A Few Quotes Regarding The Gospel's View
Of The Civil Rights Of All People

John A. Widtsoe wrote, "Full liberty must reign. Any attempt to curtail individual freedom is of the devil."

The meaning of these quotes, individually and collectively, demonstrate that the Gospel requires maximizing individual rights and freedom so "that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him."(D&C 101:77-78)

This is true for all mankind...even the "unpopular classes", those whose actions we abhor and every other class of people whose rights are threatened by an intolerant majority. This is why the Lord made us a Republic with a Constitution to protect the weak. Pure democracy is simply organized mob rule. Benjamin Franklin said that a pure democracy is 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to eat for lunch. It's great if you are in the majority, but really stinks otherwise.

"This is a land of liberty. Every man has the right to believe as he pleases, and to do as he pleases, so long as his acts do no interfere with the rights of his fellow men and he does not infringe upon their liberties. We as a people have suffered from these things, and we ought to be the first and foremost to defend human liberty."
(George Q. Cannon quoted by Brian H. Stuy, ed., Collected Discourses, 5 vols. [Burbank, Calif., and Woodland Hills, Ut.: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992], 2: .)

Since "we as a people have suffered from these things, and we ought to be the first and foremost to defend human liberty", liken this unto our involvement in California's Proposition 8 and other anti-same-sex marriage iniatives. Wasn't our position inconsistant with our own experiences regarding non-traditional marriage? Isn't it also inconsistant with the Gospel aim to maximize everyone's individual freedom? Wasn't Satan the one promoting "forced righteousness"?

We LDS were once as sheep and were persecuted by the wolves of yesteryear. If we as a people have suffered from these things, and since we ought to be the first and foremost to defend human liberty, shouldn't we feel for the injustice suffered by other sheep, similiarly situated, or should we act like wolves?

Speaking of non-traditional marriage please liken the following quotes regarding polygamy unto Civil Same-Sex Marriage and ponder their application regarding not only freedom, but also about being a sheep.

"Do we injure man, woman, or child by such a request? Are any persons rights or liberties jeopardized or infringed upon by such a demand? We answer unhesitatingly, No! We simply ask for our own. Will not our fellow citizens grant it? We desire to infringe upon no one, in person or property, in rights or liberties, in privileges or immunities. All we ask is that they will grant us the same blessings they claim for themselves, and, if granted, we shall be abundantly satisfied."
(AN EPISTLE of the First Presidency to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in General Conference Assembled, March, 1886.)

"For decades, whenever the government tried to pass a law that interfered with any right guaranteed under the Constitution, the law was given careful scrutiny by the courts. Government was required to show that first, it had a 'compelling governmental interest' that justified the interference with a constitutional right, and second, that this 'compelling governmental interest' could not be achieved through some other, less intrusive means."
(James E. Faust, "A New Civil Religion", Ensign, October 1992.)

Then, just like today, the government has no "compelling governmental interest" regarding either polygamy or Civil Same-Sex Marriage. We see in the Varnum v. Brien ruling that laws opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage (or polygamy) either do not address a "legitimate government interest" or the state doesn't apply the same standards to traditional couples who are "similarly situated". Being consistant would require the rescinding of many heterosexuals couples' marriage certificates per the proposed laws. Don't we all deserve "Equal Protection" allowing us all to marry the consenting adult of our choice? We LDS wanted it then just as gays do today. We need to go back to the first quote and liken it unto Civil Same-Sex Marriage.

D&C 134:4 says that we are amenable (answerable) to God and ONLY God for our religiously motivated actions...UNLESS such actions "infringe upon the rights and liberties of others". If we are NOT amenable (answerable) ONLY to God for our religiously motivated actions which "infringe upon the rights and liberties of others", to whom are we answerable? The obvious answer is the laws of man. If we allow our "religious opinions to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others", we are subject to the laws of man or the state. Infringing "upon the rights and liberties of others" is therefore criminal. There are several examples of this such as preventing people from exercising their First Amendment rights, denying people their "Equal Protection" rights or police neglecting to read suspects their Miranda Rights. We can't hide behind God or the First Amendment by claiming that our religious freedoms allow us to "infringe upon the rights and liberties of others".

