Right Back Atcha, RayRay

Today's post is a response to RayRay's blog post from yesterday. In his post, Ray takes issue with an Iowa Supreme Court ruling, and with the lack of action on an Iowa bill that would place fathers on equal footing with mothers in child custody cases. I had started to simply comment on his page, but before I knew it, I had enough material for my own post. Besides, it's been a while since I've written anything here. With that said, I'm going to re-write my comments here. This is going to be a long article, so grab a beer, relax, and get ready to think.

I'll start out with HF345, which is a bill in the Iowa legislature that essentially would mandate a presumption of joint physical custody of minor children in divorce cases, but does allow for deviation in cases of abuse, geographical separation, or when both parents agree to deviate from joint physical custody. From my perspective, this seems like a common-sense, straight forward bill... one that I have vocally supported since its inception, by writing congressmen, and giving others a framework letter that they too could forward to their congressmen. I do this despite, nay because, I am a father with primary physical custody of my kids, who appreciates what he has. In fact, I continue to PAY child support, despite having primary physical care of the kids. This is PRECISELY because it's not about the money, it's about the time with my kids!

Apparently, there's an old codger of a legislator who said "Men of IowaFathers (a FaceBook group) just don't want to pay their child support," though I've been unable to locate this specific quote anywhere other than on Ray's blog page. But let's go with the assumption that this cat actually made this quote... if so, I assert that he's misguided on two counts. First, it's a false presumption that Iowa Fathers are doing this for the money. I am not a member of Iowa Fathers, but I am associated with them. The ones I've talked to, or written to, are, to a man, NOT doing this for money, but because they want to be with their kids.

There's apparently another legislator who's a trial lawyer, and mother with primary custody of her children, who's receiving child support, and is on record as opposing HF345. Ray says that she's got too much of a personal stake to make an informed vote. I agree.

The second issue is one of personal choice and liberty. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that these Iowa Fathers WERE in it for the money. If that's the case, then custody would be strictly about the money for BOTH parents... that is, unless the legislator in question could somehow demonstrate that mothers are more altruistic than fathers. Either way, it seems reasonable to give these parents an opportunity to work the custody/financial balance out for themselves, as opposed to the current status quo, which still tends to favor the mother. Like I said, this is an issue of personal choice and liberty.

The second issue, the one where the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that Mennonites can continue to use metal wagon wheels for religious reasons, is an area where I disagree with Ray. This, again, is based on personal choice and liberty, but also includes a bit of logic.... well, at least I think it's logical.

I am a big fan of personal responsibility, personal choice, and personal liberty. This also means that, as a result, I need to tolerate the fact that others might make choices differing from my own, and that the Bill of Rights will (okay, SHOULD) protect our choices equally. I believe that drugs and prostitution should be legal, though I would not choose to engage in those activities, and I believe that the Mennonites should be allowed to drive their metal-wheeled, horse-drawn carriages on asphalt highways.

But let's throw the personal liberty issue aside. Let's, instead, discuss the logical side of things. First, the Mennonites are still taxpaying citizens. They, like other Iowa residents, have their tax dollars go toward road maintenance. This means that they too should be allowed the freedom to drive their buggies to town, just like we drive our cars. Furthermore, when I run across Mennonites (or Amish), I see that they are driving on the shoulder, utilizing the caution triangles on their buggies, and otherwise obeying laws that realistically compromise their desire to practice their religion as they view it, while acquiescing to the customs and laws of society at large.

Finally, there's the practical side of things... I will concede that on a mile-per-mile basis, the Mennonites' metal wagon wheels cause more wear and tear than a car's rubber tire. With that said though, others seem to neglect the fact that weight, speed, and the number of miles also cause wear and tear on the road. In all three of these areas, a car causes exponentially more wear and tear than a horse-drawn wagon. With this in mind, I assert that it's all a wash, and since there's no reason to punish the Mennonites for choosing to drive horse-drawn carriages. Also, in practice, as I mentioned earlier, I almost invariably see the Mennonites driving in the gravel shoulder.

So... dude, I agree with your HF345 assertion, but I think you're a bit off on the Mennonite thing.