This has been a troubling situation. Aside from the 'husband', the similarity legally between this and the Gonzales event are striking. Albeit, with Gonzales the Attny General of the US sent in Federal Agents to remove the boy. I just think it's telling how a Democrat administration vs a Republican administration reacts.

All concerned need to make themselves smart by reading the GAL reports during the long legal struggle. The independent reports all supported Michael in his struggles. Also, remember the courts didn't do anything besides support the legal guardian's decisions, the judiciary didn't make policy or abrogate their collective responsibility. If you don't agree with the law of making the surviving or cognizant spouse the legal guardian, then change the law.

Re: adultery

I don't seem to recall for over a decade anyone being hammered by a criminal charge of adultery in civilian society. To resurrect the statute by hammering the husband in this case would be obvious selective enforcement and possibily violate the equal protection clause.

On a completely tangential comment, the US military seems to be the only institution of government still applying the law in a rather active sense. When Kelly Flynn's lawyer accused the government of making her a target of selective enforcement, several days later the Secty of the AF was able to show that over 66 male officers had been charged or discharge for the same offense in the previous two years. Don't ask, don't tell also applies to heterosexual behavior in the military as well. Once known, it is dealt with, something the gay rights activist don't talk about.

No, not all of the GAL reports supported Michael, the first one asked that the tube not be removed because of the Severe Conflict of Interest of Michael...namely money and a live-in girlfriend.

Read both of them, not just the second one!

It's against military regulations to cohabit, but soldiers are not charged under the UCMJ in most circumstances. It's also against the UCMJ to have relationships with married individuals, but yet it happens and most soldiers are not charged. Michael Schiavo spent the first 4 years after Terri's accident trying to do everything he could, but it was a hopeless case. His in-laws told him to move on with his life and now they are using this as a weapon against him. Anyone else who lived up to their promises to his/her mate usually would be complimented for their devotion, but in this case Michael is being condemned.

Last week, the NY Times reported that death by starvation would not be painful to Ms. Schiavo. This morning (Monday), in a TV interview, the lawyer from the Schindlers indicated that Ms. Schiavo had now been deprived of sustenance for so long a period that, even if the tube were reinserted, her death would be inevitable and that she was now being given a morphine drip for her pain! What happened to all that "euphoria" she was supposed to experience?

Not condemning Michael, Copper, just suggesting perhaps he could have relinquished his guardianship, or should have been forced to.

Michael will come out of this as the "Bad Guy" for not divorcing Terri and turning her care over to her loving parents, which would have avoided all this controversy. Could it be because of $$$?

Well, Lucifer, we will never know. Michael Schiavo had his--and Terri's--financial records sealed in 1993 or 1994. Near the beginning of the accident, there was a $700,000 account set up for her care. If she died before it was exhausted, he got whatever was left over. Is any left? Does he have other policies taken out on her? Who knows... the records are sealed. A bit fishy, but I tend to think that he know damn well that if he starts living the good life, everyone will notice. There are alos sworn affidavits by MULTIPLE nurses quoting him as saying things like "when is that bitch gonna die? Can't you do anything? Oh, I'm gonna be rich." But to be fair, nobody knows...

As far as the selective enforcement argument, that's irrelevant. Anyone who has ever watched proceedings in family court know that adultery statutes are used thousands of times a day, if not to throw guys in jail, at least to grant divorce, which is the issue here. Michael Shiavo was unfaithful to his wife, has serious conflicts of interest, and his dedication to her best interests are NOT beyond reproach

Last rights - you said: suggesting perhaps he could have relinquished his guardianship, or should have been forced to.

First of all, everyone should take great care when they get married and should feel that his/her mate would make the right decisions for them. Why should Michael have to relinquish his guardianship? Would you relinquish your guardianship of your children to your parents because they felt they could do a better job with your children? I'm sure you would not.

Second of all, you want Michael to be forced to give up his rights, but how would you feel if your rights were being violated -- ie., 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, etc. I'm sure you get my point. You wouldn't want to be forced to give up your rights and would fight to protect them. Michael is fighting for his rights and what he believes his wife wanted. The courts have ruled that this is the case and whether or not you like the rulings it is still the law. If you don't like the laws, then you must change the laws and not pick and choose which laws you will abide by.

Wow, Copper, I guess I said a lot with few words.

Michael had de facto relinquished his claim to be Terri's husband by fathering children and cohabitating with another woman. Adultery, by law grounds for a divorce. Few could argue Terri would want her husband starting a new family while still married to her - that seems more certain than whether she wanted life support.

Fewer still could argue that the man who now had a family (for which I'm happy for him, by the way) elsewhere was really acting above and beyond all other consideations in the best interest of Terri Schiavo.

Meanwhile, her parents are absolutely willing to do so.

Having de facto relinquished his status as husband, a de jure ruling on same hardly seems out of the question. As I said already, Terrri's desires in such a case would certainly be clearer than her desire for death by dehydration.

A very disturbing fact has come from this entire Terri Schiavo fiasco. First: We have a pipsqueek State Court Judge who has told Congress to stick it and defy a Congressional Supoena,( and get away with it) 2nd, We have Federal Judges violate the law and get away with it with no reprocussions, ie "The Palm Sunday Law Passed by Congress and signed by the President on Mar, 19, 2005". These two instances are but a few, We have all seen Federal Judges legislate from the bench in spite of the constutation and cite European Law as the basis for thier ruleing. In short, we have a runaway Judicial System and neither Reps or Demos, will do anything about it.
I wonder why we ask our brave young men to fight a war for freedon and democracy in Iraq and Afganistan while we violate the very basis of democracy here at home. As a life long Republican and being 72 years of age, I have seen many things, but I have never seen anything as cruel and inhumane as what is happening to Terri Schiavo. Whats wrong with our leader to allow this immoral and unjust event to happen?
I will never promote or vote for the Demos and as a result of this torture, far worse than anything from Al Quida or the Iraqi Terrorist, beng perpetrated on Terri Schiave without reprocussions, I will not promote or vote for the Reps either.

Last "Rights - I believe you have every right to your beliefs and your thoughts, and I am very happy to know we can have a rational discussion.

You may not know, but the Schindlers encouraged Michael to move on with his life and find happiness with someone else (in the court documents and not disputed by the parents). Now all of a sudden the parents are using this against him. It's a no win situation.

Ummm... Copper, do you think that "get along with his life" might have meant get a divorce, turn over our daughter's care, and go marry whoever you want, or maybe it was "go ahead and deny our daughter therapy(which was her only chance to get any better), food, fluids, and life".

Chad - the parents never encouraged him to get a divorce prior to them telling him to move on with his life. You might also want to consider that Michael did not divorce his wife because he knew her parents would not follow her wishes. Please go read the background info on this case.

Here is one of the sites:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

A person on a respirator is not denied the right to breathe when the machine is turned off. The death is natural, not assisted. Terri is being deprived of nourishment- artificial or otherwise. In my opinion, regardless of the background info on this case, absolutely nothing excuses Michael Schiavo's actions now.

RE: GAL report

The GAL report by R. Pearse recommended against granting the petition (by Michael) noting the presense of the financial reward from the passing of Terri providing a conflict of interest. Michael challenged Pearse's report saying that he formally offered to forgo all financial rewards, but that was never mentioned in the report. Pearse did acknowledge that he had views on the issue that were not made known before he became GAL.

Sorry Cooper, but I've seen soldiers facing courts martial for cohabiting and fraternization. Had to sit as the officer for a special courts martial on one. Like all crime, you don't get every robber, rapist, or murder, but an effort generally is made to reduce the level of acts. When it becomes an issue of moral and discipline, the commands I've been in have acted and used various administrative or judicial means to resolve it.

Don, if you had read my post properly you would have seen I used the word "most", not "all". For the most part, people in the military are not charged for cohabiting and fraternization. It also depends in which branch of the military you are in - the Army is more prone on bringing charges, while the AF is more lax.

When this is all said and done, the only hole that will come out of this whole fiasco with something to show for it will be Felos. Being a Lawyer, and as all lawyers, they can smell money 5 miles away. Felos will take every last dime michael has then dump him like a hot potato and poor ole mikey will be destitute, which is presisely what he deserves. If the coroner in Pinellas County doesn't whitewash the investigation we will know exactly what the cause of her condition was and explain how she got so many broken bones found in the skeletal x rays previously.