Background: Over the past few months I have written a column and several blog posts on the issue of the rights of lesbian "social mothers"--women who agreed to employ a sperm donor so that they could have children with their lesbian partners, who are the biological mothers.

I do believe that children fare best when they have both a mom and a dad, and that fathers offer much to children that mothers don't provide. However, this is not possible in lesbian couples. When two lesbians agree to have a child together, and when the child has bonded with both his or her biological mother and his or her social mother, I believe that the relationship between the child and the social mother should be protected. I also believe that the biological mother has a responsibility to her children and to her former partner to hold up her end of the deal with the partner with whom she created the child, and that courts should hold her to her commitment.

Conservative columnist Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-up World and Love and Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work, recently criticized my co-authored column Ruling in Vermont Same-Sex Child Custody Case: Lesbian Moms, Divorced Dads in Same Boat (Rutland Herald, Montpelier-Barre Times Argus, and others, 12/10/06). In that column I defended the parental rights of lesbian social mom Janet Jenkins against the legal machinations of Lisa Miller, the biological mother and her former partner in a Vermont Civil Union. Jenkins and Miller planned the child, used an anonymous sperm donor, and together raised their girl Isabella for the first couple years of her life.

Below is Morse's column Are Dads Disposable? (Townhall, 2/6/07), with my comments interspersed. Morse writes:

"I hate to disagree with my friend Glenn Sacks, but I think he has missed the boat in his recent comparison of lesbian 'social' mothers with divorced fathers. Mr. Sacks, a prominent fathers' rights advocate, is correct that in both cases, family law courts diminish the claims of people who want to maintain a relationship with a child. But he is very much mistaken in equating the validity of the two types of claims. And fatherhood is at risk, no matter how the court resolves particular disputes between estranged lesbian partners."

[In Miller v. Jenkins I would disagree that "fatherhood is at risk," since there is no father, only an anonymous sperm donor].

In the Miller v. Jenkins custody dispute between members of a lesbian couple, the biological mother of the child is attempting to prevent her former partner from seeing her child. Mr. Sacks argues that the former lesbian partner corresponds to the dispossessed father in garden-variety custody cases. He correctly notes that many mothers attempt to sever ties between their children and their biological father. Since the estranged husband is a "former partner" just as the lesbian social mother is the "former partner," Sacks seems to suggest that their claims are equally deserving of court protection.

But the lesbian "former partner" has no biological connection to the child whatsoever, while the divorced mother's "former partner" is the father of the children. Biological fathers are strangely absent from lesbian custody cases. The only reason the lesbian partners could have a child together in the first place is that the rights of the father are deliberately obliterated. The law creates a fiction that anonymous sperm donors are "legal strangers" to their children.

[The "rights of the father" were first "deliberately obliterated" by the man who donated his sperm to a sperm bank, and I believe the law's "fiction" that "anonymous sperm donors are 'legal strangers' to their children" is appropriate. This is not an example of obliterating a father's rights, such as when a woman has a child with her husband, divorces him, finds a new partner (whether a man or a woman), pushes him out of his children's lives and substitutes her new partner as the child's other "parent."]

The biological father makes a cameo appearance in the 2005 Washington case, In re the Parentage of L.B. The lesbian couple used the semen of a friend, rather than an anonymous sperm donor. When the couple broke up, the biological mother cut off contact between her child and her former partner. The mother formed a relationship with the biological father, and they ultimately married. The father's name was added to the birth certificate.

[This is interesting, but it is completely different than the Miller v. Jenkins case I wrote about, and also different from the other lesbian social mother cases I've discussed, which are similar to Miller v. Jenkins].

The former partner successfully petitioned to obtain the status of "de facto parent." This status gives her the same parental rights as the child's biological parents. The court established a four-part test for determining whether a person warrants the status of "de facto parent."

