Someone should try to amend the FMA to say that marriage is defined as the lifetime union between a man and a woman. Let's see if congressmen in the religion industry's pocket will suddenly support an anti-divorce amendment. This could then be used in a whisper campaign to show that Sen. Santorum supports adultery.

Texas schoolbooks officially define marriage as a lifetime union between a man and a woman. I wonder if the kids from broken homes put much faith in the education they're getting after reading that.

Seriously it would be a good question to the FMA backers as to why it shouldn't be a lifetime committment if they are serious about defending the institution of marriage.

I believe it is a lifetime committment. I also believe in allowing for divorce even though it is obvious that the one thing that government has done that has allowed for the breakup of marriages is having brought in liberal divorce laws. Those liberal divorce laws make sense in allowing a clean end to marriages that are already over (or should be over in the case of abuse or persistent adultery) in reality if not in legal status. But to support the FMA and ignore divorce law is certainly hypocritical.

You are on to something. This could expose the hypocracy big time.

DrM, I think that's a great idea. How about pitching that to HRC or Lambda Legal?

Let's start saying the FMA is a way to get rid of no-fault divorce laws and laying the plan to only allow divorce in the case of spousal abuse that results in conviction.