I think the guy's point is that a nation whose family law courts are so patently screwed cannot possibly be in a position to preach "morality" ... at home or abroad. And screwed-up they are ... how else to explain Bush's coming out in favor of Hillary Clinton's iniatives toward "divorcing parents" in the wake of the Little Elian saga?
Family is the heart of every human society and the measure of any civilization's success. The fact our marriage and family courts have become so hostile to family is a legitimate source of concern over ... if not also suspicion of ... our government's thinking to preach morals.
It's about as ludicrous as contracepting Christians who purposefully exclude God from the marriage bed thinking to condemn homosexuals because -- for them -- children are but an Option of marriage.
Had the writer couched his argument in the same terms you used, askel, he would have built a better argument and garnered some regard from this quarter. But he used the language of victimhood to justify his cause, and basically crafted a selective argument that fails to provide the reader with a full picture of what happened to his family. He then nonsensically ties his personal travails into whether the principles upon which the United States was built deserve to be defended by "patriots." Jasonc, in his usual brilliant fashion, dispatched the writer dispositively by quoting Chesterton, but the writer failed to understand a single word. I have no sympathy for him.