> Dana wrote: > I am not for the government trampling family rights, and you know it. I just > don't think family rights should extend to murdering your wife, but > apparently they still do. >
So maybe I was too provocative, and I apologize if so, but I do see it that way. At some point we have to decide that the government steps out and, to me, it's at the point of marriage. For me it's appalling that I'd have to create a "living will" which is solely for the purpose of preventing the government from trampling on my choice of spouse and our private choices for our private lives. Marriage is a choice, divorce is a choice. There's a small grey area for battered spouse, etc. But the law should err on the side of the family - not the government. And to the extent that the government can intrude on family rights with no concrete evidence (this does not include hearsay) of a reason, that's trampling family rights. When you support that, as you did in the Schiavo case, are not advocating that the gov't retain the ability to intrude, without concrete evidence, on family life? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:213613 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
