Posted on 03/21/2005 9:29:16 AM PST by visualops
Congress has granted Terri Schiavo a reprieve. ... Supporters of Michael Schiavo's effort to end his wife's life have asked how conservatives, who claim to believe in the sanctity of marriage, can fail to respect his husbandly authority. The most obvious answer is that a man's authority as a husband does not supersede his wife's rights as a human being-- ..... Mr. Schiavo, in other words, has virtually remarried. Short of outright bigamy, his relationship with Centonze is as thoroughgoing a violation of his marriage vows as it is possible to imagine.
The point here is not to castigate Mr. Schiavo for behaving badly. It would require a heroic degree of self-sacrifice for a man to forgo love and sex in order to remain faithful to an incapacitated wife, and it would be unreasonable to hold an ordinary man to a heroic standard. .... But it is equally unreasonable to let Mr. Schiavo have it both ways. If he wishes to assert his marital authority to do his wife in, the least society can expect in return is that he refrain from making a mockery of his marital obligations. The grimmest irony in this tragic case is that those who want Terri Schiavo dead are resting their argument on the fiction that her marriage is still alive.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
as thoroughgoing a violation of his marriage vows as it is possible to imagine
The grimmest irony in this tragic case is that those who want Terri Schiavo dead are resting their argument on the fiction that her marriage is still alive.
----- I will add to this the false argument of her suffering/not suffering. If she will not suffer to die this way, if she supposedly feels nothing- that what are you sparing her from by killing her? Also those that argue no husband or wife should have to stand by and be faithful and honor marriage vows with an incapacitated person, that expecting that is somehow selfish...where do you draw the line? If someone is paralyzed, can you dump them? Is parapalegic bad enough, or must they be quadraplegic?
Exactly! Good for him for making this argument.
Apparently Michael Schiavo's defenders believe that marriage invalidates a woman's constitutional rights.
If you can't honor the vow, don't take it.
My wife knows I'm there for her no matter what and she can bank on it.
I'm no punk like Michael Schiavo.
I've seen a number of Freepers make that exact argument already. It is just common sense. Shout it from the rooftops. Save Terri Now!
Bingo. You took the words right out of my mouth.
*****************
Excellent questions.
Terri ping! If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!
Isn't it ironic to hear the marriage destroyers argue the "sanctity of marriage" when it suits their death crusade?
Or to hear them argue against federalism except when it allows the murder of innocent children?
What is this world coming to?
Yesterday, while reminiscing about our childhoods and the relative innocence of our lives then, my spouse said,
"Just imagine. Our children will reminisce about TODAY as the 'good old days'."
...for reading.
Many don't draw a line at all ... they just say that expecting any fidelity at all, even to a perfectly healthy and well-intentioned spouse, is asking too much.
Freepers were pointing this out a month ago.
Posted by highflight to Conservative_Rob
On News/Activism 02/21/2005 4:07:02 PM EST · 9 of 85
Well that's where there might be wiggle room for Terri's parents/attorneys.
I remember that Georgia had a bigamy law - to commit adultery was in fact creating a "common law" marriage and thus committing the act of bigamy.
In all states, bigamy is illegal.
Another law that dissolves a marriage is abandonment - Michael Schiavo has physically abandoned Terri - any lawyer could get Terri a divorce on that basis.
Because of Terri's condition and Michaels conflicts of interest - it seems to me this is a perfect case for a Court-appointed lawyer/guardian for Terri. (OMG That wouldn't be that disgraceful Judge's court would it?)
Instant tagline
Im not sure I understand the latter part of your post. (where do we draw the line?) How does being paralyzed or quadrapalegic relate to this case?
Our Republican representatives better know that their "base" is serious about this.
So why doesn't he just divorce her? That's the question I keep asking and haven't heard any credible response yet.
He makes my point eloquently.
I wish there was a credible answer
Suposedly he took out a rather large insurance policy on her life.
He doesn't cash in till she dies......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.