www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Micheal Shiavo's other woman... God Have Mercy!

O Lord, please do not tempt me to this degree. I am weak and can only resist so much.

Not to me, although I admit not having gone over all of the testimony in the case.

I would move for a change in the law that, absent a notarized living will, no anecdotal evidence is considered as "clear and compelling". And further try to make sure that people make such wills.


It has ben suggested that judge Greer - notwithstanding his own backgound - has some pro-death agenda that he is aggressively advancing. With the limited information that I have, it is impossible for me to say one way or another.

As for the numerous unsucessful appeals: I think "value" is a judicial one. One cannot appeal without a case for error in law, or the emergence of new evidence sufficient to change the ruling. Appeals are not heard on the grounds that perhaps another judge/jury might weigh the facts diffferently and thus rule differently.

Don't know. Perhaps Amado can help.

But Alex, you raise such an important point. Others have vented fears of a tyrannical judiciary that would put them at risk if, for example, they were they to venture into FL (or have found the idea of that the is judge adhering to the law, laughable). But the risk is minimal and strong safeguards available.

I don't think anyone can question the regularity of Terri's marriage to Michael, since all apparently agree that they are validly married. I don't know the laws in Florida, so I don't know the legal status of Michael's relationship with "the other woman." In Tennessee, that relationship would have no legal status, since Tennessee doesn't recognize common law marriage as valid. So to call it an adulterous relationship would not be far off the mark. But the legal minds will have to enlighten me on Florida law.

Dear Charles:

I think it doesn't take a legal mind to reach your conclusion: it's adulterous or, as they say anywhere else, Michael's children are "bastardos!"

Terri and Michael's marriage was valid AND still subsisting. Otherwise, Michael should not have been awarded, constantly, by the Courts of his spousal guardianship over Terri. (This is a predicament in itself because these decisions in Michael's favor obliquely recognizes that Terri is "still alive!")

Further, Bob and Mary Schindler should have not been requesting (now demanding) that Michael divorce their daughter so that they, as parents, can recover the right of guardianship over the incapacitated Terri as next of kin.

And, Michael and his consort have not gone to City Hall to request a marriage license and get married simply because Michael's marriage is subsisting pending the death of Terri or short of obtaining a divorce decree from the Courts.

The definition of marriage (as a legal contract between 2 natural persons) as between one man and one woman and its subsistence is universal as far as I can remember, except in some Islamic countries where 4 concurrent wives are still "legally" allowed, like in the Sultanate of Brunei, and in some countries and certain States of the U.S. where union between 2 natural persons of the same sex is now legalized.

Michael's case is baking his own cake and yummily eating it, too! And that is not only being adulterous; it is being greedy, too!

Amado

Dear Amado,

Thank you - and how tragic for all concerned!

Dear Charles,

I wasn't speaking to you in that post! Fr. Gregory wouldn't want to push me over a cliff, at least not without a parachute!

Dear djs,

I hope you did get some lunch after all!

Alex

I just watched a video clip found somewhere on the net- cnn I think- of an interview done by Mr Schiavo. In it he states he is proud of his relationship with 'the other woman' and proud of having a child with her, and furthermore states "This is what Terri would want for me."

As for Terri's wishes- don't you think if it was her wish to not have a feeding tube, as discussed PRIOR to her accident, she would have never had that tube placed in the first place??

Sam