WASHINGTON (Rooters agency) – To bipartisan applause, the president today presented Congress with the “anti-sex bill”, as it is called by administration insiders.
The GOODNESS bill, to give it its proper name, was introduced in response to several recent scandals involving alleged naughty behavior by senior military officers.
Naughtiness is frowned upon within the US military even more than it is within the civilian population. This fact and the scandals have created a mood in Washington that now is the time to act. As one member of Congress put it, “It’s a blessing to have the military taking some of the heat off civilian officials. This is a chance to vote for virtue without suffering quite so many accusations of hypocrisy.”
The GOODNESS Act — Godly Obedience and Onesty in National Exemplary Suppression of Sex — will outlaw sexual activity of any kind by government officials or members of the armed forces. Only two years after leaving the military or government employment would those covered by the act be legally allowed to resume or begin engaging in sexual behavior.
Although the bill seems assured of a speedy passage through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, occasional questioning or dissenting voices were heard on Capitol Hill.
Representative Polyester Mather (I, Massachusetts) said that it didn’t seem quite right to ban sex between married couples, provided it didn’t occur too frequently. “I believe that such activity is mentioned in the Bible, so it can’t be all bad.”
However, Rep. Mather later announced that he would vote for the bill, after staff pointed out to him that in the present degenerate moral climate in America, it was quite possible that some married couples would be of the same sex. “I am sure that good Christian couples will not object to making this small sacrifice in the greater interest of the purity of the community,” Rep. Mather stated.
According to some newspaper reports, several senators were sceptical about the effectiveness of the bill. “You’d get Caligula to give up sex before these animals”, one of the senators reportedly said. “The only way you could do it would be to neuter them.”
An administration spokesperson pooh-poohed such concerns. “We have a national tradition to preserve—fake Puritanism,” he said, adding that the administration would not oppose an amendment calling for compulsory neutering, if the senator wanted to introduce one.
“However,” he continued, “we don’t think that’s necessary. If the Catholic Church can succeed with a ban on sex, so can government.”
The only other possibly critical comment on the record came from a recent former president: “I don’t like them referring to me as ‘anti-sex Bill.’ It’s demeaning and not accurate.”