No difference between breaking oaths and committing adultery

More than once now the Dallas Morning News has quoted Rep. Robert Wexler's exclamation that the president betrayed his wife and not the nation where he offers, "God help this country if we fail to recognize the difference!" The Fact of the matter is that there is no difference between Clinton's betrayin an oath and committing adultery. This is why I decided to write the following:

Taking an oath for public office is a covenantal contract that, in effect, marries the president, in this case, with our country. Any dishonest, disloyal, and secretive transgression that dishonors the trust held within the context of this marriage is, in essence, adultery. Otherwise, both the oath for public office and the oath of marriage are contracts before God and, converse to Mr. Wexler, I say, "God help this country if we fail to recognize THERE IS NO difference." The problem is that since Mr. Clinton's wife does not seem to think it is a big deal that her husband committed adultery, beyond some political ramifications, apparently Mr. Clinton seems to feel that the "American people" do not care about his adulterous affairs against this Union. Let me point out that, as in a marriage, whatever sins you commit against the least of God's people, you also commit against God. Mr. Clinton's affair has transgressed the sacred moral fabric of the sensitive relationship between a father and his children, as pointed out by Mr. Tiahrt. This nation, much to some people's dislike, was founded as "one nation under God," which, like marriage, makes us "indivisible," so that there may be "liberty and justice for all."