The Democratic Party, Men, and Low Hanging Fruit: Number 2

Besides easing men's concerns about paternity fraud,

( http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-democratic-party-men-and-low.html  )
(https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-democratic-party-men-and-low.html)

another easy thing the Democratic Party could do to improve men's lives is to, once and for all, and in all states, have marriage always be an explicit written agreement between persons. There should never be an instance in which one person A can claim to be married to person B without the explicit written consent of person B.

First, this will protect men from nefarious women claiming that because a relationship was "marriage-like" that the woman should be entitled to "marital rights;" that is she wants to take his money without his ever having consented to her "right" to take his money.  Second, this would make US law consistent with the international standards as specified by the United Nations:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/MinimumAgeForMarriage.aspx


"Article 1

1. No marriage shall be legally entered into without the full and free consent of both parties, such consent to be expressed by them in person after due publicity and in the presence of the authority competent to solemnize the marriage and of witnesses, as prescribed by law."

Note that the above article 1 was supported by women's groups, so that except for the occasional nefariously mercenary woman, the vast majority of Democratic women would presumably support this position.

This would protect men against financial attacks by mercenary women trying to get the financial benefits of marriage without the pesky problem of a man's consent to marry.  This should throw out the mercenary claims of common law marriage, de facto marriage, palimony and every other evil "relationship" attempt to defraud men of money without their explicit consent.

The Democratic Party, Men, and Low Hanging Fruit: Number 1

In reference to my previous posts:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-2016-election-and-middle-class.html


http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-democratic-party-and-men-one-good.html

I would like to suggest something that the Democratic Party could do specifically directed at improving men's lives. It is "low hanging fruit" inasmuch as even the liberal wing on the Democratic Party could whole-heartedly support it. Only the truly evil and tyrannical elements of the lunatic fringe could possibly be against this proposal.

The Democratic Party should introduce legislation in all the states, as well as nationally, to require default paternity testing at birth so that:

1. A man is not forced to support a child that he did not father.
2. The child's medical record does not contain false information that negatively impacts the child's medical treatment.

I think most people, even most Democratic women, would agree that it is seriously wrong to force a man to support another man's child. The woman is responsible and not the man. The woman should bear the financial consequences of her behavior and not an innocent man who was not involved and therefore should bear no responsibility.

If both parents sign an informed consent waiver explaining their liabilities in the absence of establishing paternity via a paternity test (perhaps for religious reasons?), then the  paternity test can be sealed and presented to the child when the child becomes an adult and/or released to the child's physician if medically important genetic misinformation needs to be avoided.





If one wants to look at some of the ludicrous objections see:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bari-zell-weinberger-esq/paternity-tests_b_1364085.html

"First, let’s talk about women. Yes, we know that sometimes women have multiple partners, even when they are married. However, assuming that you can’t trust any New Jersey mom to be honest about (or worse, to know!) who fathered her child seems like a giant step backwards, not to mention insulting. In my experience, paternity issues affect a minority of families, not the majority."

This is ass-backwards. The only time an "assumption" is made is when a paternity test is not done. There is no "assumption" being made if the test is done. What absolute illogical nonsense. This is another instance in which the "benefit of the doubt" is being twisted for nefarious purposes. The "benefit of the doubt" reasonably applies when the doubt cannot be removed. Asking for the  "benefit of the doubt"  when the doubt could easily be removed is not only ridiculous, it is tyrannical and serves only the nefarious purpose of concealing the truth. How can a routine paternity test be "insulting?"

The fact that only a minority of families are affected by paternity issues is irrelevant. All people need to be protected against erroneous, sometimes intentionally erroneous, paternity assumptions. There is no need to make any assumptions. What this "south end of a north bound horse" is actually arguing is that she favors paternity assumptions instead of getting the actual facts.

"But what if a woman did cheat on her spouse around the time she became pregnant... and he doesn’t know it? Is it now the state’s responsibility to let men know their wives have been unfaithful?"

It is neither the state's responsibility to let men know their wives have been unfaithful nor is it the state's responsibility to conceal this information. It is not the state's responsibility to protect a woman's reputation as a cheater nor is it the state's responsibility to worry about whether a husband divorces his wife if she cheated on him. It is the state's responsibility to protect an innocent man from paternity fraud. Unless she gives birth, there is no paternity test and she can break her marriage vows at will and the state is not involved. The state must get involved to prevent a cheating wife from committing paternity fraud to steal financial support from an innocent man. Restated slightly differently, the state has an obligation to protect innocent people from fraud and no obligation to protect people who commit fraud.

"It’s hard to see who wins with this bill, except for perhaps the lab testing companies."

Is this woman crazy? Innocent men clearly win with this bill. The bill protects the innocent. It is sure easy to see who wins in the absence of this bill. The absence of a paternity test benefits liars and cheaters at the expense of honest people who have done no wrong. Family law attorneys and judges, of course, also benefit because more legal judgement is required when the situation is ambiguous. It takes away demand for their services when the facts are clear.