hon, I think you hit all the points on this debacle. Call it America, the Republicans or whoever. But the double standards are being worked here because wasn’t it just a few months that Bush and his pals were all over the so-called sanctity of marriage and that if gay’s married that so called sanctity wouldn’t be upheld. And if that were so damn important as they insisted it was, then none of this shit betwixt the husband and her family would have ever grown the legs it has now. It would be his decision as her husband to make that call.

I don't want the "Culture of Life" telling anyone in my family what's best for me.

I choose one flesh because if I didn't trust my husband with my life (or death) then I shouldn't have married him.

Excellent -- EXCELLENT -- piece, Ms. Q.

Ya hit the nail right on the head, sista. Ya can't have it both ways. Unfortunately, that's what politicians are best at...they talk outa both sides of their mouth so they CAN have it both ways.

I do believe that was the most succinctly stated position on this whole debacle that I have read to date. Beautiful! In answer to your question, I choose to be one flesh; however, I don't really agree that allowing a civil (note that I specified civil, not religious, not Christian) marriage ceremony between two gay people violates the sanctity of marriage. I have always felt that the "culture of life" crowd were hypocritical anyway--how can you say it's wrong to cease life support on one side, and support the death penalty on the other?

Perfection, Queenie.

Big Guy is my last stop and I am his, one flesh, final decision for either of us. What we decide for each other will be between us, a bond that goes on for over 33 years now. Even if it were just one year, it still would have been his or my decision for the other. That's the way marriage works.

Queenie, what a wonderful essay.

Well put.

This is bigger than a single life. This is about whether our government has the right to micromanage our individual lives. So far, it seems, the courts say they do not. I just wish the houses of Congress and the occupant on Pennsylvania Ave understood that, too.

Queenie,
this is the first time I've felt compelled to write after finding this blog via Acidman.

I am not married, have never been married, and I might yet not ever be married. That being the case, I agree with the "one flesh" position you post.

BUT, I must take issue with the false dichotomy you've presented, i.e. one flesh vs. Thou shall not kill. I have never seen the Sixth Commandment as saying "Thou shall not kill". What it DOES say is "Thou shall not MURDER". There IS an important distinction between the two meanings.

I'm not going to go on with the legal definition of murder, because I do believe *maybe naively* that people can understand there are times when killing is acceptable (e.g. killing livestock for food, killing in defense of one's own life when threatended to such point, or in times of declared war), but murder is not acceptable (when the attainment of someone else's property or to take advantage of a benefit when someone dies).

In my opinion, Mr.Schaivo seems to be doing the latter*attempting murder*, and not operating in the former *one flesh* when he is still legally defined as being married to one woman, but in a commonlaw marriage with another woman, with whom he's had two children.

AS for the supposed "hypocracy" of the "culture of life" folks espoused by a previous poster, let me relate what I went through last year until my own mother passed away.

She was diagnosed with a brain tumor in 2002 and had surgery in May of that year. There were many serious after effects of the surgery, starting roughly a week after she was released, which were all life threatening, and in fact she did die at one point on the operating table. She did come back to life, however.

Flash forward to May 2003, when she is getting radiation therapy to kill the remaining bit of tumor that was left *as the initial surgery took 10 hours, at which point the anesthetician told the surgeon to stop or risk killing my mother. With me so far?*. This therapy did seem to help her, briefly, but then I noticed her not doing so well.

Flash forward again to early 2004. After a Grand Mal seizure, it is determind that my mother has a recurrence of the tumor, lower in the brain on the brain stem. Inoperable.

Add to this, the problem my mother had with trusting my stepfather, and a growing paranoia she had, plus he dersire to not be on lifesupport from a machine, what do we do?? After she made my younger brother (who is married) in charge of her medical care, and after being told of the inoperable nature of her tumor, my brother and sister in law moved out of their apartment to a home nearby, one which had a room downstairs that became my mother's final resting place until she passed on.

I apologize for the novel. Hell, War and Peace was probably written in less time than it's taken me to write, but I got motivated, so that's my excuse.

To end, I sure have enjoyed reading your thoughts and posts, as they reveal one heck of a woman behind them. You seem to be the epitome of the quote found on THIS t-shirt
which is to say, I compliment you on your sexy mind.

Please keep up the writing, as I'm starting to get the "cold turkey sweats" when I don't see a new post from you.

Most sincerely,
KenS

PS I just got a new bottle of Lagavulin recently. Can't wait to see if it's as good as I remember it!

Ken, thanks for the kind words. With all due respect, though, I must disagree with two of the premises you present. The difference between "shalt not kill" and "shalt not murder" I can buy, but *I* don't see any compelling evidence that Schiavo is, with malice or thought to remuneration, trying to murder his wife. There is no evidence whatsoever to support such an idea - if there were, I hardly think that, with such international media scrutiny, such evidence would still be "hidden". This case has been before so many legal minds that I simply cannot believe that not one of 'em would recognize a murderer when they saw one. Remember, the court has, in the past, had the opportunity to yank custodial rights away from Michael Schiavo in favor of the Schindlers, which they obviously did not do.

