[AKidsRight.Org Newsletter] Mother's/Father's Day 2004 / Mass. Constitutional Convention (Mar 11) / Your FEEDBACK on rights.

webmaster@AKidsRight.Org

This is a message from the AKidsRight.Org mailing list.  Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message.
=======================================
Good People & People of Faith,

This message includes info on:

1. Plans for Mother's/Father's Day 2004 - other upcoming events.
2. Constitutional Convention in Mass. March 11 - what about Parent's rights?
3. Rally in Minnesota - Family Law Equity
4. Your FEEDBACK - well worth reading. Your thoughts on rights!

1. Plans for Mothers/Fathers Day 2004 - other upcoming events.
-------------------------------------------------------------
We are gathering some schedule information for events planned for this
Father's Day in Washington DC, and will distribute in on the list soon.
In the past, members of our group have met in DC and visited the offices
of Members of Congress for both Mother's Day and Father's Day.  We were
able to meet with the staffs of both Senator John Kerry and Senator
John Edwards -- so can you!

The following link has a "Contact Kit" on visiting Congress:
http://www.AKidsRight.org/meeting_congress.htm

Our group is made up of both Mother's and Father's seeking reform.  Does
anyone know of any events in Washington on Mother's Day regarding this?
Please let us know.  We try to be level-handed in our coverage, but we
can only announce what we know about.

Hopefully, we will soon see events in Washington on BOTH Mother's Day
and Father's Day. Each celebrating the special gifts of both Mother's
and Father's, but BOTH promoting Equal Parenting and having participation
from BOTH Mothers and Fathers on each day.....

2. Constitutional Convention in Mass. March 11 - what about Parent's rights?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

---  Peter VanOudenaren <peter@ebsnetinc.com>

> This past week the Speaker of the Massachusetts House opened the
> Constitutional Convention...

> Outside, sprinkled among the pro and anti gay marriage advocates,
> there was a noticeable contingent of judicial reform advocates, and a
> small Father's Rights presence. The anti marriage contingent and the
> judicial reform advocates share a common interest with each other and
> with the House. The judicial reformers were all well received, even
> among the pro marriage contingent. I saw no animosity toward the
> judicial reformers. We were a small group but we were noticed, we were
> accepted, we were filmed and we were interviewed.

> ... The Constitutional Convention resumes on March 11. All advocates
> for judicial and positive government reform should come to the State
> House that day with signs. The Legislature and the Governor are
> wrestling with an issue that was foisted on them by an activist
> bench. In the Legislature, the Governor's office, and in the Courts
> many are perhaps rethinking things and may be more receptive of new
> ideas then they have been in years.  The window is open in the press
> too for a short time.

> If you want to make political progress join us in making a strong
> presentation of our views at the Constitutional Convention on March
> 11.                       Don't blow it !!

> I'll be there at 8:00 ? AM or so to welcome the legislators I know some
others will be too.

> Please do me a favor and forward this message to as many Family, Child
> and Father's Rights groups and judicial reform groups as possible. If
> you control an email list please post this message, advocacy for
> government reform is not partisan political activity.

3. Rally in Minnesota.
---------------------

--- Jamil <jamil@tc.umn.edu>

> I don't know where you're located, but here in Minnesota we're having
> a rally at our Capitol building for the first Family Law Equity Day.
> Please check out the web site if you have time and let others know if
> you're able: http://www.abuseofdiscretion.com/

4. Your FEEDBACK - on RIGHTS!
-----------------------------

---  Donald Mathis <Donald.Mathis@trinity.edu>

> Thank you for an informative newsletter. I like your attention to
> kids' rights as opposed to fathers' or mothers' rights.

> Editor -  The Fourteen Percenter

--- Deena Newell <deena.newell@mo.nisc.cc>

> Thank you for addressing the issue of "Parents Rights vs
> Mother/Father's rights - How responsive was that !! - Good job!

--- John Humphries <john_humphries@blueyonder.co.uk> 

> Absolutely right. Who will now stand up for son's right to see his
> mother and mother's right to see her son. This is not the way to deal
> with matters.  Sensible parents put their children's wishes before
> their own.

--- "Its Kim" <kimmh@hotmail.com>   "It takes TWO"

> I write, email, fax letters, new release, etc. to senate, assembly and
> members of congress at least if not more than every two weeks in
> support of Parenting Time and Equal Parenting.  MY MOTTO - I put on
> EVERYTHING I DO!

>       IT TAKES TWO -- EQUALLY
>         It takes two parents to create a child
>            it takes two parents to love a child
>            it takes two parents to nurture a child
>            it takes two parent to support a child -- financially and emotionally.
>       EQUALLY -- IT TAKES TWO

--- Steve <steve66oh@yahoo.com>

> > I think you have got caught up in the success of the civil rights
> > movement in obtaining better treatment for minorities, and are
> > improperly applying this to a different circumstance altogether.

