Finley: Equal justice under law for fathers

I applaud Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her colleagues on the United States Supreme Court for seeking gender equality in citizenship law (“Supreme Court strikes down gender-based citizenship law,” June 12, 2017).

Engraved above the public entrance to the United States Supreme Court are the words: “Equal Justice Under Law.”

All fathers are entitled to equal justice under law in all of the nation’s courts — including family courts.

Can the nation now move on to adoption law, where birth mothers and birth fathers are treated totally differently based solely on their gender and which often leads to heartbreaking legal cases and a lose-lose-lose situation for all members of the adoptive triad —birth parents, adoptive parents and the child?

In the future, gender equality and equal justice under law along with the best interests of the child must jointly prevail in adoption law.

This decision is a step in the right direction and comes just in time for Father’s Day!

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology Emeritus
Former Editor of Adoption Quarterly
Florida International University

The letter above was published in The Hill on Wednesday, June 14, 2017.

One thought on “Finley: Equal justice under law for fathers

  1. A Reader

    This is utterly absurd.

    The US Constitution doesn’t bestow on “anchor babies” the birthright citizenship, so the US Congress can end it in one act. But they don’t have a will.

    But trying to subjugate the resolution of this nation-threatening and wrong practice to the question of equality between the sexes amounts to a belief that two wrongs make a right.

    It may be easy for a woman to prove that someone is her own offspring, by – for instance – presenting witness testimony of a birth, while it is more difficult, and not necessarily conclusive (say, one of twins is a father of a baby, then the other twin may be able to test positive for being its father, too), to present such a proof for a man.

    A law that doesn’t account for physical differences between sexes, when applicable, is but a politically-correct idiocy. I thought that the Supremes were more apolitical than that.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *