it was my judgement, in that case, that there were enough suspicious factors to justify at least further review of the situation before anything irreversible was done. I grant you that this is a situation that would be hard ot forsee and make a law about.
On 8/18/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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:213627 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
