So Who's Destroying the Institution of Marriage?

*Subject:* Heterosexual marriage is sacred???

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his
children to marry
Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months
after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had
nursed him through
the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced

Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced

George Will - divorced

Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have
six marriages and
four divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old,
has been married
three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push
the "Defense of
Marriage Act."
The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is
"Bob Barr...WHICH
marriage are you defending?!?

Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced

Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married
to Liz Taylor.)

Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced

Henry Kissinger - divorced

Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced

Sen. John McCain of Arizona - divorced

Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced

Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National
Convention Keynote
Speaker - divorced

So ... homosexuals are going to destroy the institution
of marriage?

The Republicans are doing okay all by themselves.

A friend sent me this list and asked me to circulate it; all Republicans of course although in fairness I recognize a couple of moderates among them. It isn't the number of marriages that bothers me; divorce is common and cuts across party lines. I've been married more than once and we could probably compile a similar list by going through a list of Democratic politicians.

It's the hypocrisy. For better or worse, divorce is an epidemic. Why don't we hear more about that? Where is the outrage? Why isn't there an outcry from the religious right for a Constitutional Amendment?

Because the politicians and other public figures would have to look at themselves first. It's far easier to score points with the religious right by supporting an Amendment they know won't get past the Senate. And it's certainly easier to attack a minority. We've had lots of practice with that.

The FMA is dead and will probably remain that way. The religious right knows that. Our fight now is in the states. Domestic partners laws don't go far enough, even in California and we're in danger of losing even that.

It may not be the first item on many of our lists but for me it goes right to the heart of individual freedom and rights. And of course they won't stop with homosexuals. They're much more ambitious than that.