Romney and Obama, both descended from heathen polygamists, are vying for the Christian-monagamy vote in different, interesting ways.
Obama is saying monogamy, not pagan promiscuity, should be a choice available also to those who live with their own gender and sometimes, as in The Kids Are All Right, have children and raise them in an otherwise normal way. Romney is saying those children are bastards and always will be bastards, if he has anything to do with it, and the engendering of them was wrongly done, and the God who (presumably) made their parents perverts thinks they should have married someone else: a woman, for instance, or a man.
Whether these offspring of perversion can be Mormons later in life and get, after death, their own planet, their own coffee-free planet, he has not yet made clear.
Though Romney, whose great-grandfathers, on both sides of his lineage, all eight of them, each had several wives (and he would not be here if they didn’t) struggles with the logic of what he is saying, he may yet gain votes in those states — the Carolinas, Alabama, Iowa, Pennsylvania — which dislike shirtlifters, and Obama may lose the election on this issue alone. But it is probable that he won’t, if he uses his own history and argues for it.
‘I was born of a white mother and a black father,’ Obama could say, ‘in a year when interracial marriage in some jusdictions — in South Africa, for instance — was a gaoling offence, and many South African Christians, of the Dutch Fundamentalist persuasion, believed my parents’ marriage was a form of bestiality. And yet here I am. Definitions of lawful marriage have changed since then.
‘It was a year too in which Mormons believed no Negro had an afterlife and a coffee-free planet of his own. And yet here I am, the child of an unfashionable marriage, as homosexual marriage is now, what many thought a sinful marriage, a marriage agaisnt God’s law, here I am, doing fairly well in the world, making each day one sixtieth of what Clive Palmer makes for much harder work. Here I am. Vote for me. Yes you can.’
Some would see this pitch as a call to bigotry, a smearing of the chosen faith — unpolygamist, unracist Reformed Mormonism — of Mitt Romney and a punishing of him for those sins of his forefathers he does not repeat. But it is very much the way politics is now. One cannot run in America as, say, a Shi-ite or a Satanist. One must make adjustments. Obama had to repudiate his Muslim upbringing and join, in Chicago, a happy-clappy church to get on in the world. Romney had to repudiate, in some sense, his polygamist forefathers, and, in some sense, his own consequent existence, to gain traction in a largely Christian, and Christ-eating country.
He too has had to make his way in the world, and is frustratedly hoping this misery of adjustment will end soon, and he will have a planet of his own, free of strong drink and difficult choices. like this one.
For he has to run a bigoted campaign. But bigotry of another sort may bring him down, the widespread Baptist bigotry against those antebellum orgiasts whose multiple tuppings brought him into the world. ‘They never should have engaged in those vile couplings,’ he will have to say, ‘and I should not be here. But here I am, the facelifted smiling product of sin. Vote for me, and I will eradicate this new curse of monogamy spreading like a virus across our fruited plains. Vote for me, and a proud return to homosexual promiscuity, AIDS and anxiety. You know it makes sense.’
It’s a hard sell, but he has a lot of money, and maybe he can do it.