The Marriage Vow (with Commentary!!)

For those of you who have heard of “The Marriage Vow”, a piece of Tea Party…let’s call it propaganda while I search for a better word, shall we?  In any case, if you have read it, and if you are also the kind of person who reads this blog, you are probably horrified.  But just in case you read it and were so horrified you didn’t even have a chance to dissect the waffle…don’t worry, I’ve got you covered!

Here’s the actual text of the marriage vow, and I’ve got commentary to go with it.


A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY Ah, yes. “Family”. The old fallback. And of course, by this we mean the traditional nuclear family that is particularly Westernized and Eurocentric. Other family structures are not equal.

Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order as conveyed by Jewish and Christian Scripture (which, incidentally, also treats women as property. We have realized since that maybe not ALL of Jewish and Christian Scripture is correct), by Classical Philosophers (I’m not sure this was their focus), by Natural Law (monogamy is not natural, monogamy is a socially constructed concept regulated by religious institutions. Trying to reproduce as much as possible is nature), and by the American Founders (who failed horribly at monogamy themselves, leading to things like, I don’t know, Thomas Jefferson sleeping with one of his slaves?) upon which our concepts of Creator-endowed human rights (my ethnocentrism senses are tingling! and my bullshit radar is just going insane right now!), racial justice (oh please, this is not about racial justice) and gender equality (are you sure this is how you want to go with this?) all depend.
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President Yeah, but an African-American baby born in 1860 was more likely to be sold to a different owner during childhood, or have one or both of his/her parents sold to a different owner, over the course of his/her life. Slave owners didn’t exactly respect family structures, or didn’t they teach you that?
LBJ‟s 1965 War on Poverty was triggered in part by the famous “Moynihan Report” finding that the black
out-of-wedlock birthrate had hit 26%; today, the white rate exceeds that, the overall rate is 41%, and
over 70% of African-American babies are born to single parents a prime sociological indicator for poverty,pathology and prison regardless of race or ethnicity.  You know what?  So is teen pregnancy, but this isn’t really doing anything about that, now is it? Incidentally, AGE is the prime sociological factor.  There are plenty of single-parent families that are doing fine.
 About one million U.S. children suffer through divorce each year (these rates are actually on the decline for college-educated couples, and the number of college educated Americans is on the rise, so you do the math), the outcome of about half of all first marriages and about 60 percent of remarriages, disproportionately affecting economically vulnerable families. (So how are you solving this? Oh wait, you’re not)
The taxpayer-borne social costs of family fragmentation exceeds $112 billion per year, especially when all costs to the justice system are recognized.  It costs taxpayers a ton of money to not let gays adopt or be foster parents in many states, but I don’t see you advocating for that either.
Social protections, especially for women and children, have been evaporating as we have collectively
“debased the currency” of marriage (“CURRENCY of marriage? What were you smoking when you came up with that?). This debasement continues as a function of adultery; “quickie divorce;”physical and verbal spousal abuse (unfortunately, these abuses have been around for thousands of years, it’s only now that we are starting to recognize that they are unacceptable); non-committal co-habitation (you mean like the same-sex couples you won’t allow to get married?); exemplary infidelity and “unwed cheating” among celebrities, sports figures and politicians (I hope this bites you in the butt someday); anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined (are you seriously arguing the “homosexuality is a choice” line?), irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health.  I’ll translate that for you too: “gays are responsible for AIDS”.  FALSE.  Unsafe sex practices, the refusal of our schools to TEACH safe sex because if they teach anything but abstinence only they lose federal funding, and a culture that is so bent on maintaining the purity myth concerning our youth that we refuse to prepare them for reality is probably to blame.  The ONLY thing I’ll give them is that our culture does promote promiscuity that is probably not helping the situation.  But we also glamorize teen pregnancy, so maybe that’s what we should rant about a bit, hmm?
The Candidate Vow: OH, here we go, Tea Party Platform time!
Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, Ithe undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only  between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:
  • Personal fidelity to my spouse.
  • Respect for the marital bonds of others. Including gay couples married in states like New York?
  • Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.  “Fidelity to the constitution”…you’re joking right?
  • Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage (Funny, the original institution would have treated you as a child or as property, and upon marriage you would have ceeded ownership of any property to your husband, but sure, keep up with that “change is never good” line you’ve got going, Michelle Bachmann)–faithful monogamy between one man and one woman–through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous,polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc. Hold up.  So you’re saying that your antiquated definition trumps, I don’t know, DEMOCRACY?  If it’s what the people want?  But I thought you were faithful to the republican principles of America…I’m confused…
  • Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy. You know what’s amazing is that kids raised in non-traditional family structures have an equally strong grasp of family values, and children raised by same-sex couples are often better adjusted in adolescence than their peers?  Turns out, gays are capable of parenting; Heather’s two mommies might not have been incompetent just because they didn’t have a guy around.
  • Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended “second chance” or “cooling off” periods for those seeking a “quickie divorce.” Blah blah this is where I push my platform of nothing…
  • Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.  DOMA?  I’m still not convinced DOMA is even constitutional!  Plus, marriage is a power of the states, last I checked, oh writers who are apparently monogamously married to the constitution…
  • Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States.  This feels like something that would not get ratified.  Or would cause a massive out-migration from the US.  Or possibly riots in the streets.  I’m talking actual riots.  You think the LGBTQ community knew how to organize for pride festivals, just wait until Americans see you actively stripping people of rights…and overriding that democracy thing I mentioned earlier…
  • Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy our next generation of American children from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution,infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.  WE ALREADY DO THIS.
  • Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel,especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery orintrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavementor sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.  Shockingly, sexual harassment and rape are already outlawed…
  • Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control. Yep, we do this too.
  • Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.  You know what would also be great?  If we could feed and house these people, provide them with healthcare, and have schools that, you know, functioned.  That would be awesome, if we’re going to keep rearing and having kids and all…
  • Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.  This literally has nothing to do with marriage, I am not even sure why it is in here…oh wait.  The Platform.  Right.
  • Fierce defense of the First Amendment‟s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against theintolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy  What’s so beautiful is that the First Amendment is what lets me publish things like this blog post mocking this declaration, and it is what allows us to advocate for the sexual citizenship that should not be denied to any of our citizens.  And yes, sexual citizenship is a real concept in law, I promise I didn’t just make it up to make you laugh.

~ by Randi Saunders on July 11, 2011.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: