I loved your rational breakdown of the meaning of "equality" or "equality under the law".
I would just add that many of us feel, don't we, when trying to deal with our ex.'s, that they cannot be reasoned with very much (and maybe we're as bad)!
However, I accept that when our lawyers do their best, and the weight of the court looks likely to go against whoever isn't agreeing or whoever isn't likely to win whatever it is they've been expecting, then most people probably do accept reason or succumb to reason you could say.
On my other main forum of the moment, the NANCM (or National Association for Non-Custodial Mothers) one well established member tried to initiate a discussion as to what most members would like to see changed in family law. You would think that wouldn't prove too controversial a move wouldn't you, but believe me, as I know from experience there, you can get criticised for even trying to raise issues like that. Anyway one contributor to the forum comes from yet another group I believe, possibly the NOW or National Organisation for Women group, or something allied to that, and she became a focus for the dispute that followed.
What I'm trying to get to here, or trying to tell you, concerns my efforts during my brief discussion with this lady where I kept putting forward my proposal that all decent or fit parents, who have had a meaningful relationship with the other parent and haven't abandoned or abused their children should be given a rebuttable legal presumption in favour of contact with their child. She couldn't accept that idea at all, and it reminded me of Liz Kate's position where she basically said the man must accept whatever the mother wanted to offer them, a father's role is "an artificial social construct" and they couldn't pretend to have an independent relationship with the child after their relationship with the mother was over.
Some people do think like that don't they, that they don't have a child "with someone" but they have their own child which they may or may not allow others to have any involvement with (including fathers). I think it is linked to this whole business of having a child by a man or partner you don't love isn't it - something immoral really, plus irresponsible don't you think.
This is where I get back to my arguments over equality and fairness, and I don't think it is fair at all to treat those who have been responsible or tried to be responsible and "good" the same as others so that they are then given, under the guise of "equality", the same legal rights as those who have been behaving irresponsibly.
We appear to be all concerned about whether fathers who have produced a child as a result of a one night stand get given rights, if you read the views of so many who post on most fathers forums.
I saw a TV programme recently where a man was complaining that his father had run off with his girlfriend. Shocking you might think until you discover that the man concerned had offered to marry this woman a few hours after meeting her, and had only been seeing her for a few weeks before she ran off with his dad (who had more money it was said, which may have had a bearing too on what happened I suspect). If you have no more idea of what might make a successful relationship than this then maybe you shouldn't be getting married (if you've managed to make a successful realtionship with someone after commencing in similar circumstances please accept my apologies).
Perhaps I'm tying myself in knots now, so I'll leave things here - are you happy with the way things are going in your campaign by the way? Were the recent changes in control of your legislature houses of possible benefit or harm in terms of likely opinions do you think?
All the best, Graham