The Dirty Minds Behind The “Marriage Vow”
by An Ordinary Man (the novel)
I had to smile at the news today that Newt Gingrich has decided to endorse the “Marriage Vow” propounded by a conservative group; Newt is 71 ~ has he finally decided monogamy is where it’s at, or has he gotten too old to care? It might be a dangerous assumption to think it has anything to do with age as some of us apparently remain horn dogs to the end and his wife is certainly attractive enough to keep those embers glowing quite warmly. Although she does have him by the short hairs, since even Newt should not be able withstand another marital situation, I hope she realizes his libido may not have subsided to any significant degree and is willing to consider ways to keep it in check. That, of course, would be no one’s business but theirs and is even somewhat unpleasant to think about. Go ahead and figure out what keeps the two of you content, Newt, but good grief, do NOT tell us what it is.
That’s what made the second take-away from the NY Daily News article so distressing. Although the Vow shrilly trumpets the importance of “faithful monogamy” (which I sort of agree with), it then almost gratuitously rejects same-sex marriages, insisting on nothing less than a Constitutional amendment against it, which, I submit, would work even less well than the amendment against alcohol (which any criminal history buff can tell you empowered Al Capone). Think about it. It is commonly accepted that as many as 20% of all heterosexual marriages are essentially sexless, whether by agreement or otherwise. These people live together, more less in stable households, without doing anything at all to offend society’s pecksniffs ~ although it would be incredibly rude and perverse to speculate too much about that. So too might a significant number of same-sex couples; maybe they just want to enjoy the friendship and company of someone they are most comfortable with. But rather than supporting these stable, productive households that bother no one any more than other households do, the conservatives want to ban them outright, under the Constitution, no less. By logical extension, college roommates, worker bunkhouses, double-occupancy jail cells, and even legislators sharing quarters in hyper-expensive Washington D.C. would also be against the law because, God knows (their god, anyway), that people living together are all engaged in bacchanalian sexual debauchery and, God help us (their god, again), right-thinking people cannot help but get inappropriate images as we wonder, what do they do in private?
No, Newt, I’m not going to ask – or think about – whether you prefer the top or bottom. That’s 100%+ between you and, well, whoever.