What about all of the states remaining where DNA is irrelevent and a man is ALWAYS the legal father of any child his wife conceives while married to him? If I were sitting on the jury deciding the guilt of such a man who was accused of shooting his wife, after being ordered to support her child until it was grown, I believe I would practice "jury nullification" and let him off.*

You know, foolishness like this kind of law is related to a basic problem of democracy in this country today: no politician today is ever willing to take a chance on losing an election because "the people" turned out not to be intelligent enough to get past any initial negative reaction to the idea of an action he knows he should take--such as repeal of the laws under discussion-- and to appreciate, instead, its ultimate justice and correctness. It is always easier, instead, to take the "tried and true" demagogic path of ALWAYS "defending the weak", in this case women and children, even if this results in the worst and most outrageous injustice imagineable.

We see this same disgusting lack of leadership and determination to "play it safe" in politicians not only in the maintaining of anti-male laws, but in other totally unrelated areas as well, and it seems to be getting worse all the time. Maybe it's time to try a different system!

*provided the child was not the result of rape.