NY Federal District Court Judge Orders Defendants to Respond to Lawsuit

In article , Kenneth S. says...

I agree with you, Bob, that the right approach to these cases is to
focus on the children, and to suggest that -- in effect -- the children of
intact families are discriminated against because there is no way of forcing
THEIR parents to pay for their post-majority education.

In principle, that's fine. If nothing else, focusing on the children
would highlight the goofiness of the present situation for divorced parents.
Married parents would rise up and point out that many of them had to work
their way through college. They would also point out the general principle
that the age of majority, set at 18, is the age of majority, and means
nothing if exceptions can be made for certain categories of competent
adults.

However, I come back to my fundamental point, which I repeat (boringly)
in many contexts. In the U.S. today, what happens in Congress, in state
legislatures, in courtrooms, and in various other contexts (such as
enforcement by the police) depends almost entirely on the strength of the
special interest group affected. When you get to the sharp end in these
matters, that becomes very clear. So long as heterosexual men and fathers
are a virtually powerless special interest group, laws, court decisions, and
enforcement action don't NEED to conform to any principle of consistency.
All that needs to happen is that (1) those targeted are only the powerless
groups, and (2) favorable treatment is given to those who have political
clout.
=====
An additional problem is that fathers, as an interest group, do not have the
political clout of *sympathizers* that other groups have. That is an area that
can be worked on by all of us by getting information out to the public.
=====
=====

(PLEASE NOTE: I never bottom-sign my posts.
Check Headers to Verify the Authenticity of This Post)

In article , Kenneth S. says...

I agree with you, Bob, that the right approach to these cases is to
focus on the children, and to suggest that -- in effect -- the children of
intact families are discriminated against because there is no way of forcing
THEIR parents to pay for their post-majority education.

In principle, that's fine. If nothing else, focusing on the children
would highlight the goofiness of the present situation for divorced parents.
Married parents would rise up and point out that many of them had to work
their way through college. They would also point out the general principle
that the age of majority, set at 18, is the age of majority, and means
nothing if exceptions can be made for certain categories of competent
adults.

However, I come back to my fundamental point, which I repeat (boringly)
in many contexts. In the U.S. today, what happens in Congress, in state
legislatures, in courtrooms, and in various other contexts (such as
enforcement by the police) depends almost entirely on the strength of the
special interest group affected. When you get to the sharp end in these
matters, that becomes very clear. So long as heterosexual men and fathers
are a virtually powerless special interest group, laws, court decisions, and
enforcement action don't NEED to conform to any principle of consistency.
All that needs to happen is that (1) those targeted are only the powerless
groups, and (2) favorable treatment is given to those who have political
clout.
=====
An additional problem is that fathers, as an interest group, do not have the
political clout of *sympathizers* that other groups have. That is an area that
can be worked on by all of us by getting information out to the public.
=====
=====

(PLEASE NOTE: I never bottom-sign my posts.
Check Headers to Verify the Authenticity of This Post)

In article , Kenneth S. says...

I agree with you, Bob, that the right approach to these cases is to
focus on the children, and to suggest that -- in effect -- the children of
intact families are discriminated against because there is no way of forcing
THEIR parents to pay for their post-majority education.

In principle, that's fine. If nothing else, focusing on the children
would highlight the goofiness of the present situation for divorced parents.
Married parents would rise up and point out that many of them had to work
their way through college. They would also point out the general principle
that the age of majority, set at 18, is the age of majority, and means
nothing if exceptions can be made for certain categories of competent
adults.

However, I come back to my fundamental point, which I repeat (boringly)
in many contexts. In the U.S. today, what happens in Congress, in state
legislatures, in courtrooms, and in various other contexts (such as
enforcement by the police) depends almost entirely on the strength of the
special interest group affected. When you get to the sharp end in these
matters, that becomes very clear. So long as heterosexual men and fathers
are a virtually powerless special interest group, laws, court decisions, and
enforcement action don't NEED to conform to any principle of consistency.
All that needs to happen is that (1) those targeted are only the powerless
groups, and (2) favorable treatment is given to those who have political
clout.
=====
An additional problem is that fathers, as an interest group, do not have the
political clout of *sympathizers* that other groups have. That is an area that
can be worked on by all of us by getting information out to the public.
=====
=====

(PLEASE NOTE: I never bottom-sign my posts.
Check Headers to Verify the Authenticity of This Post)