I originally posted this in another thread, but realized it may not get read... Here's an update for those of you who like to stay current on social issues: "Congressman Under Fire For 'Outlaw Divorce' Remarks by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff July 20, 2006 - 7:00 pm ET (Washington) A Tennessee Democrat is under fire from Republicans over comments made earlier this week during the House debate on banning same-sex marriage. Rep Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.) lambasted House Republicans accusing the party of wasting time voting on amending the Constitution to block gay marriage - a vote GOP leadership knew was unwinnable - when it should be dealing with issues like Iraq and the economy. "If we truly want to protect marriage, we should look and do all the things we must to go after the evils that threaten each and every one of our marriages," Rep Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.) said. "These are the evils of divorce, adultery and abuse." Davis also said that divorced people, adulterers and child abusers should be prevented from running for office. "The amount of divorce that has occurred in this country has become a threat to marriage," he said. "What do our children learn when they see their parents getting divorced left and right, only to remarry and get divorced again? What kind of example does that set? "Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example," he said. Some House Republicans are calling the remarks irresponsible while others are demanding a public apology. Davis's spokesperson said the comments did not mean the Congressman was going to introduce legislation but to point out the marriage issue was being brought up by Republicans as an election year ploy. "The intent of the Congressional speech was not to say that he intends to introduce legislation making divorce and adultery a felony," Tom Hayden told The Tennessean newspaper. "Rather the intent was to point out the purely partisan nature and timing of the amendment." The proposed amendment was rejected in House of Representatives on Tuesday. It fell 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority they needed. A similar proposed amendment failed to get enough votes last month in the Senate." The I underlined one portion to point out a blindingly, glaringly, inconsistent attitude on the hill. This is what we are dealing with. I am just nearly speechless <?> that any legislator would have the audacity to think it's ok to have a constitutional amendment against homosexuals, to "protect" marriage, but bans on divorce irresponsible??????