Divorcee Non Grata?

As my friends will attest, I have a pretty low opinion of the President. When I hear something about him that seems underhanded, close-minded or shortsighted, it doesn’t surprise me. I don’t trust him, I don’t like him, and I think he’s leading our country in the wrong direction.

But then I read something like this, from Paul Gilfeather at the UK’s Sunday Mirror:

GEORGE Bush has banned Camilla Parker Bowles from the White House - because she is a divorcee.

The unprecedented snub has effectively sabotaged Charles's plan to take his bride on a Royal tour of America later this year.

The trip would have been the pair's first official tour as a married couple.

But the US President - a notoriously right-wing Christian and reformed alcoholic - told aides it was "inappropriate" for him to be playing host to the newly-weds, who
are both divorcees.

This just plain doesn’t make any sense. So much so that I don’t think it’s true at all.

I mean, what would be the point? I understand pissing off gay folks, making them feel like their relationships are substandard, because it energizes the bigots of the religious right. And now that the election’s over, and the conventional wisdom says that it was the turnout of evangelicals that tipped the scales, the President understandably would want to take a small break from doling out corporate largess to throwing the religious right a bone.

But this is a weird-ass bone. Is it worth it to snub our staunchest ally because their antiquated faux leadership got divorced and remarried? I don’t see how this even caters to the religious right – as unpleasant as divorces are (and as weird as the oddball “covenant marriages” that are springing up in certain states are), is the religious right that strongly against divorce? If so, why is there such a high divorce rate among born-agains?

Surely Bush works with people with a divorce or two under their belts every day. And heck, his own brother just got one (and just to bump the search-engine hits for my blog, I’ll add that underage Thai prostitutes were involved. Hear that, Google? Underage Thai Prostitutes. And… my hits just went through the roof*). Does he mean to tell so many of his constituents that their new marriages are worthless?

Nah. Can’t be. I think someone – probably at the Mirror – is misinterpreting something wildly. That is, if this story wasn’t fabricated out of whole cloth. But something smells here – and for once it doesn’t smell like Bush.

Rob

*If I break 30, that’s “through the roof” in Rob-land.