Therefore, our policy should be as follows -

"We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned this means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.
We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man."
(Conference Report, October 6, 1963, Third Day - Morning Meeting 91.)

All people should enjoy "full civil equality". The civil rights of all must be respected and protected from infringement.

However, we violate this principle when we fight against "the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children"... because they are gay. Therefore, LDS4GayMarriage.org denounces such efforts because... "..it is inappropriate for a religious organization to manipulate the machinery of secular power to procure advantages for itself or disadvantages for others."
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols. New York: Mcmillan, 1992, entry entitled "Church and State")

Isn't that exactly what we did in California with the overwhelming, Church promoted, support of Proposition 8 in the 2008 elections?

"According to this perspective, religiously inspired practices are exempt from the state's regulatory power unless they violate the "rights and liberties of others"; whereupon they potentially become legitimate crimes (fall within the world-maintaining nomos of the state), which religion cannot protect. Unless we are to fall into circular reasoning, the concepts of 'rights and liberties' must be given some workable meaning. Although the boundaries of individual moral rights are complex and controversial, as we have seen, "vague notions of public interest cannot be relied upon in a utilitarian sense to extinguish individual rights."
(Mormonism, Philosophical Liberalism, and the Constitution by R. Collin Mangrum in BYU Studies, vol. 27 (1987))

President Wilford Woodruff said, "That this Church, while offering advice for the welfare of its members in all conditions of life, does not claim or exercise a right to interfere with citizens in the free exercise of social or political rights and privileges."
(James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 3: 185.)

The Church needs to refrain from interfering "with citizens in the free exercise of their social or political rights and privileges".

Where should the line be drawn then?

"Here, then, is where the line must be drawn. Anything that persons profess to do under the name of religion, which interferes with the rights of others is wrong, and the secular law may step in and protect the citizens and restrain or punish those people who attempt to do this under the plea of religion. If I do anything which interferes with the life, the liberty, the happiness, or the property of my neighbor, the law has a right to step in and protect my neighbor and restrain me."
(Remarks by Elder Charles W. Penrose, Delivered in The Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, July 26, 1884.)

"Joseph Smith's philosophy of government, whether heavenly or earthly, really began with freedom for every individual man. Full liberty must reign. Any attempt to curtail individual freedom is of the devil.
(John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith--Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951], 215.)

"All men are, or ought to be, free; possessing inalienable rights, and the high and noble qualifications of the laws [p.1] of nature, and of self preservation; to think, and act, and say as they please while they maintain a due respect, to the rights, and privileges of all other creatures; infringing upon none."
(Joseph Smith, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled and edited by Dean C. Jessee [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984], 547 - 548.)

"In speaking of the central purpose to be achieved through the Constitution of the United States, God said in a revelation to Joseph Smith that this great document had been established 'that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him. (D&C 101:77-78). (Italics added in the original.) In other words, the central purpose of the Constitution is to establish a climate of freedom in which each individual may act, according to the doctrine and principles he espouses, in determining his future. Any policy of government that militates against this central purpose is unconstitutional."
(Hyrum L. Andrus, Mormonism and the Rise of Western Civilization [Provo: BYU Extension Publications, 1966], 25.)

Latter-day Saints have been commanded to embrace any law that furthers the Constitution's promotion of individual freedom (D&C 98:6-7). Consider the following question -

"As to the laws of the land, how does one know whether any given law is constitutional and justifiable before the Lord? The revelation of the Lord provides the answer. Any law that supports the principle of freedom in maintaining the rights and privileges of mankind is constitutional in the eyes of the Lord."
(L. G. Otten and C. M. Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982-1983], 2: 166.)

