Sunday, October 19, 2008

yes on prop 8 - #1 protect the divine institution of gender inequality in marriage

in latter-day saint discourse concerning prop 8, there has been much ado with the proclamation on the family's call to maintain the tradtion of different-sex marriage - that marriages should be composed both male and female partners. however there is another tradition that the proclamation calls to maintain - one that may actually affect a heterosexual like me  - and that is the time and divinely honored tradition of gender inequality in marriage.

going even further back than the divine institution of polygamy, the divine instituion of gender inequality in marriage harkens back to the days of adam when eve promised to be submissive to her husband. while polygamy as a divine institution has been done away with (sort of), the church today has continued to call for this divine practice that is often ridiculed by the satan-inspired secular world. through the proclamation and numerous talks, sermons, and articles the church has continually taught that it is god's desire for men to be providefor and to exersize control over his spouse and family, and it is god's desire for women to stay at home breastfeeding, cooking, cleaning, doing the laundry, and whatever else her husband tells her to do as she is being submissive to his will.

what same-sex marriage does is it threatens the divine institution of gender inequality in marriage (and thus threatens me) by claiming that gender inequality is not a necessary part of marriage. if both parties of a marriage are of the same sex, then how can we maintain our divinely inspired tradition of having one be in submission of the other by virtue of their sex. in a same-sex marriage it is impossible for one partner to demand a divine (or natural) right of authority in the relationship based on their different sex.

this is how same-sex marriage is going to destroy the very fabric of marriage (and thus bring in the apocalyptic events prophesied in the day after tomorrow). if prop 8 fails to pass, women throughout california and the world (including my future wife) will be able to tell their husbands, "i don't have to do whatever you tell me just because you are the man and i am the woman in this marriage. gender inequality is not an essential aspect of marriage - just look at bob and steven - they treat each other equally."

for the sake of protecting the divine institution of gender inequality in marriage we need to make sure that prop 8 passes - or how else can we ensure that the dishes and laundry get done?

*perhaps a middle ground could be made by allowing same-sex marriage only when there is a performative gender role in the relationship where one has a more masculine role while the other maintains a more effeminate role; thus maintaining our divine institution of gender inequality in marriage - even when both are of the same sex.


  1. Amen! This equality must cease. I'm so glad this dialogue came in time for a fresh four hours this week to proclaim the goodness that is the divine tradition of gender inequality in marriage. Where is the petition! Let's make video clips! Ladies, bring the treats.

  2. Come now, Loyd, everyone knows that "preside" now simply means to serve. It has no hierarchical connotations whatsoever. So when the first counselor in the bishopric got up in church today and said that the bishop was "presiding," he just mean that--

    Oh wait. Never mind.

  3. wow.

  4. Loyd, the Executive Secretary for your Stake President is on the phone. Something about you attending a church court or something...

  5. This may or may not be related, but I just came across this line in "The Divine Institution of Marriage":

    "[T]he special status of marriage is . . . closely linked . . . to the inherent differences between the genders."

    That's an interesting argument.


  6. Emily,

    I was going to respond to the link you posted point-by-point, but suffice it to say, the "lawyer" who authored the October 20 post needs to go back and re-read his notes from Constitutional Law. Seriously, he's a moron.

  7. I'm still laughing.

    Hey, yesterday I caught about 20 minutes of NPR's interview about children (under 10-years-old) who are transgender. And, I watched a new TV show (or just a special?) called "Sex Change Hospital" last night. Fascinating!

    carry on.


Please provide a name or consistent pseudonym with your comments and avoid insults or personal attacks against anyone or any group. All anonymous comments will be immediately deleted. Other comments are subject to deletion at my discretion.