With Friends Like This, Who Needs James Dobson?
Apparently opponents of Florida’s bigot amendment have a new ally. One who, some might insist, knows something about government interference in marriage:
Without digging up the whole, best-left-buried Terri Schiavo affair, one thing simply must be said: The last person on Earth who has any business wailing and gnashing his teeth about what the nasty government did to his marriage is Michael Schiavo.
Michael Schiavo insisted, and apparently still insists, that his marriage to Terri was entitled to the respect and deference normally afforded to any (heterosexual) marriage. But he forfeited any claim to such respect and deference when he committed illegal and immoral adultery, siring two illegitimate children in the process.
In any sane system of domestic relations law, Terri’s parents would have been able to seek a divorce for Terri on her behalf (or at least been able to seek a guardian ad litem to pursue it). And in any sane system of domestic relations law, such a divorce would have been summarily granted. Michael Schiavo, adulterer, was simply not an innocent party here. He was the victimizer, not the victim.
Gays and gay-friendly supporters of same-sex marriage are doing themselves a huge disservice by accepting the public support of a despicable sleazebag like Michael Schiavo. It boggles the mind. We shouldn’t be more willing to lose the moral high ground than the referendum vote.
Previously:
–Michael Schiavo and the Powers — and Duties — of Spouses
—
On something of a sidetrack, those who are unfamiliar with the infamous pseudo-libertarian “oppose gay marriage because government should get out of the marriage business” blather, you can find heaps of it in the comment thread to this Hit & Run post highlighting the Schiavo PSA, and also the thread to this recent post at the same libertarian blog. One succinct example:
I recognize the importance of government treating its citizens fairly and equally, straight or gay, but I would vote for these propositions too, albeit for the opposite reason of most of their supporters — because I’m generally opposed to expanding the powers granted to government.
As if “allowing the constitutionalization of discrimination against an insular minority” is not a case of “expanding the powers granted to government.” If this asinine reasoning is anything close to the opinion of the median semi-educated libertarian, then the entire libertarian movement has been one colossal failure.
Filed under: Gay Rights and Issues, Society, Religion, Culture Wars
In any sane system of domestic relations law, Terri’s parents would have been able to seek a divorce for Terri on her behalf (or at least been able to seek a guardian ad litem to pursue it). And in any sane system of domestic relations law, such a divorce would have been summarily granted. Michael Schiavo, adulterer, was simply not an innocent party here. He was the victimizer, not the victim.
You have a very interesting definition of "sane" if it includes allowing Terri's parents, who encouraged Michael to date other women after Terri was diagnosed to be in a PVS, to sue for divorce on her behalf because of his "adultery". Terri's parents did indeed seek to have Michael removed as guardian as far back as 1994, and they were denied because there was no evidence to support such an action.
And your insistence that the "illegitimate" children that were born in 2002 and 2004 are evidence of Michael Schiavo's "victimizing" Terri strikes me as especially distasteful. Michael's initial request to have the court decide what Terri's true wishes were came in 1997. The Schindler's dragged out the process via their court actions, making it impossible for Michael Schiavo to "get on with his life", as they had encouraged him to do in the first years after Terri's collapse.
Why do you have such a reckless disregard for the facts surrounding this case when commenting on it?
[Kip replies: You're the one putting the word "adultery" in air quotes and then suggesting that I'm the one showing a "reckless disregard for the facts"? Get real. In any case, it is Mr. Schiavo who is insisting, post hoc, that the issue of marital supremacy should be dispositive, not ancillary factors of Terri's wishes, prior indications by the parents, etc. He is essentially saying, now, "I was her husband, end of discussion." And that definitely makes him a despicable sleazebag, no matter how much detritus you try to bury his argument in.]