The dissenting judge, James Johnson, objected to this arbitrary determination of parental status. A perfectly fit biological and legal mother has the right to determine whom her child associates with. The only legal question is who is the child's mother? The state legislature had clearly established methods for determining maternity of a child, including adoption. According to Judge Johnson, the social mother could have become the adoptive second mother of the child, with the biological mother's consent, during the time that their relationship was intact and functioning. The couple chose not to take the step of second party adoption. Therefore, the estranged partner meets none of the legal requirements of parenthood.

In the meantime, the biological father, currently married to the child's mother, is nowhere considered in this dispute. Perhaps he started off being just a nice guy, trying to help out his friends. The woman who used to be his wife's sex partner now has equal parenting rights with her. His paternal rights are subordinate to the rights of his wife and her former partner. The fact that these two women used to have sex with each other is a more relevant fact than his paternity. He has no rights that the family court need respect.

[This is apples and oranges--there is no way that we could describe Janet Jenkins as simply being the woman Lisa Miller "used to have sex with." During Jenkins' and Miller's same sex-union Jenkins did everything she could do to be a good parent to their child--she was involved with the pregnancy from the beginning, was present in the delivery room, worked to support the family, and played an important role in Isabella's life.

I'm also not nearly as sympathetic to the father in the Washington case as Morse is. Morse sees him as a victim--"He has no rights that the family court need respect." Yet he is in this position principally because he decided to be a sperm donor to the lesbian couple--if he really wanted to be a father with the rights of a father, this sure is a strange and risky way to go about it.]

Any random person who once had a relationship with a biological parent can potentially present themselves as a "de facto parent."

[Janet Jenkins is hardly "Any random person who once had a relationship with a biological parent"--she and Miller agreed to have the child together, as part of the Civil Union which they obtained in Vermont.]

Suppose a husband and wife divorce. The wife gets the kids. She has a live-in boyfriend for a few years. If he meets the four-part test established by this court, he could obtain de facto parent status. That former boyfriend could have equal parenting rights with the two biological parents. This is far too much discretion to allow the family courts.

[No, in a divorce (assuming fitness) the father and mother should have equal rights to the children, and no other individual should have parenting rights, just as Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins had a child together and both should have equal rights to the child.] 

This is why the comparison between former lesbian partners and former married parents is not the relevant comparison. The proper comparison is between biological parents and other people. Let us call them "non-parents." Trying to shoe-horn the lesbian partner into the legal slot formerly occupied by the father can only work if the father is safely out of the way. The Washington case strips away that fiction because the father was known to all parties. The law treats him as a non-person because that is what the law surrounding anonymous sperm donors requires.

[In Miller v. Jenkins there is no father, and both Miller and Jenkins agreed before they ever had the child that Jenkins would "fill the slot" normally occupied by the father.]

This is why I am surprised that fathers' rights advocate Glenn Sacks has taken this bait. What the state does or doesn't do for lesbian social mothers does not concern me nearly as much as what the state has done and continues to do to fathers. The special legal status which treats a father as a "legal stranger" to his child does not further the interests of men, even desperate college kids who sell their sperm for two hundred bucks.

Family courts have been treating dads as disposable for far too long. Let's not give them another occasion to do so by making this inopportune comparison of the estranged lesbian partner with divorced fathers.

[Far from having "taken the bait" and taken a position which weakens fathers, I believe that these lesbian "divorce" cases can be a very useful public relations lever to help fathers. Right now society tolerates fathers being driven out of their children's lives, in part because of anti-male stereotypes and men's lack of political power when they speak as men. As we see lesbian biological mothers driving lesbian social mothers out of their children's lives and using the exact same tactics which heterosexual women employ. I believe it will help bring the massive injustices divorced and separated fathers face to greater prominence and legitimacy. I also believe it will help our movement reach out to those on the political left, which I believe is essential for our success.

As with disenfranchised fathers, I also do have genuine sympathy for Jenkins and the little girl who loves her, as a child loves a parent.]

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

The story High court denies rights for non-blood partners (Salt Lake Tribune, 2/16/07) describes a new ruling with some large ramifications for unmarried fathers. It also details another textbook example of the way lesbian biological mothers drive their former partners out of the lives of the children they agreed to have together, just as so many heterosexual mothers have done to their former husbands. The article explains:

"The Utah Supreme Court dealt a blow Friday to unmarried parents - gay or straight - who are raising children related by blood to only one partner.

