I think it's fair to say settingsitting's view is indicative of a very literal, fundamentalist version of Christianity and not held by all Christians. (Of course she is at liberty to say that those who do not adhere to her particular interpretation are not "proper" Christians, but I hope she won't go down that line). My view, back when I did go to church regularly, was that it would be crazy for God to take the view that any other sin/mistake you made, you could repent, honestly say you would try to do better, "be washed clean in the blood of the lamb" or whatever other metaphor you want to use for forgiveness, and start again - and that sin could be anything from fibbing about your maths homework to your teacher through to murder - but choosing the wrong partner in marriage - nope, no fresh start on that one! A crazy interpretation in my opinion.
I think it makes much more sense to see Christ's views in the gospels as being aimed at a particular historical and social situation, one where men could easily divorce their wives if they just got tired of them, leaving them penniless and social outcasts, while women had no such right to divorce (NB, as far as I understand this is still the situation in ultra-orthodox interpretations of Judaism - religiously, a wife has a right to a separation, but not to a divorce, only the man can instigate divorce). And it was against this particular social and cultural background that Jesus made his pronouncements, not as a "for all time and in all circumstance, including when your husband's beating the crap out of you" pronouncement. But then I was a liberal Christian, and my views were probably coloured by the fact that my mother had left her emotionally abusive first marriage, and then spent 46 happy years up to her death in her second marriage to my father - if you're going to try to tell me the first one was a holy sacrament and the second one was simply an adulterous liaison, I'm going to tell you you're talking crap.