Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Parson Jim
Published Letters: 975 Editor's Choice: 7
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."
A feminist utopia....
"Thankfully, we are subject to the modern judicial system, which holds a man innocent until proven guilty. But Vallario seems to have an underlying distrust of that judicial process. That's a serious issue to take up with the criminal justice system -- not during a hearing on what seems a totally reasonable bill."
It's not at all a reasonable bill if it allows for abuse in Family Court. Family Court is a court of equity (or chancery), and not a court of law. Hearsay is admissible as evidence in family court, men can be imprisoned in the absence of evidence in family court hearings, there are no requirements for evidentiary due process in family court, and constitutional protections of unreasonable search and seizure are not available in family court either.
Given the laxity of protections and the almost limitless powers of discretion judges have in family court, it its entirely reasonable to express concerns about its abuse in family court.
Perhaps Ms. Clark-Flory, as a woman, and hence a member of a legally privileged population under family law, does not appreciate men's concerns about the potential for abuse in family court. The "judicial process" as she describes it is an alien process rarely encountered in family court which is a venue where parties are not subject to Constitutional protections but instead are at the mercy of judges who often have been trained by bigoted feminist groups whose main goal is to vilify men under the guise of protecting women. Men are human beings, too, Ms. Clark-Flory, human beings with civil rights in our country. That is a fact that often seems to escape many feminists.
A man accused of rape faces a potential sentence of decades in prison. A woman who falsely accuses a man of rape faces very little punishment, if any at all.
No wonder legislators are concerned by the potential for abuse of such a law.
"While Hale's notion that it is "easy" for a woman to criminally accuse a man of rape has thankfully gone pretty much the way of the dinosaur,..."
I think the folks at Duke University might disagree with your statement...
Wil Hetherington was convicted of marital rape during a dispute that arose during a contested divorce/custody battle which was going in his favor after his wife had abandoned the family for two months. There was no physical evidence in support of his wife's accusations, yet she won the case by default, as he was indigent during the case, having exhausted his savings during the lengthy divorce proceedings.
http://tinyurl.com/22wlxr
William Hetherington has spent nine years in a Michigan prison, but proclaims his innocence. He was convicted of raping his wife, a charge which can lend itself to the same ambiguities as molestation: Both can come down to one person's word against another and both can be weapons in divorce or child custody battles.
The issue of spousal rape came dramatically to the forefront last summer when Lorena Bobbitt mutilated her husband after he allegedly raped her. Both were eventually acquitted, he of sexual assault and she of malicious wounding. At the time, many experts noted that spousal rape was notoriously difficult to prove and that convictions on such a charge were extremely rare.
But William Hetherington has a different perspective on the issue. For the past nine years, the former autoworker has resided in a Michigan prison for raping his estranged wife -- a crime Hetherington, 40, staunchly denies committing. Years after the trial, the case continues to stir strong emotions among those who see him as a victim of political machinations and those who regard his conviction as a victory for abused women. As Hetherington readies his appeal this year, those passions are likely to be reignited.
Even for a controversial criminal case, this one is unusually complex. Beyond the obvious question of guilt or innocence, there is the question of whether Hetherington's civil rights were violated by a court that did not recognize him as indigent -- even though he apparently had no access to his assets -- effectively denying him the chance to appeal. There also is the severity of his 15- to 30-yea -- far in excess of Michigan's sentencing guidelines and striking in view of the fact that Hetherington had been offered immediate release after spending about 14 months in jail in exchange for a no-contest plea. And, finally, there is the question of whether Hetherington became a pawn in the political games of an ambitious prosecutor and a judge, both eager to make an example out of the first man in Genesee County, Mich., to be tried for marital rape.
More details here:
http://www.geocities.com/tiluser/wils_page.html
...and everyone who is offended by his statements has the right to ignore him and indicate to station managers, major advertisers and networks that they will have nothing to do with him.
You can sign a petition to register your feelings to MSNBC here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/34628ppp/petition.html
Sounds like you are describing the sexist, derogatory statements college women make about men in Women's Studies departments all over the country.
White men are not the bogeymen you are making them out to be in your post.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