"In a split decision in the case of a 5-year-old girl conceived in a lesbian relationship, the justices said Keri Lynne Jones of Taylorsville does not have the right to seek visitation with the child - even though Jones and her former partner decided to have her together, once raised her together, and gave her both of their surnames.

"The girl's biological mother, Cheryl Pike Barlow, says she is no longer gay and doesn't want Jones - joined to her in a Vermont civil union - to see the girl.

"...[though] the case involves a gay relationship, Friday's ruling also applies to heterosexuals. An unmarried straight partner who has not adopted a child would also be barred from making their case in court."

Kathryn Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued Jones' case before the high court, gets it exactly right, saying:

"'It doesn't matter if they were a parent in the same household for two years, as in Keri's case, or 10 years. If the adults split up and the biological parent says I'm cutting you off from any relationship with your child, the biological parent is perfectly free to do so under this majority ruling.'

"'I cannot imagine anyone except the most ardently anti-gay foe thinking it is a good outcome for children, when their parents split up, to be cut off from a person they have bonded to and loved as a parent. It is unconscionable'..."

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

I salute Utah Chief Justice Christine Durham for her dissent in favor of lesbian social mom Keri Lynne Jones in the Jones v. Barlow (see High court denies rights for non-blood partners, Salt Lake Tribune, 2/16/07). In that case Barlow, Jones' ex-partner, tried to drive her out of the life of the little girl they agreed to have together. However, I would dispute, to a degree, Durham's description of custody cases--or at least the Salt Lake Tribune's characterization of her description of custody cases--as "quarrels."

This is a common misconception in custody cases--"bickering", "quarreling" parents arguing over custody rather than putting the welfare of their children first. In reality, in most--not all, but most--of these cases, the "custody disputes" occurs because the mother is trying to drive the father out of the lives of their children, and the father is fighting to stay in. That's not a "quarrel"--it's a father's battle for his children, and a battle against the mother's child abuse.

Read the full article here. To learn more, my co-authored column Ruling in Vermont Same-Sex Child Custody Case: Lesbian Moms, Divorced Dads in Same Boat (Rutland Herald, Montpelier-Barre Times Argus, 12/10/06 and others) and my blog entries Another Lesbian Mom Drives Her Former Partner Out of Their Kids' Lives, Sad but Delicious Irony--Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment and Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment, Part II.

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

I was reading a baseball book the other day and I stumbled onto a brief biography of Dick Williams, a very successful baseball manager during the '60s, '70s and '80s, by sportswriter Leonard Koppett. Koppett describes Dick Williams' father as "a surly domestic tyrant of incredible proportions. He beat his children, had all but insane ideas about 'discipline' and 'never giving in,' and conducted an unending emotional reign of terror that included the precept that 'compromise' was unthinkable."

Maybe Koppett is right but there's a little problem with this description--I read Williams' autobiography and his picture of his father is very different. Yes, his father was a demanding man who ruled with a strong hand. But he was hardworking and devoted to his kids, and would often find time to play ball with them despite his responsibilities.

In a high school football game when Williams was 16 he broke through for a long run, at the end of which he was tackled and injured. His father was so panicked at seeing his son carried off the field on a stretcher that he ran down from the stands to go to his son and had a fatal heart attack.

I saw another apparently similar distortion when watching my wife's favorite movie, Walk the Line. The movie is the story of Johnny Cash's life and his love for his wife June Carter Cash. In the movie Johnny Cash's father is portrayed as an overcritical, humorless tyrant who could never be pleased. This description has been disputed, and Johnny Cash's autobiography contradicts some aspects of the film's portrayal of his father.

It also seems fair to note that both Williams (who both played and managed in the major leagues) and Cash were extremely successful at their careers, despite their supposedly bad dads.

