Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TAdams8591
Well, my question to you was to name one of the "many" states you claim would grant an "automatic" divorce under these circumstances. And I presume that you chose not to respond because you know that there is no such thing, and you were just making it up.

Now, you want a court to assume how Ms. Schiavo would feel and act under these circumstances and take legal action based upon that assumption - exactly the kind of thing so many have criticized the courts for with regard to her feelings about life support.

No, my friend, what you really want is outcome-driven judging. Just what the intellectual left has been arguing in favor of for two decades. And if you get it, the most basic foundations of the common law justice system are gone.

This is one case. It is one person. It may be tragic, but you can't rewrite the entire system to suit your feelings about this case.

20 posted on 02/28/2005 2:13:31 PM PST by lugsoul (Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: lugsoul
The court is going to STARVE this woman to death based on the hearsay of a passing comment (and no documantation). Well, there are also witness(es) who testified that Terri was talking about a divorce, right before her supposed "collapse."

The court cannot have it both ways!!!!!!!

26 posted on 02/28/2005 2:19:06 PM PST by TAdams8591 (The call you make may be the one that saves Terri's life!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: lugsoul

Profound analysis, thank you. Very sad case.


34 posted on 02/28/2005 2:23:05 PM PST by Hi Heels (Trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right. Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: lugsoul

Wrong, wrong, wrong.


There are plenty of states that grant divorces on the basis of adultery.

Not all states have adopted the "no fault" statutes.

Alsok you don't seem to be able to read the posts, or are deliberately ignoring (for meaningless arguing), to see that all of us in support of Terri are seeking a judge who will READ the petitions/briefs brought before it.

It is the right of every citizen to bring a court petition and the RIGHT to have that petition heard in full.

Greer rejects them without examining one shred of documentation. He has been doing it all along and he and the rest of the death-camp Nazi's say "that matter was already before the court, blah blah blah", knowing full well it wasn't even HEARD. When the appeals work there way up the chain, no one will hear is saying its already been heard. This is one of the biggest crocks of this whole mess!!

You live with your head in the sand.


55 posted on 02/28/2005 2:34:34 PM PST by atruelady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: lugsoul; Ohioan from Florida; cyn; amdgmary; All
ahh.... but there is just as much heresay testimony that Terri WANTED a divorce, AND most likely told him so that night of her 'accident' ... as there is heresay testimony that she wanted to die instead of having a 'feeding tube'.

...NOW who is unwilling to treat both conditions the same way?




....other things (to ALL), I have been spelling Brodersen wrong,
....and I stubled upon some old charts we did of glaring differences in court testimony regarding 'the accident'
83 posted on 02/28/2005 2:44:09 PM PST by Future Useless Eater (FreedomLoving_Engineer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: lugsoul
"automatic" divorce under these circumstances

He has effectively divorced his wife and taken another family. For him to remain married to both is bigamy. While you say he is not married to the latter, clearly it's a common law marriage. Clearly, it's an act of adultery, in any case, which by even older and valid Church standards was a legitimate reason for nullification, and has generally been considered an automatic and unquestioned grounds for divorce in government courts.

296 posted on 02/28/2005 4:41:08 PM PST by sevry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: lugsoul
How would it rewrite the whole system to say that a person no longer deserves the legal rights of the spouse when they stop acting like one, and replace their spouse with a common-law wife? Seems to me it at worst doesn't damage the system, and at best preserves its integrity, because the person who's filling the spousal role is required to be (oh shock, oh shock) a spouse.
352 posted on 02/28/2005 5:59:13 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Chrome wheeled, fuel injected and steppin' out over the line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson