logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 
 
 

The Constitutional Right to be a Parent 


The following is a footnote that I wrote for a collection of US Supreme Court and Superrior Court decisons that was compiled by ACFC and published in The March 1998 issue of The Liberator.  The truth that becomes apparent from all of these decisions is that. although it appears that the constitution appears to grant parents the inalienable right to be parents to their children, US judges use many words to twist that right into just so many pretzels.  The orginal document from which the article was condensed was compiled by the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC).  Their web site:  http://www.erols.com/afc

In condensing the collection of decisions, it came to me that we are obsessed with the rights of the individual, while at the same time forgetting that one person's rights become another person's burden.  Yet, all of the intelligent and clever legal and constitutional arguments that are being made have one underlying concern.  They are made to demonstrate the presence or absence of the validity that one's right's can be made to be inferior to another one's.  At the base of all of this is that no-one exists in isolation.  We all are parts (or at least should be) of systems that themselves are parts of levels in a hierarchy of systems comprising civilization.  The very foundation of the whole hierarchy of civilization is the group of social systems made up by these systems: husband-wife; parent-child; sibling-sibling; the family comprised of all of them; and, last but not least, the system of the extended family.
    Some have recognized that and the one very profound truth arising out that fact: any system is greater than the sum of its parts, but only then if all of the parts interleave, communicate, mesh and function well with one another.  All of these clever arguments ignore one important aspect.  That is the obligations of an individual to the social systems of which he is a member.  Thereby we ignore the needs and rights of all systems within society, because to demand one's rights requires that someone else is obliged to grant them.
    By ignoring obligations, each entity will feel entitled to enforce its rights, if necessary, to the extent that it will rob others of theirs.  What we have then is not a well-functioning society anymore that is better than the sum of its parts, but rather a conglomerate of entities, or better yet, a mob — at worst, the end of civilization as we know it.  It appears that the best legal minds have not come to terms with that truth, or else they would not be so terribly confused as appears to be the case in the bewildering array of judgments relating to the basic social system of society: the family.
    Would it be totally unrealistic to ask our legal minds to consider not only whether the state might have rights that are superior to those of the individual, but to think of the family unit in terms of a legal entity that has rights as well — with obligations and rights in relation to both, all of its members and the state?  Would it be totally strange to ask our legislators to consider addressing the rights and liberties of the family and, in connection with that, the obligations that an individual has toward the family and the state?

Consider what would happen if we were to build the only one of the Ten Commandments that contains a promise as a constraint into constitutional rights: "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."  Why are we surprised and dismayed that we can't do well without it?  Are we truly that smart that we can afford to ignore the wisdom that civilization lived by for thousands of years?  —WHS

________________
See also: Family Law — Table of Contents

___________
Updates:
2001 02 09 (format changes)
2003 05 02 (added reference to Family Law — Table of Contents