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

The Best Interests of the Child How to Save Our Child When We Can't Save our Marriage--New DVD set from Dr. Warren Farrell, foremost expert on children of divorce www.BestInterestofChildren.org New DVD set from Dr. Warren Farrell--The Best Interests of the Child The Best Interests of the Child: How to Save Our Child When We Can't Save our Marriage is a new DVD set from Dr. Warren Farrell, one of the foremost experts on children of divorce. In it he summarizes over 200 studies, and the research is clear: children do far better with near equal exposure to both parents with minimal conditions. The video can be submitted as evidence and Dr. Farrell is available to testify as an expert witness. www.BestInterestofChildren.org Help for Los Angeles/Ventura County Dads Certified Family Law Specialist Peter M. Walzer was one of the key figures in our successful legislative struggle to preserve the LaMusga move-away decision. As Chair of the State Bar of California Family Law Section Executive Committee, Walzer lobbied the state legislature to improve California laws on child support and child custody. He's an American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Fellow who has authored numerous articles on custody issues, business valuation in marital dissolutions and spousal and child support.  www.California-Divorce.com

Liberal journalist Steven Guess has written an interesting, highly critical Analysis of Mens Rights Activists for MensNewsDaily.com. Guess, the Editor-in-Chief of WashingtonCritic.com, sees the movement as a largely reactionary one based on little if any real grievances. I give credit to Mike LaSalle, editor of MensNewsDaily.com, for publishing such opposition views. The piece appears below: 

What is a Man to Do in a Woman's World?

The Men's Rights Movement has done its best to analyze feminists and figure out what makes them tick. After interacting with "Men's Rights Activists" on a daily basis for several weeks, I have begun to formulate some of my own opinions about these masculine crusaders.

Observations

1. Men's Rights Activists are generally middle-aged to older men, who have had some experience with divorce, child custody battles, reverse workplace "discrimination," and/or other areas of family law.

2. Without exception, all men's activists I have met are some form of a conservative, with variations in how extreme. Most seem to believe that feminism is one of the single-greatest evils of our time. Read the rest of this entry »

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

I've always wondered how child support increases can be called "cost of living adjustments," since child support goes by a percentage of income basis anyway. About 10 years ago in California there was this type of "adjustment."

In his column Raise child support? Dad calls it unfair, Lee Benson of the Deseret Morning News in Utah writes:

"Barring unexpected delays, Senate Bill 23 -- seeking an increase in child support payments -- should get voted on today.

"Oh, and happy Valentine's Day.

"Who says the Legislature doesn't have a heart?
 
"Sponsored by Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, SB23 would increase monthly support amounts by as much as 25 percent -- an increase considered necessary because the state's monthly support tables have not been changed since 1994.

"But while on the surface adjusting the tables for inflation would seem to make perfect sense, there is the not insignificant detail that since support payments are computed as a direct ratio of income, they have risen steadily since 1994 anyway.

"Adjusting for inflation has already been happening.
 
"Tony Curtis has been attempting to hammer this point at the Legislature since the 2007 session began, spending every spare minute when he's not at his day job as a software programmer attempting to educate lawmakers.

"Curtis is not your garden variety, let's-go-to-dinner, could-you-use-some-Jazz-tickets? lobbyist. Nobody's paying him and his organization is not exactly organized. A few friends help out and occasionally dig up research.

"But basically it's just Tony and his computer.

"Much like a noncustodial parent once the divorce is over."

Read the rest of the column here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

I highly recommend addiction expert Doug Thorburn's Addiction Report. His most recent issue has an interesting commentary on San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's recent revelation that he had an affair with a loyal friend's wife. Apparently the woman revealed the affair to her husband as part of her alcohol treatment. Thorburn writes:

"San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, whose ex-lover Ruby Rippey-Tourk told her husband, Newsom's re-election campaign manager Alex Tourk, of her affair with Newsom. Ruby was working Step nine of the 12-Step program of Alcoholics Anonymous, which suggests that direct amends be paid to people the alcoholic harmed 'wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.'

"Reportedly, Newsom could not have asked for a more loyal and supportive aide than Alex, who resigned when he learned of this ultimate breach of trust. Paying amends, which requires taking responsibility for past misbehaviors and accepting the consequences, can result in unforeseen fallout--which is the reason for the exception. However, it is entirely up to the addict to interpret and many addicts must come clean for the sake of their own sobriety. It's up to the codependent to decide whether to forgive.

"San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, apologizing for having an affair with a good friend and trusted aide's wife, Ruby Rippey-Tourk, Newsom's appointments secretary. Infidelity is almost as apple pie in the lives of addicts as verbal and emotional abuse. Newsom has announced that he plans to seek counseling for 'alcohol use,' explaining that while 'my problems with alcohol are not an excuse for my personal lapses in judgment,' life might be better without alcohol. Mayor Newsom, 39, was recently reported to be dating a 20-year-old. Vast age differences are also common in the love affairs of alcoholics because of their ego-inflating potential ('look at the babe I caught!')."

I've previously discussed the Newsom case here and here. Thorburn's full E-Newsletter can be read here. I recommend signing up here.

To read more and discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

This editorial cartoon criticizing resistance to nonsmoking laws reminds me of the anti-smoking TV commercial a few years ago where a woman was purportedly dying of cancer because her husband had smoked for many years. At the end she says, "My husband never knew what he was doing to me. Now he does."

Know what the actual male-female smoking ratio is? According to the 2004 National Health Interview Survey, 23.4% of men smoke and 18.5% of women smoke--a small, 1.26 to 1 ratio. From editorial cartoons and advertisements--when both genders are represented--one would have thought the ratio was 50-1...

From Stuart Carlson of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

I actually like nonsmoking laws--I just don't like all selfish behavior always being attributed to men.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here. 

I've always been amazed at the way sports fans decide that a particular player is a bum, or lazy, or underachieving, or "gutless," or whatever, and, based on zero evidence, start booing and harassing him. A few examples from the past  would include Bo Jackson, Kirk Gibson, Pedro Guerrero and former Dodger outfielder Mike Marshall.

Baseball's current whipping boy is Alex Rodriguez. The Onion recently posted this satirical but revealing piece--Alex Rodriguez Nervously Awaiting Invitation To Spring:

"All-Star third-baseman and Yankee roster hopeful Alex Rodriguez is still anxiously waiting to receive official word that he has been invited to join the team in Florida for 2007 Spring Training, Rodriguez reported Monday.

"'I'm still confident, but I heard that Derek [Jeter] and Jorge [Posada] already got theirs, so I don't know what's taking so long,' said Rodriguez, who has spent the past four hours peering out his front window waiting for the mail truck to drive by. 'Maybe I should call the Yankees to make sure they sent it to my right address? They wouldn't have cut me. No. Certainly not. I'm sure there's a simple explanation for all this, and I'm just obsessing over nothing. Oh God, what if I was traded?'

"Rodriguez added that, should he not be formally invited to spring training, he will nonetheless show up, act like he's supposed to be there, and hope no one notices."

In reality, Alex Rodriguez is an absolutely fantastic baseball player who, even in an off-year like last year, is still one of the top 10 players in the league. But the Yankees haven't done well in the playoffs the past few years, so they blame A-Rod. This ignores the fact that the playoffs are just a few games, and luck is a huge factor in success--just as it was for the successful Yankee teams of the late '90s.

Rodriguez is also labeled a "choker" because his performance in the playoffs the past couple years has been poor--ignoring the fact that all players will sometimes have poor performances in a selected handful of games, particularly against top pitching.

Rodriguez gets criticism because of his $25 million a year contract, ignoring the fact that anyone at the absolute top of his profession--particularly a lucrative profession like baseball--will make a ton of money.

So A-Rod gets dissed and harassed for no good reason, yet the first time he doesn't feel like signing autographs or is cranky with reporters, all anybody will talk about is what an ungrateful jerk he turned out to be...

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here. 

There was an interesting exchange on the radical feminist blog Pandagon the other day which is an example of the intellectually bankrupt manner in which our misguided feminist opponents often attack us.

Discussing nationally-syndicated radio broadcaster Tom Leykis, who says his show specializes in "teaching men how to get more tail for less money," there was the following exchange:

Vercingetorix: [Leykis] is the only voice left for men, who are otherwise made to feel guilty for being men.

Elinor: Do you not read the paper? Or the Internet? Have you never heard of Glenn Sacks, Warren Farrell, Fathers 4 Justice?

Anon: I actually believe that if people at this site were to read Glenn Sacks' readings (or his postings at his blog) you would honestly find Glenn Sacks to be a progressive liberal and in many ways a feminist. You would certainly find him an intellectually honest "opponent" that you could work with.

Mnemosyne: Um, you think Glenn Sacks would openly and honestly work with a mere woman? That's a good one.

Anon: http://glennsacks.com/blog. Prove that I'm a dope then.

The response? Silence, of course.

Typical--despite all of the sound and fury directed at me by radical feminists, whenever it comes to actually pointing out concrete examples of my alleged misogyny, they're silent.

Ladies, there are hundreds of newspaper columns available here, as well as my blog--if I were the horrible misogynist you say I am, don't you think you could ever find at least ONE example of it?

No, I don't mean your common tactic of saying "Glenn Sacks is a misogynist because the men's rights movement is misogynistic" and then quoting what some OTHER guy wrote. I mean actually quoting ME to support your contentions about MY views.

(BTW, Anon, thanks for the defense, although I'm not sure I would exactly agree with your characterization of my politics).

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here. 

From 'How I led Ralph Fiennes astray at 35,000ft' (2/15/07):

"The Qantas stewardess who claimed she rejected an amorous Ralph Fiennes on a flight to India has admitted having sex with him in an aircraft lavatory.

"Lisa Robertson told friends she was a big fan of the British actor and found herself luring him to the cubicle.

"But they apparently shared more than a 15-minute fling at 35,000ft.

"Miss Robertson claims they went on to share a passionate night in a Mumbai hotel - at the star's invitation...

"'I've always fancied him and to see him on my flight was a real thrill,' she told them...

"She gave him her phone number. Finally she decided to take matters into her own hands.

"'I just stood up, reached down for his hand and told him to follow me,' she told friends.

"'We went into the toilet and locked the door and off came much of our clothes.'

"She said they then had passionate and apparently unprotected sex...

"That is in stark contrast to what she told her bosses at Qantas.

"In a statement, she portrayed Fiennes as the villain, claiming he had followed her into the lavatory where he made his intentions clear.

"She said that she had told him it was inappropriate to follow her there and, after a short time, convinced him to leave.

"She told her bosses she had been so alarmed at being followed that she expected one of the other crew to help her.

"'At no time did any crew member come to my assistance,' she complained...

"Yesterday it emerged that the liaison with Fiennes could prove rather profitable for Miss Robertson, who was declared bankrupt three years ago.

"She is said to have spent this week negotiating media deals to tell the story of her fling on flight QF123 and has gone into hiding."

Read the full article here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.
 

Help for Michigan Dads
Michigan family law attorney Mindy L. Hitchcock has experience fighting for noncustodial parents against Michigan's abusive FOC. Her holistic approach to divorce gets results for her clients while avoiding the scorched earth approach to law that leaves families emotionally and financially devastated. www.Lady4Justice.com

The LaMusga Company
The LaMusga Company provides customized solutions to assist individuals and business owners in reaching their financial goals. The LaMusga Company is committed to helping you accomplish your long-term financial objectives. LaMusgaCo.com

File Taxes Online with  Professional Help
MENstax.com allows you to file your taxes, check your refund status, and have your return reviewed by an experienced tax professional--all online.

How Does Sex Discrimination Affect Men and Boys?
The National Coalition of Free Men Los Angeles is a non-profit educational & civil rights organization that looks at the ways sex discrimination affects men and boys. NCFM-LA helps provide men a unified voice on important political and social issues. www.NCFMLA.org