Robert McCartney gets all selectively sanctimonious

What did I tell you? As soon as people criticized the actions of Page Melton (now Page Ivie), the powers that be at the Washington Post came down on them, characterizing them as judgmental cowards. Columnist Robert McCartney goes on to say that those who object to a woman divorcing her disabled husband so she can marry another man and get on with her life are just out of touch with the American mainstream:

These writers have every right to voice their disapproval of Ivie’s actions on the grounds that their view of the marriage covenant is different from hers – and, given the national divorce rate, different from that of most Americans.  

 I agree with Mr. McCartney that hateful comments offer nothing to the discussion. No matter how much we disagree, we should always try to respond with charity. However, Robert McCartney has never uttered a peep over the hateful comments directed towards Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, clergy, Catholics in general, or any one else with whom he has ideological differences. No, it is only when the comments go over the top in criticism of one of his beloved liberals that he gets his feathers ruffled.

And surely Mr. McCartney isn't suggesting that because many Americans are choosing to solve their marital issue by getting a divorce, we shouldn't think getting a divorce is any big deal? Is that how he determines what is right and wrong? Once over fifty percent of people engage in a behavior it becomes morally acceptable and good? I can't imagine having to consult the polls every time I needed to make a moral decision. I will just continue to base my choices on the firm principles of natural law as taught by the Catholic Church, built on the Rock of Peter. The shifting sands of popular culture offer no foundation for building an ethical life.
Page Melton did what she did so that she could become Page Ivie. She can lay out all the justification for her actions that she wants. I will leave it to God to pass judgment. What I can say is that no matter how she wants to spin it she did not keep her vow to stay married to her husband in sickness and health until parted by death. Her first husband is very much alive and she is no longer legally married to him. So be honest. Don't sugar coat it. Admit what you did. You found being married to a man with brain damage was just too hard so you quit. You divorced him. You married someone else. You still look after your first husband. But you are no longer legally married to him.  If it is all so wonderful and noble, why try to paint it as something it is not?