Guess who doesn't know my wishes about life/death: my family! These are not things you discuss with the family — hell, you can't even talk religion or politics with your family most of the time, let alone your living will! ... The real issue here IS whether or not the husband can act as the legal guardian of his wife's life-and-death decisions. Talk about preserving the "sanctity of marriage!" If it's as sacred as anti-gay-marriage lobbyists say, why are all those same people now attacking it?
If the marriage is so sacred, and if the bond between "one man and one woman" is so powerful, why are the same people (Frist, for example) the ones leading the charge to change the rights of control away from the husband/wife team and back to the wife's family, and worse, the federal government?
I'm sorry, but in my eyes, if you came down on the side of the Schindler family on this, you never, ever again get to use the term "sanctity of marriage." I feel the same way about the opponents of gay marriage — they don't think of marriage as beautiful and sacred, they think of it as a way of enforcing their Judaeo-Christian views of the world on society. That's not sacred, that's not beautiful, and that's what they're doing with Terri and Michael Schiavo: disposing of the sanctity of marriage in favor of a social ideology.
For more on this, see Austin Cline's article.
» go to Atheists of Silicon Valley homepage «