(Crossposted on Alas and TADA. Defenses of C4M should be taken to TADA.)
From Judge David Lawson’s decision in a 2005 choice-for-men case (pdf link):
The plaintiff thereafter had difficulty accepting the financial consequences of his conduct, so the State came to his assistance by bringing a legal action that would result in an established schedule the plaintiff could follow in contributing to the financial support of his daughter.
::bwaha:: There’s a lot of funny bits in this one. Like here:
The Court also, non-snarkily, explains why this guy and other ‘opt-out’ proponents get it wrong:
The opinon also includes some sub-snark from another quoted opinion: