Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: California presumptive joint child custody bill

Expand Messages
  • M Silver
    Yes true. Before the government allowed lawyers free access to the family units net worth there was the church to solve maritial issues. The goal of the church
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes true.

      Before the government allowed lawyers free access to
      the family units net worth there was the church to
      solve maritial issues. The goal of the church was to
      keep the families together, not destroy peoples lives
      for profit and reward.

      This is the result of Judicial activism and feminist
      jurisprudence.


      --- wlspence1 <wls@...> wrote:
      > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com,
      > <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
      >
      > > I guess that's why the government feels it can
      > tell parents how to
      > > raise their kids.
      >
      > Unless there's perceived danger to the
      > childen---which the government
      > must show to a clear and convincing standard---it's
      > a matter of one
      > parent inviting the government in, to attack the
      > other parent. This
      > bill's aim is to make that harder to do.
      >
      > Marriage is likewise essentially the recording of a
      > contract, unless
      > one of the parties calls on the state to give it an
      > advantage over the
      > other.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • paradoxmagnus
      So why do you need a license to get married? A LICENSE is permission to do what would otherwise UNLAWFUL. Patrick in California ... the
      Message 2 of 12 , May 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        So why do you need a license to get married?

        A LICENSE is permission to do what would otherwise UNLAWFUL.

        Patrick in California

        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "wlspence1" <wls@r...> wrote:
        > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
        >
        > > I guess that's why the government feels it can tell parents how to
        > > raise their kids.
        >
        > Unless there's perceived danger to the childen---which the government
        > must show to a clear and convincing standard---it's a matter of one
        > parent inviting the government in, to attack the other parent. This
        > bill's aim is to make that harder to do.
        >
        > Marriage is likewise essentially the recording of a contract, unless
        > one of the parties calls on the state to give it an advantage over
        the
        > other.
      • wlspence1
        ... Historically it was intended to arrest the spread of STDs and reduce the birth of children affected by a parent having one; the legally more important
        Message 3 of 12 , May 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "paradoxmagnus"
          <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:
          > So why do you need a license to get married?
          >
          > A LICENSE is permission to do what would otherwise UNLAWFUL.

          Historically it was intended to arrest the spread of STDs and reduce
          the birth of children affected by a parent having one; the legally
          more important thing is the _state_ of marriage that comes into
          existence if the ceremony given legal force by the license is
          performed.

          It's implications regarding child custody are nevertheless rather
          limited: a child born during a marriage is presumed to be the
          husband's, biology to the contrary sometimes, and a child artificially
          conceived is regarded as a child of the marriage; that's about it.
          The latter now also obtains within a registered domestic partnership
          in California, as does community property law and various entitlements
          to benefits, rights to guardianship, etc.

          Lawyers---canon law attorneys---were involved even when marriage was
          largely the province of the ecclesiastical courts. Probably the main
          force behind creating a civil notion of marriage in Great Britian and
          early America was the property-owning class's interest in controlling
          who could inherit their wealth.
        • paradoxmagnus@earthlink.net
          How is getting married an UNLAWFUL ACT that requires a LICENSE? It isn t. When you get a marriage LICENSE, aren t you making the state a partner in the
          Message 4 of 12 , May 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            How is getting married an UNLAWFUL ACT that requires a LICENSE? 
             
            It isn't. 

            When you get a marriage LICENSE, aren't you making the state a
            partner in the CONTRACT?
             
            It appears so.

            If so, doesn't that give the state an INTEREST in the "fruits" of
            the marriage?
             
            Yup.
             
            Patrick in California
             
            It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin'
            on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so. -- Uncle Remus
             
             

             
          • wlspence1
            ... The state asserts that anyway if, married or not, you have children, under the doctrine of _parens patriae_. Unless one of the parents takes an issue to
            Message 5 of 12 , May 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, <paradoxmagnus@e...> wrote:

              > If so, doesn't that give the state an INTEREST in the "fruits" of
              > the marriage?

              The state asserts that anyway if, married or not, you have children,
              under the doctrine of _parens patriae_.

              Unless one of the parents takes an issue to family court, what the
              state can do to one's children is however quite circumscribed by a
              series of US Supreme Court cases---stretching from the 1920s to the
              present---which enunciate parents' rights as a fundamantal liberty
              interest under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

              Otherwise, what the state mainly does in marriage is provide a default
              form of a contract, which can in fact be overriden in a pre-nupt'.
              You can for example in many states agree before marriage that there
              will be no spousal support if the marriage is dissolved, but not that
              child support be waived.
            • Frog Farmer
              ... Whatever the state may assert, it has to do it through a live human being acting as its agent. If one who didn t like being the subject or object of state
              Message 6 of 12 , May 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On May 2, 2005, at 5:14 PM, wlspence1 wrote:

                > The state asserts that anyway if, married or not, you have children,
                > under the doctrine of _parens patriae_.

                Whatever the state may assert, it has to do it through a live human
                being acting as its agent.

                If one who didn't like being the subject or object of state assertions
                was really serious, (s)he would not permit unqualified or unauthorized
                persons to speak or act for the state. But the decision to waive
                rights to due process is a decision everyone is free to make, that's
                for sure. And by all evidence, it is a very popular course of action.
              • wlspence1
                ... Their humanity and vitality is indeed questionable, but child protective services and the child support IV-D agencies do have their `counsel who do show
                Message 7 of 12 , May 7, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@f...>
                  wrote:

                  > Whatever the state may assert, it has to do it through a live human
                  > being acting as its agent.

                  Their humanity and vitality is indeed questionable, but child
                  protective services and the child support IV-D agencies do have their
                  `counsel' who do show up in court. . . . In family court it's more a
                  matter of the power the Legislature has given the judge.

                  Yeah, too many give up too fast, but there are things like the
                  Domestic Relations Abstention that preclude due process that we all
                  should be working together to defeat.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.