Gotta admit, this is the first time I’ve heard anyone come up with this interpretation of this passage. And I think it’s quite a stretch from the text.
The Roman Catholic Church, which doesn’t hold with divorce, would certainly disagree with that interpretation. Not that I’m a big fan of the RCC, but they did define orthodox interpretation of Scripture during Christianity’s first 14 centuries.
The court can appoint a guardian to represent the afflicted spouse.
Or vanish in a puff of logic. That would be nice, too.
Pat apparently took a lifetime vow to stay far away from logic at all times, so chances of his encountering a puff of logic are vanishingly 
small.
In a divorce? Sorry, but I’d have to see some citation to the law before I’d believe that.
I think I agree with the other RT. My reading of the point is that, certainly, Jesus is saying that a celibate life isn’t for everyone (I seem to recall someone else citing me a similar statement from Paul as far as celibacy being the ideal and marriage a “because it’s not in everyone” sentiment). But I don’t agree with your reading on divorce. For one thing, I think it’s a bit of a torturous reading simply in text terms. But also, it means that divorce is allowable in some cases because there are people who simply aren’t called to lifelong matrimony - which seems essentially equivalent to saying that some people are, by nature, adulterers, or (to use the passage’s phrasing) comitters of sexual immorality, and what’s more that some leeway should be given for such people, which seems surprising. Perhaps it’s just a misunderstanding on my part of Christian attitudes, but I wouldn’t expect someone to get an inbuilt out (other than, of course, repentance) from a situation they got themselves into. If nothing else, are there any other examples of a situation where people simply aren’t “built” for something and so get an out when they enter into it anyway?
Most jurisdictions allow the court to appoint a guardian for mentally incapacitated individuals. This Wiki article cites to a section of the Virginia code:
I understand that a court can appoint someone to act for a mentally incompetent person. What I’m questioning is does the law extend that interest to a divorce case?
It’s not my area of law, but it appears that it extends to divorce cases in California at least:
California Family Code Section 2332(b):
Say, anyone remember Pat’s position on the Terry Schaivo case? She was really gone, but many folks criticised her husband for his outside relationship.
All I remember is that Robertson was strongly opposed to Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube being removed. But if he did criticize her husband Michael for taking up with another woman while still legally married to Terri, that would be perfectly consistent with his position here. He said “if he’s going to do something [with other women], he should divorce her [wife with Alzheimer’s] and start all over again”. Michael Schiavo didn’t divorce Terri. Robertson probably would have been happier if he had, if only because Michael Schiavo would have had no legal right to call for the feeding tube to be removed from his ex-wife.