Fathers interested in the progress of fathers’ rights may have heard that Michigan Representative Jim Runestad introduced House Bill 4691, which
aims at providing equal parental time to parents (the bill specifies that a child shall not spend more than 200 nights per year at one’s parent home, unless there is an agreement by both parties). Given that family courts tend to grant custody to the mother in divorce proceedings, Bill 4691 sounds like a step in the right direction.
So, out of curiosity, I decided to check where Representative Runestad stood on other issues. I was not pleased.
Runestad and I do not have the same view on parenting, starting with what he considers a safety issue for his 14-year old daughter, now in middle school. Interviewed by John Perry (Legal Analyst), Runestad blasted the Michigan Board of Education guidelines protecting transgender students. One of Runestad’s subject of wariness about the Board guidelines is the fact that a transgender (male) student can have access to female bathrooms. Runestad conjectures that these transgender students may not know who they are: one day they think they are male, the other day female. While Runestad totally ignores the much documented need to protect these students, he seems to fear a male predator taking the pretext of a fake identity to assail female students in the bathroom. No kidding.
If my daughters were of Runestad daughter’s age, rather than malevolent LGBT students, I would fear the occurrence of another Columbine or Sandy Hook, and the perils of more weapons to more armed nut cases. However Runestad proudly voted in favor of “the right to carry” legislation, meaning right to “conceal carry” on the laudable motive that law-abiding citizens, who can “already carry a firearm without permit or training requirement in the State of Michigan,” should not be unfairly penalized. Tears come to my eyes at this noticeable legislative achievement.
Last but not least, Runestad strives to improve “a perfect voting record” while working on a piece of legislation that would ban policies that protect illegal immigrants. In this project, the two sanctuary cities of Michigan, Detroit and Ann Arbour, are targeted on the usual obnoxious grounds that illegal immigrants imply increased insecurity, low wages and a drain on public resources. Trumpian fallacies.
So what? Shouldn’t fathers from all sides of the aisle, in a spirit of bipartisanship, support House Bill 4691?
I am no Michigan voter, but my answer is no, in a million years. Representative Runestad does not think straight about human rights and he urgently needs to correct that. The big picture of his voting records and legislative projects show that he does not care about the right of the most vulnerable people (refugees, immigrants, LGBT, etc). As a result, it is clear that he cares even less about the parenting rights of these folks.
Runestad has to be the sweetheart scarecrow of those who trash the father rights movement as a reactionary project of white men eager to restore the old patriarchic order.
I have no interest whatsoever in a fathers’ right movement that denies equal parenting rights to LGBT, refugees, or immigrants, legal or not. And the US fathers’ rights movement in the US has to make clear that it has nothing to do with fellows such as Representative Jim Runestad.