A logical approach to 'protecting marriage'

Yesterday the Federal Marriage Amendment was defeated, again. But I don't think the GOP was ready for Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) to be even more serious than they are about "protecting marriage" (ThinkProgress):

Marriage is for life, and this amendment needs to include that basic tenet. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the amendment to outlaw divorce in this country. Going further, Mr. Speaker, I believe in fidelity. Adultery is an evil that threatens the marriage and the heart of every marriage, which is commitment. [...]

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we must address spousal abuse and child abuse. Think of how many marriages end in a divorce or permanent separation because one spouse is abusive. [...]

This is why if we are truly serious about protecting marriage to the point we will amend the Constitution, we should extend the punishment of abuse to prevent those who do such a hideous act from ever running for an elected position anywhere.

We should also prevent those who commit adultery, or get a divorce, from running for office. Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example. If we want those watching on C-SPAN to actually believe we are serious about protecting marriage, then we should go after the other major threats to the institution. Not just the threat that homosexuals may some day be allowed to marry in a state other than Massachusetts.

I wonder how many Republicans turned white (or rather, more white) listening to that speech.