No you never used the word automatic. You really nailed me there.
Tell me though, how else am I supposed to interpret your argument.
He committed adultery, therefor, he has forfeited his right legally, and morally to consider himself her husband.
Am I getting that wrong? It seems to me your quibbling over semantics here. Or do I understand your position incorrectly?
You need to calm down so we can see your Christ-likeness.
Please. Do a little reading. I'm not the one throwing names around and questioning peoples motives and honesty here. I don't see you asking those people to display their Christ-likeness. It goes both ways you know. I've been nothing but polite to everyone here. You cannot say the same for many of the other Christians on this board.
The quote you supplied here, isn't mine, either. I never wrote that.
He committed adultery, therefor, he has forfeited his right legally, and morally to consider himself her husband.
If Michael Schiavo had merely committed an isolated act of adultery, that would not necessarily forfeit all his rights as hisband. But what Michael has in fact done goes far beyond that: he has openly stated his allegiance to a woman other than his wife. In so doing, he renounced the vows that are the basis of his marriage. By what right, then, can he still claim authority as "husband"?