Another precedent being set by the courts is that a man who has given up on a marriage still retains legal rights in that marriage. There is nothing but a piece of paper holding Terri and Michael Schiavo together. I have tried my hardest to keep from making ad hominem attacks against Michael and I apologize if I have stepped over the line at times. Some liberal commentators have said that Republican action in this case has shown a disdain for the sanctity of marriage.

I disagree.

It is my respect for that institution that guides my philosophy here. Michael Schiavo has not honored the vows he took to Terri. Those vows were not dependent upon Terri's condition - in fact, in most wedding vows, the couple makes an explicit promise to love "in sickness and in health." One cannot say for sure how Michael feels about Terri, but his actions are not those of one who still respects the woman he took as his wife.

By this, I do not mean the removal of her feeding tube - I mean the infidelity. And it is infidelity. Michael Schiavo is still married - it's the basis for his legal argument in this case. Terri's condition does not invalidate his responsibility to honor the boundaries of his marriage. Don't get me wrong - having a wife in that condition could not have been easy, but vows should not only be kept when it's easy to do so.

It's clear that in action, Michael Schiavo considers his marriage over, because he considers Terri dead. But as the above information makes clear, she's not dead. Eventually, her brain will deteriorate to the point where she cannot breathe and she will die. That is dependent, of course, on whether she continues to receive basic food and water. In my opinion, palliative care to keep Terri comfortable should be given until her brain stops functioning. Absent of knowing Terri's wishes for sure, she should be allowed to live with what people in her medical condition are routinely given.

Her parents are willing to provide that care. Her husband is not. But is her husband really still her husband in any meaningful sense? The courts think so. I do not. That's where I stand on this issue, ultimately.

UPDATE: I just realized that I forgot to mention what action of Schiavo's I find objectionable - his relationship with another woman with whom he has had children.