The 'Vow' gets left at the altar

There will be leftover cake, I suspect.

It seems The Family Leader's “Marriage Vow” failed to draw a crowd of adoring Republican presidential hopefuls. Only two signed on. The rest are runaway brides.

Bob Vander Plaats' hefty, virtuous pledge to save us all was much harder to swallow than a wedding mint.

It demanded allegiance to 14 separate promises, stacked on 22 footnotes. Deep in that fine print, I think the vow requires the purchase of an Okoboji time share.

The media fixated on a provocative section stating that black children were more likely to be raised by both parents during slavery than under the first African-American president. It was removed, but it looks reasonable aside Vander Plaats' claim during his third campaign for governor that an executive order banning gay marriage is just like the Emancipation Proclamation.

The vow includes an anti-gay marriage pledge, of course. But why stop there? It doesn't, which may explain so few signatures.

Perhaps it was making candidates ponder “intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.” The “etc.” amused Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert. “There's a lot of freaky stuff going on in Iowa,” he said.

Maybe issuing marching orders for both barring American women from combat and rescuing all helpless military personnel from becoming “attracteds” of asking-and-telling shower buddies was a bridge too far. And should a presidential campaign really recognize our “robust childbearing and reproduction?” Maybe not.

Still, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum signed fast. She then had to confirm her view that slavery is “horrible.” He was “taken aback” by the wording, but not enough to cap his pen.

Mitt Romney loves “traditional” marriage, but found the vow “undignified and inappropriate.” Profiles in courage Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain won't sign, although they claim to agree with much of it. Newt Gingrich, a marriage vow expert, said he'd like it better with some editing.

Only little-known Gary Johnson wadded it up and threw it back. “The Republican Party cannot afford to have a presidential candidate who condones intolerance, bigotry and the denial of liberty to the citizens of this country,” he said. Well done.

Just days ago, the Family Leader's backing was seen as caucus crucial. Now, the political world is wondering who exactly appointed this curious cadre as the all-powerful arbiter of American morality, with divine authority to demand signed, sworn allegiance from potential presidents of the United States of America?

The answer is nobody did. Cake?