I never claimed I’d been married for X years, I simply said I commend folks who do manage to have a life long marriage. I however don’t condemn someone who marriage didn’t last.
I also learned long ago not to meddle or judge based on who did the actual filings for Divorce, marriages are complicated private things that exist between 2 people and God. Whatever works for a couple so be it, but I’m not going to meddle in, or judge, their affairs.
I can personally know plenty of couples who’s marriage arrangements are far from traditional, and the pious would condemn them for their actions, yet they have been married for decades, and it seems to work for them. I know others who are some of the most pious people I know who have married only to be divorced inside of 5 years.
My critique is not that Romney has what appears to be a happy marriage, I commend him for that, my critique is, that he is trying to use that fact as though its something that has a huge significance. Obviously some will say, you’ve married 3 times your character sucks, and perhaps it does.. but if it does, I think you’d be able to find better example than someone is lousy at being married. Or, perhaps, just continues to marry the wrong people.
Romney really needs to make a compelling argument for himself, and he hasn’t, and can’t. Romney has to own RomneyCare, he did it, he fought for it, he wanted it, and someone who thinks government has the right to punish an individual for merely breathing under penalty of law is not a man who’s world view I want in the White House.
My point was (and it wasn’t a criticism of you, just pointing out what the argument had been) was that by saying you “commend” some folks, you “imply” that the other folks don’t deserve commendation.
That’s the argument style I am rejecting — the argument that you can’t say something nice about one group of people because people NOT in that group will be offended.
It’s like a rock band at a concert, saying “Fans in Kansas City are the Greatest!!!”, and having some fan visiting from another state complaining that the band attacked his state.
I certainly agree that “who did the filing” isn’t the important question. We know in Gingrich’s case that HE did the cheating.
It is sad that being married to the same woman your entire life is “commendable”, and not the vast norm. I’m not saying it has huge significance, but I think it’s sad that a candidate can’t say he’s happily married to his first wife and not get ATTACKED for “attacking” other candidates who aren’t.
I didn’t make this about Romney; the argument against him would have applied equally if Bachman, Santorum, or Perry had said that they were still married happily to their first husband/wife.
We attacked Giuliani for having multiple marriages when he was running in 2008. I think the “acceptability” of the argument seems to be based here on who is making the argument, and who it is made against, and not the underlying argument itself. I guess I took a chance because it was Romney; I’m not “defending” Romney, I’m defending the argument. Like saying the KKK has a right to free speech.