> Actually, the slaves struggle for freedom is an excellent example of
> the difference between "civil" rights and "natural" rights. In the
> original Constitution, a slave was defined as 3/5 of a person. Any law
> based on that concept would have been Constitutional, i.e., if slaves
> had been given the right to cast votes that only counted as 60% of
> white votes... The 3/5 definition was Constitutional (it WAS the
> Constitution, and the Constitution MUST be Constitutional), but it was
> still a violation of what we now consider the "natural" rights of all
> people... "..all men are created equal..." 

> The Constitution isn't perfect, it is a living document that can
> change and expand as circumstances dictate. It also doesn't
> differentiate between the "civil" rights and the "natural" rights it
> recognizes - there are good examples of each type within the Bill of
> Rights - so a statement that a right is "Constitutional" doesn't
> indicate which type of right it is.

--- NeilWager@aol.com

> If you are in Senator Clinton's district you have every right to see
> her. That is what she is there for it is part of her job
> description. This seems to be something they forget about after they
> get elected. However, you screwed when it comes to your elected
> official as she is firmly entrenched in the camp of the feminists. I
> am attempting something for which I and some other men are more than
> likely going to go to jail for. We intend to shut down a court house
> by chaining the doors shut and blocking the entrances. We will try and
> get the press to come and watch the police haul us away. Then another
> group will do the same at another court house the following day.

Thanks for the message.  We'd be happy to announce your up coming event
and I recommend you get some mothers involved also if you can who have
been hurt by the system.  I'm not quite sure if I would take the same
approach -- do you need to interrupt everyone else in their schedules
and maybe critical court proceedings to call attention to yours?  I
think the strength of your planed effort is your willingness to go to
jail for your cause -- but is that the method/place?

I assume you have visited members of your State Legislature or Members
of Congress to get the laws changed first?  Most likely, as we have
found with Senator Clinton, they may be unresponsive -- but they may not
be.  Then, if you want to park yourselves outside their offices (an
elected official), you'd maybe send a clearer message.

--- Brad Herman <Brad.Herman@mssm.edu>

> In the fallacies of reform I think that problems are much simpler than
> just the fact that our ideas are "not organized".  I think that
> everyone is "afraid of the issue" and therefore, no lawmaker wants to
> "open a can of worms".  Unfortunately, we see the stories on national
> television that depict the "misses" of the child protective services
> system where children end up killed or grossly neglected.  These are
> the exceptions on television, not the norm.  Families who unjustly
> lose their children are never depicted on television.  THIS IS THE
> REAL FALLACY!!!  It is our press that is one of our biggest hurdles!

> The right to raise a child is undoubtedly a HUMAN RIGHT.  The
> government has no business getting between a parent and a child.  The
> right to "intimate familial association" is a fundamental, explicit
> right given to all Americans as per the constitution.

Yes, I agree with you.  They run ONE story and everyone overreacts.
There is a limit to what justice can do and we have gone well over the
line.

--- Joe@nowhere.com

>  There is no question that this is a gender issue, but it is also a
>  societal issue. The problem we face is one of increased public
>  scrutiny of "special interest" groups. We have no formidable
>  powerbase to draw from, "father's rights" is not an inclusive concept
>  that creates a widespread emotional response, and there is NO public
>  discussion as a result. People on the outside often think:
>  "Hmm... why do father's need special rights... they're FATHERS. They
>  must not have their act together.Screw 'em. They must be the misfits
>  of society. They probably are poor and can't pay child
>  support... what's for dinner?"

> If there is to be widespread change and support, there first has to be
> someone else there to LISTEN. With no dialog, there is nothing. We'd
> have better luck talking to a dog. No offense.

> As a marketing professional, and as a father, I am sensitized to
> "messages", whether literal or implied. I think there are plenty of
> others who feel the same way.

> What comes to mind when you hear the term "father", vs "children", or
> "families"? The emotional response is far different. How about
> "forum", "dialog", "council", "task force"?  I think that by narrowing
> the focus to merely "fathers" or even "fathers and children", we lose
> about 80-90% of our potential audience.

> My suggestion for all concerned nationally is to form an inclusive
> group, one voice that agrees on the same principles, and brings ALL
> stakeholders to the table; ie: fathers, mothers, children, policy
> makers, non-profits that serve children in our communities. Not to
> tell them what we must do, or what's screwed up and who's to blame,
> but to create a platform of discussion.

                                         Webmaster
___________________________________________________________________
Member                                   webmaster@AKidsRight.Org

=======================================
Newsletter mailing list
Newsletter@kids-right.org  subscribe/unsubscribe info below:
http://kids-right.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter