Disingenuous query

In her letter, Sherry Snow asks what Pete Buttigieg’s husband would be called were Mr. Buttigieg to become the president of the United States. This issue should be broadened to include the spouses of all candidates (female as well as male) married to a man. The answer: whatever term would be used for the male spouse of a female president. At best, it’s a trivial question.

Trivial—and disingenuous. The writer’s true concern becomes evident when she asks, “What kind of precedent and statement would this present?” By this she does not mean the possibility of a POTUS having a husband instead of a wife, but rather the gender of Mr. Buttigieg’s choice of partner for life. What does it say about his character, about the values of his supporters? Were we to elect him, what would it say about our nation?

I am not troubled by this aspect of Mr. Buttigieg’s personal life. More directly to my point, we should be very concerned were there allegations of his having hit on men, suspicions of his marital infidelity, and such—but none have surfaced. Furthermore, there has been no hint of bribery by means of payoffs in exchange for silence (hush money). Nor has there been any recording of an exchange between him and any member of the media in which he admits to—even brags about—making unwelcome advances, groping, and/or other forms of sexual assault. Has anyone detected even a whiff of sleaze?

We have already elected a person with a long, sordid history of the kind of (mis)conduct just described. Are those persons disturbed by Mr. Buttigieg’s sexual preference also troubled by the behavior of our current POTUS? If not, why not?

JAN HELMUT WUBBENA

Siloam Springs