Rep. Matthew Hill: Hates Gay [Unions]; Legislatively O.K. With "Traditional" Adulterous Unions

I found the following new Rep. Matthew Hill FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) Issue regarding at the Issues: Pro-Traditional Marriage section posted to Hill's 2006 campaign web site:

Issues
Pro-Traditional Marriage
Matthew firmly believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. He supports amending Tennessee's Constitution to recognize marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.

So if we muddle through all the codewords (e.g. "Traditional" inferring "Biblical" and "Pro" inferring that a voter can only be either for or against the issue) and follow Rep. Hill's desire to "adulterate" the Tennessee Constitution with an appeal to fear --- and more specially under the pretext of protecting heterosexual marriage --- one can reasonably conclude that a "Pro-Traditional Marriage Admendment" would logically recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the remainder of their lives.

Why does Hill's "Pro-Traditional Marriage Amendment" stance duck this important aspect of "traditional" (Biblical) marriage --- if the state has the power to prevent gays from forming civil unions, then the state under Hill's distorted version of reality also has the "pro-traditional marriage" authority to limit the legal recognition of divorced heterosexual individuals to legally marry and to also enjoy other benefits provided by such currently legally recognized marriages in Tennessee.

Taken to a more far right extreme, Hill's "Pro-Traditional" marriage attack on the Tennessee Constitution could go as far as not legally recognizing the children of a divorced and remarried parent(s) as being legitimate!

And with the possible exceptions for "Biblical" divorce allowed (e.g., divorce following by the act of adultry committed by a spouse) --- Hill's "pro-traditional marriage" attack on the Tennessee Constitution is rather nonsensical, after all, hetrosexual marriages in Tennessee are demonstratively more threatened by heterosexual adultry involving at least one of the traditional heterosexual marriage partners than would ever by directly threatened by the distant civil union between two gay partners.

So why is Rep. Matthew Hill seemingly O.K. with providing heterosexual adulterers in Tennessee a free pass within his concept of the propsed "Pro-Traditional Marriage" amendemnt to the Tennessee Constitution...???