Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The Adulterers' Rights Act of 2009 suffers setback

House Bill 28, the Adulterers' Rights Act of 2009, suffered a setback today when State Rep. Tom Riner asked a key question in the House Judiciary Committee meeting in which the bill is being considered: if biology rules in cases of paternity, then shouldn't a rapist be able to assert paternity?

Blank stares. Shuffling of paper. Mumbled comments that basically amounted to "We don't know."

In short, back to the drawing board. The bill will now need to be reworked to eliminate only one of the many objectionable features of this bill.


Anonymous said...

If a rapist would have rights under this bill, being that the woman is married, then wouldn't he have rights to a child born to an unmarried woman as well. This bill is not about rape at all. This bill is to allow biological fathers the same right to know their child as the mother. What if a married woman gets pregnant by a married man to break up his marriage, and then dangle that child like a pawn, and then to say you can only see that child if you leave your wife and be with me. When the man refuses and stays with his wife and kids he has no paternal rights. The Kentucky law is so unfair it is ridiculous and for you to bring rape into this is shamefull you don't even care if the woman is not married. Rape is not the issue in this bill no matter how you spin this.

Anonymous said...

What happens when the rapist is the husband, what then Martin and Mr. Riner. Twenty Five percent of all rapes reported are spousal rapes. You need to check Ky. law before you start trying to destroy Ky. families

Martin Cothran said...


If a rapist would have rights under this bill, being that the woman is married, then wouldn't he have rights to a child born to an unmarried woman as well.

Yes. How does that conflict with what I said?

This bill is not about rape at all.

But I never said that bill was about rape. I said (and this is the third time I have said this on my blog) the logical consequence of the argument for this bill would result in this, not that the bill would result in it. Either you haven't carefully read my previous posts or you simply are not able to make a distinction between these two statements. And if you can't make sense of that kind of distinction, then I question whether can understand the complex ramifications of this bill.

Martin Cothran said...


What does that have to do with HB 28? Have you bothered to read the bill?

Anonymous said...

The logical consequence of the bill is that fathers would have the same right to see their child as the mother. I don't understand what your issue is with this bill. Could you make some sense and tell me why it is ok for a woman to go into a mans marriage and be able to ask for paternity but a man can't do the same. What is your issue, I really do want to understand.

Anonymous said...

HB 28 is not promoting affairs. It is simply allowing the male to persue the right to be responsible for his child. According to the law that this bill would amend, a women has the right to request paternity on the man at any time. Therefore she may possibly be intruding upon the man whether married or not. Why do you believe that it is okay for the married women to intrude upon another marriage, because the state law as it stands today does and has allowed this. Even allowing the woman to withdraw her petition in court after years of receiving child support. Leaving the man with no options for appeal.
Lets face it affairs harm everyone involved including children. But allowing a law to permit more harm to one family over another based on gender of the person involved in the affair is unjust. That is what we are talking about when we are looking into laws. Moral issues by both parties have obviously been thrown out the window. We can not sit back and let a law of this kind dictate without reasoning which parent is more justified. That is why we have Family Courts. HB 28 will allow our Family Courts to hear on such matters. That doesn't mean that the man will receive paternity rights! Or the Women. This act of betrayal by both parties is shameful, and to be forgiven is only done in honesty. Hiding behind laws should also be considered immoral.

Anonymous said...

Because of this very reason (1 ruleing of the Supereme court of Ky. about a woman choosing to have as affair with a man and it was not rape she was willing!! Now every man in the Commonwealth of Ky can no longer be part of a childs life... My son was forced by the Commonwealth of Ky to have an DNA test along with 2 other young men. This young lady got pregnant and then later married a young man that knew the baby was not his. The later got a divorce and she lost custody of the child in question. To get the child away from her ex she has all these young men tested until the real father was found... The father is my son and he is wanting to be part of this child life and help with his upbringing... But, now the woman has changed her mind and she no longer want the DNA test to be proof of who is the father.. We have had our lives disrupted in a horrible way...See, we lost a grandchild to cancer at age 6 and when we found that my son had a son and we had another grandchild we where so excited and felt blessed once again.. Then the case of R V. R came befor the Ky Supereme Court and they ruled againest the Bio. father because the marriage was still in tack.. Now, the judge in our case is going to throw out my sons case and he is not going to get to be part of his sons life... We feel that our lives have been disrupted.. My son was engaged to the love of his life and all this has caused them to call off the engagement. The mother had disrupted our lives and now has refused any visited... All the men in the Commonwealth of KY should case total chaos because there DNA right have been violated. There are men and women in jail due to DNA and there are lots of men paying child support and not getting to see their children due to DNA... Now the law of Ky dose not have the right to pick and choose when they will except the truth or not except the truth... The truth should previl or we will have total CHAOS in the Commonwealth..