Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Phyllis Schlafly: Marriage = Consent to Rape

No, it's not a joke.

A man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father by malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. They have created a judicial system where the woman must always be believed even though she has no evidence, one in which the man is always guilty.

Yes, the testimony of a woman is not evidence. And rape is not rape. And protecting rape victims equally is malice.

I know nothing about the merits of the particularly case Schlafly discusses, but I question how much Schafly knows herself. Of Mr. Hetherington's trial, Schlafly writes:

Weiss was running for a judgeship. Observers sized up his prejudicial statements as grandstanding for support from feminists.

The National Coalition of Free Men writes:

The criminal court docket shows that an evidentiary hearing was scheduled for 7/29/86, but it was not held or rescheduled. An Assistant Prosecutor tried the case, but the county prosecutor who was running for State Supreme Court addressed the court on two occasions: The bond hearing and the sentencing. The implications are strong that he was "grandstanding" for the feminist vote. The judge, too, may have been looking for political favor with the feminist vote.

Oh, those observers.


The rape charge was prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case, and the divorce court had frozen all Hetherington's assets so he had no money to hire a lawyer or make bond. Nevertheless, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent and refused to provide him with a lawyer.


MOTIVE FOR THE CHARGE - The trial took place during a bitter divorce and custody dispute. It was expected that Will would win custody, because his wife had abandoned the family for more than two months.

* THERE ARE MANY IMPROPRIETIES SURROUNDING THIS CASE: Wil had to defend himself in criminal court at the same time that his divorce was proceeding. The divorce court froze Wil's assets after his CSC arrest. At the same time the criminal court refused to acknowledge that Wil did not have the use of those assets. Therefore, the criminal court refused to appoint a public defender. The way Wil obtained legal counsel was based on a "promise" to pay.


Hetherington has always maintained his innocence. It was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he said it was consensual sex, she said it was rape.


His wife claimed that he had raped her. The case was a matter of "he said/she said". Wil has been in prison, now, for more than 18 years. During all of that time he has consistently maintained his innocence.

Perhaps Schafly did independent research. Schlafly's column also contains factual assertions I don't see on the NCFM page. (But there are also similarities to this page ["The prosecuting attorney used the case to 'grandstand' to the feminist vote. He was running for state supreme court (in 1985 this was Robert Weiss)"].)

Clearly, though, Schlafly and the NCFM have the same talking points -- and the same hatred of "feminists." And they both fantasize about a Government War on Men.

It's amusing to see Schafly make all the arguments about the criminal justice system that are usually ridiculed by purported law-and-order types -- unless it's a Republican on trial. Or it would be if Schlafly's arguments weren't a transparent excuse to pen another column displaying her contempt for women.

No comments: