Thursday, July 2, 2015

Gay Marriage? We've Got This!

To: Abbottsville Fourth Ward
From: Sister Millie Loomis, self-appointed ward culture critic and author of the blog, A Perfect Mormon Woman
Subject: My latest on gay marriage

We've Got This!
Although the complete legalization of gay marriage in the United States comes as a terrible blow to the faithful members of the Lord's church, we are prepared - we've got this!

We've made covenants. We know the doctrine. And we're not strangers to persecution.

After all, legal same-sex marriage isn't the only immoral law that the Supreme Court and a handful of activist judges in all 50 states have forced us to accept. Every day we are confronted with so-called legalities such as lottery tickets, cocktail bars, Starbucks, Victoria's Secret, Coke machines, and professional women in pants. Even in the midst of these indignities we have held our heads high. Today is no exception.

In these days of moral confusion, many good people are so desensitized, so lacking in good conscience, so lazy, slovenly, and intent on sin, that they find it nearly impossible to even distinguish truth, let alone stand for it.

This observation is in no way judgmental. Rather it is an expression of single-minded acceptance and unabashed humility. Now, thanks to the morally confused majority, love has lost, and marriage has become a mere manmade institution.

This is a lie. Marriage isn't about people. It's about God.

Since God, conveniently, speaks exclusively to to the leaders of our church, we know that the only legitimate marriage is between a man and a woman who are sealed in the Mormon temple for time and all eternity. - The woman cleaving exclusively to one man, and the man cleaving temporarily to one woman. That is, until the next life when he may have conjugal relations with hundreds, perhaps thousands of wives.

It is in this wholesome environment that God intended children to be born and raised.

Because of our beliefs, we will be labeled as bigots and told we are on the wrong side of history. But we know that we will prevail in the end. (In the meantime, being called bigots might spare us exposure to unsavory sorts with counterfeit lifestyles.)

But I digress. Now, as Latter-day Saints, we must stand strong for the Mormon definition of traditional marriage and against the sleazy, politically correct, morally confused United States Supreme Court.

Disagree? Think we're on the wrong side of history? Go ahead, call us bigots. (We're actually okay with that.)

In the spirit of unabashed humility,
Millie Loomis, A Perfect Mormon Woman

If you would like to stop receiving these emails, we invite you read this far more nuanced and sophisticated piece of satire penned by Kathryn Skaggs over on A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman. 

18 comments:

  1. When my grandfather seals any of the grandchildren in the temple, he allegedly uses the line that marriage really isn't about people - it's about God. He says that the couple is covenanting together to do Heavenly father's work for time and all etrnity, but the emphasis needs really to be on the covenants to God and not on some romantic notion of vows to each other. if both members of the couple put Heavenly father first, and the woman puts the spouse very next (nothing about the man putting the woman very next) and both live the gospel, there will be no serious problems. This is only what I've been told by my aunt and a couple of cousins. i've never heard it myself. i don't know why anyone would choose that old coot to perform their sealing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Donna, again you have caused loud laughter and lightheartedness.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OMG, Alexis. Why doesn't this surprise me?

    Bill, thanks so much for reading. And thank you Mormons, for writing my blog for me!

    ReplyDelete
  4. That unabashed humility gets me every time! How do they do it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me about it. Kathryn over on A Well Behaved Mormon Woman actually paired those 2 descriptives in reference to the Brethren's reaction to the SCOTUS decision. See? We really don't need to write this stuff!

      Delete
  5. Professional woman in pants? Where will it END?

    ReplyDelete
  6. My auntis a teacher of special needs preschoolers. Her job requires a master's degree. It's in the contract for certificated non-management employees that a dress code cannot be mandated. She wears dresses on occasion, long enough that she can modestly get on the floor with children. One of the top brass came through her classroom on a day when she was wearing a dress and said she was dressed unporfessionally because she WASN'T wearing pants.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The sad thing is, this is barely satire. Opponents of marriage equality actually sound like this!

    Oh, and I drank a beer last night and two cups of coffee this morning just to spite Millie. Take that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No kidding Ahab. I basically just pieced together snippets from conservative Mormon blogs for this with only a few embellishments. Amazing how so many literally believe that marriage isn't about people. Or that the push for gay marriage was engineered by "a handful" of activist judges "in all 50 states."

      And good for you Ahab! I know you enjoy a good Hefeweizen now and then - especially in the presence of right-wing religious fanatics.

      Delete
  8. Marion and Alexis,
    To wear pants? Not wear pants? It's just so difficult for a good Mormon girl to know what's best! I remember sitting through a ward council meeting that was dominated by a mostly male discussion of what was proper attire for the women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's certainly ironic, isn't it? I think it's bad enough for females to be discussing or debating what is appropriate for other females to wear, much less for males to dominate the discussion.

      I understand that in middle school and high school, if girls don't at least cover their private parts adequatetly, as in not engage in what would be legally termed in a liberal locality "indecent exposure," male homones are such that an embarrassing physical response could be provoked. Some people would say I'm not being a proper feminist by saying this, but i'm not an advocate of practical nudity for either sex in schools. and i do understand about boys and their embarrassing physical responses. Once, they're a bit older, they can be mature enough not to look, but a sixteen-year-old may only need that first glimpse before he knows what he shouldn't be looking at to get the big "E."

      beyond that, it's either legally indecent exposure or it isn't.

      Also, it's probaby reasonable for a school or workplace to set standards on the degree of formality of alothing allowed. my high school didn't allow jeans with holes or un-hemmed shorts. i thought even at the time that those were reasonable requests even though holey jeans were and still are fashionable. They didn't really lend themselves to a studious atmosphere.

      Many of men's objections to various articles of women's attire center around personal fetishes, which have absolutely no place in the discussion. In a public meeting, the district superintendent made a comment concerning the wearing of leggings among female students and staff members, that "Some girrls and women should wear them, and some shouldn't." My mother publicly called him out on the coment and said that it was bordering sexual harassment. that was shortly before she reached a deal with the district for them to buy out her contract.,

      Delete
    2. It's a little disconcerting to think that taxpayer money is being wasted on these sorts of discussions.

      Delete
  9. When I read your posts I find myself shaking my head at what I so strongly used to believe.

    Thankfully I am not in that space any longer. It's so much easier to breathe now.

    xoxo cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheers to you too JJ. And to our freedom!

      Delete
  10. What does Boyd Packer's death mean to the church? They're nt making as big a deal about it as I would have thought.
    How often to they pput guys in the Q12 without having them do time in a 70's Q? They don't have a Polynesian all that high, and Vai Sikahema looks like a good candidate. are they going to elevate mitt, or does he want no part of it. He certainly does not need their money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I imagine there is much speculation about Boyd's replacement in ward meetinghouses today. Also the Brethren's anti-gay marriage statement is to officially read today.

      So exciting for Mormons living in the last days!

      Delete
  11. Another priceless blog entry. Donna, whenever I read your blog, I'm always simultaneously shaking my head and laughing out loud. Mormondom really does provide a lot of inspiration, doesn't it?!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Diane. Honestly, for the most part, all I did was parrot what I'd been reading on TBM blogs and Facebook walls. Indeed we do have great material!

      Delete