Fathers Aren't The Only Ones Lacking Rights
Susan Dominus wrote about the struggle for fathers' rights in the May 8 New York Times Magazine:

For most of American legal history, the laws required judges to consider sex the most significant factor when making custody decisions, although which sex had the advantage changed over time. Until the mid-1800's, under common law, a father's right to custody in the event of a divorce was so strong that it practically functioned as a property right. Toward the end of that century, this principle was reversed by the ''tender years'' doctrine -- the presumption that young children need to be with their mothers -- which lasted in a handful of jurisdictions into the early 80's. For the most part, however, by the late 70's, the ''tender years'' doctrine had given way to the less prejudiced, but also less clear, directive that judges base their decisions on the so-called best interest of the child. Today many fathers' rights advocates -- particularly those who filed the 40-some class-action lawsuits demanding a 50-50 split of custody -- would like to usher in a new paradigm: one that values parental rights as highly as the child's best interest.

Michael Newdow is one of the fathers who have been trying to make that case. He is best known as the California emergency-room doctor who represented himself last year in a case before the Supreme Court, arguing that the words ''under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the establishment clause of the United States Constitution. Newdow, an atheist, brought the suit on the grounds that the pledge forced the government's spiritual views onto his daughter, impeding her freedom of religious choice. The Supreme Court ruled that Newdow, given the particulars of his case and his custody issues, didn't have the standing to bring the suit. For five years leading up to his appearance before the Supreme Court, Newdow had two driving passions in his life: fighting for more custody of his daughter and fighting to eliminate ''under God'' from the pledge. When the court dismissed his case, the two passions collided and combusted, the destruction of one cause taking the other down with it.

...He talked for close to two hours about his troubles -- the custody battles he endured with his daughter's mother (whom he never married); the impassioned exchanges that alienated the family-court judge; the injustices he feels he suffered at the hands of foolish mediators; the court appearances over all manner of arcane disputes, including whether he could take his daughter out hunting for frogs one night (no) and whether he could take her to hear him argue before the Supreme Court (again, no). Although the courts deprived him of final decision-making power over his daughter, who is now 10, he does spend about 30 percent of the time with her, a relatively generous arrangement. Nonetheless, Newdow, who has spent half a million dollars on legal fees, the lion's share of those incurred by his child's mother, claims that the family-court system has ruined his life. He's a second-class parent, he said; he can't do the things he'd like to do with his daughter. The system allows his daughter's mother to stifle his freedom to care for his child the way he'd like. ''It's as bad as slavery,'' he said.

But what about children's rights -- not to have their lives wrenched apart because, say, mommy's not having the greatest sex of her life? Here's a letter from this week's New York Times Magazine:

The Fathers' Crusade

Reading the letters (May 22) on Susan Dominus's article (May 8) prompted me to describe how my daughter and her husband handled the custody problem when they divorced. Their two boys, in their early teens, remained in the big Vermont farmhouse where they had always lived, and the parents alternated living with them, two weeks at a time. Thus, the boys were not uprooted from their home, separated from friends and school or made to feel their lives were secondary in importance. And the parents were largely freed of feelings of guilt. It worked.

Joan D. Ensor
West Redding, Conn.

Wow. What if the parents, not the kids, were the ones who got uprooted in divorce?

I may have rather "progressive" views on relationships compared to most people's (I don't believe in marriage; I think living together kills your sex life and your relationship), but when it comes to kids, I'm slightly to the right of Doctor Laura. You're a mother and you aren't having satisfying sex? Too bad. If your relationship isn't violent and combative, maybe you should stay exactly where you are. Your kids didn't ask to be born to some idiot who lives on whims. So don't be one. As I wrote in the column linked above (see mommy/hot sex):

Dropping everything to run off in search of some really hot sex -- oh, I’m sorry, I mean TRUE LOVE -- is the province of people like me, who recognize that they’re self-absorbed, self-indulgent, and impulsive, and thus unfit to be parents. Unfortunately, parenthood is too often the province of people like you, who are also self-absorbed, self-indulgent, and impulsive, but refuse to let that stop them from accessorizing with a baby.

Speaking of which, here's part of a letter I got yesterday:

...My dilemma is now that we have been back together now for the last almost nine months and things were great at first for the first maybe 5 months. Now he is going back to the same old person he was right before I left him two years ago. My kids will be devastated again if we separate. I am so torn between what to do, I don’t want to live unhappy, for another 20 years. I think I am so worthy of unlimited happiness, but my kids are in need of there father. When or if we do separated he takes it out on the kids and sees them when its convenient for him, I don’t think I can deal with the night crying from our five year old again. Cause she misses daddy, that tears me up. Help Amy what can I do?

Sincerely,
TRYING AGAIN.

And here's part of my reply:

...How sad that you, with children, aren't a little more careful about subjecting them to these ups and downs. I can be an irresponsible asshole living at whim, because I have an exceptionally portable dog as the only creature who's counting on me to take care of it. You can't. Well, you do, but you shouldn't, and wouldn't, if you had any sense of responsibility to your kids, who did not ask to be born to people who see them as second to their desire for "happiness." How sad that people are horrified that gays want to become parents, not at parents like you.