More "Defense of Marriage" Hypocrisy

I was wandering around the website of the Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government (www.werg.org), and came across their position paper on the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). (You can find it at: http://www.werg.org/papers/DOMA.htm). I have often wondered why those “defending marriage” concentrate on homosexual marriage instead of their own divorces, which to me seems to be the highest hypocrisy. What are the thought processes behind believing that homosexual marriage – people getting married - is more of a threat to marriage than getting divorced – ending a marriage? I won't go into detail on the hypocrisy of this so-called “Defense of Marriage” as I have done that elsewhere. What I found particularly interesting about this paper was that they specifically mention that marriage is forever. Quoting from their position paper:

“Marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman and was created by God to be a life-long, sexually exclusive relationship”

“More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the 'union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.'"

Since they make it a point to mention – twice – that marriage is for life, you'd think that they would be especially concerned about divorce, wouldn't you? Yet there is no mention of divorce whatsoever. If they truly believe that marriage should be forever, why isn't the “Defense of Marriage Act” about divorce? Why doesn't WERG's position paper on the “Defense of Marriage Act” speak about divorce? Why aren't they pushing for a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce?

As it turns out, there hasn't always been such a need to “defend marriage”. It used to be much harder to get a divorce in the U.S. than it is now. Although Oklahoma has had a “no fault” divorce law since 1953, the rest of the nation didn't pass no fault divorce laws until the example was set by the State of California. They say “as California goes, so goes the nation”, and that turns out to be the case here. In 1969, the Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, signed into law the “Family Law Act”, which eliminated the need to show evidence of wrongdoing to obtain a divorce. Most other states quickly followed suit.

It is interesting to note that, twenty years before signing no fault divorce into law, Ronald Reagan had himself been divorced, and is the only divorced person ever to become President the United States. (His first wife, Jane Wyman, had sued for divorce on the grounds of “mental cruelty”, although there is also speculation that Jane had been involved in an affair that contributed to the divorce.) What irony that a man greatly admired by the “Defense of Marriage” crowd is in many ways responsible for the real threat to marriage – divorce.

I hate to keep harping on the hypocrisy of the “Defense of Marriage” supporters, but the logic of their position escapes me. I challenge those who are genuinely concerned about marriage to work to reduce or eliminate divorce in America before worrying about who else may or may not get married.