Replies

Well, Gov Bush has now also violated a sacred bond and contract of marriage.

OK, we'll go with THAT and see where it leads us.

That "sacred bond" you speak of, had already been amply violated, trampled and made a mockery of by Michael Schiavo, in that he was living in an adulterous relationship with another woman, had fathered children with that woman, and in fact committed perjury in the civil suit in which he received millions of dollars in a malpractice award, because during that court process, he stated that all he wanted to do was to "take care of his wife for the rest of her life" (paraphrased).

Oh he took care of her alright.

He no sooner had the cash in his pocket that he began cutting back on physiotherapy for Terri, moved her into a hospice environment, wrote his own "do not resusitate" orders on HER medical charts, and his systematic neglect and abuse of Terri accelerated.

Using your logic of a "sacred bond of marriage", police officers should NEVER remove an abusive husband from a home in which he is beating or abusing his wife and/or children, because hey - that's a sacred bond pal, and we don't want to tamper with that sacred bond. And guess what?

That is a very Islamic view of the family, the view that the man is the absolute and ultimate final voice of authority, and by allah, if he wants to beat his wife into submission, punish her for whatever reasons he deems appropriate, well, that's ok because that marriage is a "sacred bond" and nobody but allah (or the Real God if one is not worshipping a satanic-controlled demon calling themselves 'allah') has anything to say about how that husband conducts himself.

See where this leads my FRiend?

It is true that marriage IS a sacred bond, however the sanctity of that bond must not trump the sanctity of that Holy Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill", which is why we see many men (and women) imprisoned and/or executed each year for killing their spouses, instead of choosing to "love, honor and cherish" that person who is supposed to be their lifelong partner, if one subscribes to that concept of marriage being a "sacred bond".

Michael Schiavo has hidden behind the protection of a corrupt judge, a crooked lawyer, an industry of pro-death euthanasia cultists, and conjured up this whole "Terri didn't want to be kept alive" mantra TEN YEARS after she allegedly said it. His personal history in all of this has been one continuous stream of lies, deceptions, fabrications and manipulations, all oriented around the final goal of killing off his wife.

And why?

Her parents were MORE than willing to take care of her. Why wouldn't Schiavo let her go? Was it a control issue? Some misguided sense of 'loyalty' to Terri?

His own adultery with his girlfriend/shackup proves he had no true loyalty to his wife, so it must have been something more.

I'll tell you what it was: it was the elimination of the last potential witness who might, at some point have identified HIM as being the reason that she was in the disabled mental and physical state that she was in until the day she was finally murdered with the full authorization of the State.

Michael Schiavo committed the perfect crime. And now, with the "official" stamp of approval from the State of Florida, he will most likely NEVER be prosecuted.

But there is A God, and His Name is King Jesus, and He will one day judge the "quick and the dead", and on that Day, Michael Schiavo will be exposed for all to see, and I (and many others) will either owe him eternal apologies for being so mistaken about his pure heart and his compassionate motives, or we will in unison respond "May God's Will Be Done", as Schiavo is shuffled off in manacles, and cast into the "fire prepared for the devil and his angels".

Then we will all be able to hear from Terri herself about HER views on how her former husband honored their "sacred bond".

Then we will all be able to hear from Terri herself about HER views on how her former husband honored their "sacred bond".

I am actually very sympathetic to the gist of your post #190, and especially to the fact Terri herself could NOT speak her views about her marriage in her incapcitated state, whatever her views may have been.

Who's to say she wanted to stay married to this guy at this point?

I don't say that.

That's why I suggested we consider a new law in my very first post on this thread, post #1 -- which would legally enable parents to file for divorce on behalf of an incapcitated adult married child.

I originally suggested it be because of a superior right of a parent to care for a child over the right of a spouse to pull the plug, but others felt it should be only on grounds already legally recognized -- abuse, adultery, or abandonment.

And, Terri's situation would have fit right in there, certainly with respect to adultery.

Also, I am glad you mentioned that it was awhile before Michael S got around to "rememebering" that Terri allegedly said she would not want to live in this condition. I, too, recall reading that Michael S made no such claim at the beginning of this sage.

IMO, you and I are actually very much on the same page in believing this maritial relationship was unjust from the view of Terri S -- and, no one had the legal power to say that here on Earth. And, someone, like her parents, should have been able to speak for her -- and, I believe, file for divorce in this situation.

Unfortunately, without a law existing to allow that, the only other option is for a judge to invent such a law, and engage in what people call "judicial activism" from the bench. Or for some other 3rd party to violate God's laws of marriage without having legal standing to speak to a court. And no one wants any of that.

That's why I hope people consider all that has been said on this thread, including the major points both you and I made. I think we agree on some very key points.

Thanks for you posts.

Here is another scenario to perhaps consider:

Let's say you're a loving father, and your kid has an accident in the house, and falls down the stairs, and is black and blue with bruises as a result of that accident

You neighbor, who doesn't like you for whatever reason, sees your black and blue bruised kid later playing outside, and calls the State, accusinig you of child abuse.

The State investigates and you explain, truthfully, what happened.

Now, should the State ignore your true explanation -- and take your kid away from you?

No one really knows for certain what happened to Terri S, and it is possible not even Michael S know. I am not saying it is certain, I am just saying it is possible.

As I said throughout this thread, there are so many unknowns in this case.

You would not want your kid taken away from you for what may be no reason; nor would any spouse want their spouse "removed" for what may be no reason.

But if there is a married man fathering children with another woman, that seems pretty clear and convincing evidence to me that a maritial relationship has been violated.

And if a spouse wants to pull the plug without written directions, while the parents of that incapacited spouse want to care for their child, that would also, to me, ring of abuse.

So, I think are legal grounds for creating a right of parents of an incapacitated adult to seek a divorce when their child can not do so.

But that is huge departure from the way we think now, in terms of marriage being a sacred bond between only two people, husband and wife -- no matter what the circumstances may be.