there. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Give men a limited time to irrevocably decide whether | ||
| + | - to accept the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, or | ||
| + | - be treated like a father who died or is unknown. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This would reduce discrimination. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Women have not been forced into parenthood since Roe v. Wade in 1973. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To be fair, men should not either. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Constitution's 14th Amendment requires equal protection. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Removing child support and the financial incentive for women to trick or trap men into fatherhood should also reduce the birth rate, overpopulation, and pollution. | ||
| Some people call this proposal "Choice for Men". | Some people call this proposal "Choice for Men". | ||
| - | In 2005, I introduced a paternity suit defendant to a media expert and a lawyer with experience in federal court. We challenged Michigan's discriminatory paternity law in Federal Court. We argued that it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment. The case was widely reported as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade_for_Men|"Roe v. Wade for Men"]]. | + | In 2005, I introduced a paternity suit defendant to a media expert and a lawyer with experience in federal court. |
| + | |||
| + | We challenged Michigan's discriminatory paternity law in Federal Court. | ||
| + | |||
| + | We argued that it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The case was widely reported as [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade_for_Men|"Roe v. Wade for Men"]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Paternity Fraud ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[this>lib/exe/fetch.php?media=olympia.1.ogg|{{:olympia.1.thumbnail.png?200}}]] | ||
| + | I visited my state's capitol to try to stop an ancient injustice called "paternity fraud". It's basically when a woman lies about who the dad is, and the wrong guy pays for it. WA senator Jan Angels's S.B. 5006 would allow modern DNA evidence to overturn child support orders. You can evidently watch the hearing itself [[http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2015011074|"here"]]. I think it may be the second bill at the link. | ||
| + | |||
| ===== Gun Control ===== | ===== Gun Control ===== | ||
| - | {{:pistol.png?200|}} | + | |
| + | [[this>lib/exe/fetch.php?media=meta-analysis.pdf|{{:pistol.2.png?200}}]] | ||
| **//Combining Ten Jurisdictions Reveals The Net Effect Of Gun Control Laws On Murder Rates Was Statistically Insignificant//** | **//Combining Ten Jurisdictions Reveals The Net Effect Of Gun Control Laws On Murder Rates Was Statistically Insignificant//** | ||