The constitutional amendment proposed to preserve the sanctity of marriage is aimed at preventing a sliver of the population from having same-sex ceremonies. It is silent on the massive number of marriages that have been chopped down by divorce.

“What God has joined together, let no man put asunder,” said Jesus, according to Mark.

Yet this is routinely ignored by otherwise devout people. Indeed, non-denominational born-again Christians and Baptists have among the highest divorce rates in the nation, according to a survey conducted by the Barna Research Group, whose founder is a Christian. Agnostic and atheist couples are more likely to stay married.

Outside of Nevada, where quickie divorces are legal, the four states with the highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt: Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma.

Comparing regions, the Northeast easily has the lowest divorce rate, led by Massachusetts, which just happens to be the only state where gay marriage has been legalized.

I don’t have any firm explanations for these figures (maybe it’s all that judging), but it is puzzling that marriage preservationists are more focused on the speck than the beam.

Fear of the unknown. A possible explanation for relaxed attitudes toward people who divorce is that everyone knows good people who have been in failed marriages. The same phenomenon is true as more and more gays and lesbians come out of the closet. The more people get to know them, the harder it is to pass judgment.

I think this best explains why opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians is eroding. It also explains the urgency behind political acts such as Referendum 65 and the push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Proponents know that today is the high-water mark for opposition to gays and lesbians. So the best bet is to lock in current attitudes before they change.

Proof of politics. It’s interesting to study the standards of proof required by the Bush administration before it will act.

When justifying the Iraq invasion, little direct evidence was needed. There was plenty of skepticism within the intelligence community and various branches of government for the claims about weapons of mass destruction, threats to the United States and links to al-Qaida.

But President Bush didn’t want to wait for better evidence,and he didn’t feel the need to bother with skeptics. As he said in the run-up to the war, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

But on the topic of global warming and its human causes, the president readily accommodates skeptics demanding final proof. In this case, the proof is a lot more solid and the consensus much wider than the “clear evidence of peril” posed by Saddam’s purported arsenal.

It’s almost like politics drives these decisions.