Additionally, one flesh is one flesh, even when the other half of that flesh isn't operating as everyone in the situation would prefer. If we suspend the one flesh idea when it suits us, rather than through legal dissolution or legal assignment of another guardian, then we have what amounts to legal chaos in a myriad of other situations.

I'm sorry about your mom. Went through something similar with my grandma two years ago - kept alive only to be tortured to death. It hurts to even think about it. Luckily for us, no judicial issue obtained.

.. even if I were in a vegitative state, I swear I would be dreaming & drooling of Lagavulin... if anything happens to you, dear Queenie, I hope Mr. Mac invites me to the wake... as you know, I am your man...

This is the most well thought out commentary about the Terri Schiavo case. Kudos on every word and I couldn't agree more. The only thing I have to say is "Oh God, I'm single and my SON will be in charge". The boy can't even take care of himself, I'm doomed!

Junebugg, you're not doomed. In most states now, you can execute a "living will" in which you name these end of life circumstances (resuscitation, no resusitation, etc), and you may also name your Conservator (the one to make sure those wishes are carried out). All hospitals have the forms to fill out, will provide a competent witness for you (and they are required to give you the forms before you undergo any elective surgery with a general anaesthetic).

If you are really paranoid about it, get a MedicAlert tag made with the wishes, and a short discription of where the document my be found, and wear the tag.

If nothing else comes out of this case, it should be that ALL states should provide for Living Wills, and everyone should have one.

For a brief, dark moment in American history, I watched in horror as the republicans acted like democrats, democrats acted like republicans, and the Congress and our President pissed on both the sanctity of marriage and the sovereignty of the states.

Brilliant analysis. I am very glad that this issue has started a dialog in America about living wills and executors and the like. I do not like that Congress and the Bush Administration has interjected themselves into a very private and very personal and very emotional decision.

Love your blog and agree with you completely. Only have a couple of extra scenarios for you to explore before the walk to the shops.....

1. What if your husband pushed you under that bus in the first place because you told him you wanted a divorce?

2. What if he didnt love you, didnt honour his marriage vows and didnt give you even reasonable care, but found a crooked judge to ignore all sorts of statutes and say he was doing OK?

Your excellent argument rather depends on which man does the 'putting asunder', the court, the parent, or the husband.

:-)

Why, Cheryl, I'd say that the situation you describe is a conspiracy, and, as such, there should be evidence enough to prove it in a court of law...otherwise, my husband has just committed the perfect crime.

Oh - and thanks for the kind words, too! ;)

Good piece of writing. The conservative blogosphere has morphed into the Angry Left on this one. Apparently seeing a 5 second video loop makes people as much, if not more, of an expert as the 19 judges who examined reams of material, to say nothing of the doctors who actually examined Schiavo

Great Post Queenie.

DOH, Sorry I needed to update my URL.

Well, maybe it shouldn't be, but the state is allowed to not recognize marriages that may be perfectly valid in the eyes of God, etc, like common law marriages in some states. I might consider the oath unconditionally binding, but the state has never been absolutely required to do so. If your husband asserts that you are in fact or in effect dead, is he effectively dissolving the contract?

Well-written, provocative post.

We crossed a line somewhere along the way in this case. It went from being one of many family tragedies played out each year to being political theater. I can understand the parents and siblings of Terri Schiavo disagreeing with her husband and even questioning his motives. I can understand them going to court in the first instance, and perhaps even pursuing a couple of appeals. At that point the parents should have backed off, and the lawyers, politicians, and media should have left it alone.

Now we have a political and media circus on our hands, and the reality is it's none of our business. Not one of us, from the President and the Governor down to me, has any right to be involved.

By the way, I came here on a recommendation from Junebugg. She got it right, again.

I suppose a different view might be appropriate. If you were married in the Church, and I am to assume that you believe in the teachings of said church, than what is your stance on adultary voiding the marriage contract in the eyes of G-d (if not in the eyes of judge Greer)?

When Mr. Schiavo took up with another woman, why does he still have right to speak for his wife. According to the church, he doesn't.

Just an idea. I really hope Terri is not feeling any pain on this.

Defense Guy, I have never in my life heard of a marriage contract being "voided" by adultery. If this were the case, divorce in a case of infidelity would be completely unnecessary - the marriage would already have been dissolved.

For hundreds of years, the Catholic church - the church to which the Schindlers belong - counseled women who were the victims of marital infidelity to pray, and learn to live with it. Nothing voids a marriage contract for a Catholic, save death or annullment.

In the early nineties, the Schindlers by their own admission encouraged Michael Schiavo to date, and admit themselves that before the very mutual unpleasantness over the malpractice settlement, Michael used to bring his girlfriends to meet them, for their approval.

Now he's a dog because he moved on with his life, because he believed, at long last, the diagnosis he refused for years to accept? I have a hard time with the logic in that instance.

Anyway. I just saw Terri's dad on tv. As much as I think they're in the wrong on this, my heart breaks for these people, watching their daughter die in such a horrible way. The real tragedy here is that, in Terri's case, there is no legal provision for a truly humane end.