Having now read the comment in context, I’m sorry I said anything. I took the passage from Byron’s article to mean Mitt had suggested there was something to be very concerned about when someone seeking public office has been married more than once. In context, it seems instead that he was merely observing that being married more than once is, like his religion, something some voters are evidently curious about — probably more curious than such topics are worth in the greater scheme of things. Kathryn’s right. That’s not offensive at all.