I don’t want to do a lot of typing for nothing, and so much of this question should probably be deferred for later — if Michele Bachmann is still in the race.
At the Republican debate last night, Bachmann was asked if she was a submissive wife. She deflected the question, and answered in terms of respect, which is part of the right answer, but it is not the full answer. The traditional marriage vow — which traditionalists are supposed to agree with, remember — includes the vow to obey. This goes well beyond “think highly of in mutually affirming ways.” All obedience should be respectful, of course, and true respect will result in obedience, but they are still not the same thing.
The main thing I want to say here now is that such a question — given the set-up of a conservative, evangelical married woman running for this office — is a fair question. It is not out of bounds, and the audience last night shouldn’t have booed when it was asked. Marriage vows, understood as we understand them, are not limited to your “private and personal life.” This is not over whether Marcus Bachmann would have control over the White House TV remote.
Whenever you vote for any happily married candidate, the assumption should be that their spouse will be a trusted advisor and friend. A well-married candidate comes with a built-in cabinet member, and in effect you are voting for them too. But when the candidate is a happily-married evangelical woman, that built-in advisor is in a position to give authoritative input, if Titus 2:5 means anything.
If secularists ask, mockingly, if we really believe all that stuff, the answer should be unashamed. The answer should resemble, in style if not content anyway, the response of Al Smith, a Catholic who was running for president once. He was asked about his Catholicism, and instead of shaving it thin, he hauled out his rosary, and told the questioner that he said the rosary every morning, noon, and night.