"God placed a mandate upon his people to befriend and defend the constitutional laws of the land and see that the rights and privileges of all mankind are protected. He verified the declaration of the founding fathers, that God created all men free. He also warned against those who would enact laws encroaching upon the sacred rights and privileges of free men."
(Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1961., Afternoon Meeting 69.)

Based on the clear and thorough logic of the Varnum v. Brien ruling (check out our detailed summary of it or our "Cut To The Chase" summary) showing that Civil Same-Sex Marriage is covered under "Equal Protection", we LDS need to abandon our opposition to Civil Same-Sex Marriage. It is clear that denying gays and lesbians their Equal Protection rights is in direct opposition to the clear teachings of the Gospel.

Even during the Millennium when Christ reigns on Earth, peoples' rights are still protected, even if the actions resulting from these rights are not in keeping with the Gospel -

"But the kingdom of God, when it is established and bears rule, will defend the Methodists in their rights just as much as Latter-day Saints, but it will not allow them to infringe upon the right of their neighbors; this will be prohibited. These sects may want to afflict the Saints just as now; they may want to persecute each other just as they now do; they may want to bring everybody to their standard just as they do now.
(President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Meeting house, at Lehi City, Sunday Afternoon, August 9, 1874.)

Are we not trying to bring everybody to our own subjective standard of what a marriage should be?

"If the Kingdom of God were established on earth . . . one community would not be permitted to array itself in opposition to another to coerce them to their standard. One denomination would not be suffered to persecute another because they differed in religious belief and mode of worship. Everyone would be fully protected in the enjoyment of all religious and social rights, and no State, no Government, no community, no person would have the privilege of infringing on the rights of another."
(President David O. McKay, Conference Report, April 1941, Church of the Air Broadcast 108-109.)

All will (and should) have their civil rights protected. Why are we opposing this?

"In daily life the most evident product of love is tolerance. Tolerance means that we allow others to believe and act, unhindered, provided they do not interfere with our beliefs and acts. It also means that, similarly, we do not infringe upon the rights of others."
(John A. Widtsoe, An Understandable Religion [Independence, Mo.: Zion's Printing and Publishing Co., 1944], 74.)

We are being intolerant by opposing same-sex couples obtaining their Equal Protection rights under the law.

The Lord gave us the Constitution so that all may be free and have Equal Protection of the law. When people are denied their rights, they are denied their agency and that is in direct agreement with Satan's plan of force

"This philosophy is also set forth in James Madison's famous Federalist No. 10 where the Father of the Constitution espoused the ideal of a pluralistic society under a government founded upon a vertical and horizontal separation of powers. Such a system is legalistic, and as such it is concerned with the maintenance of human rights rather than being responsive to popular opinion."
(Hyrum L. Andrus, Liberalism, Conservatism, Mormonism [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1965], 18 - 19.)

The civil rights of same-sex couples will never be secure when left to the voters (just as the voters would never protect and secure our own unique marriage rights). We should be in the forefront of securing rights to all rather than ignoring scripture by denying them simply due to our subjective opinion. We, of all people, should know what it's like to be an unpopular minority deprived of Equal Protection. Didn't George Q. Cannon state above that "we ought to be the first and foremost to defend human liberty."?
(George Q. Cannon quoted by Brian H. Stuy, ed., Collected Discourses, 5 vols. [Burbank, Calif., and Woodland Hills, Ut.: B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992], 2: .)

Why are we being inconsistent here?

We know from the Varnum v. Brien ruling that marriage IS a right. The US Supreme Court also stated that marriage is a fundamental right -

In Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967), ruling, the US Supreme Court struck down a state miscegenation law because it interfered with the constitutional right to marry:
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Marrying the consenting adult of your choice is a right belonging to all men. Why are we taking an unconstitutional and unscriptural position on this?

Just as our liberty was curtailed 120 years ago, the liberty of same-sex couples is likewise being curtailed. We are being "double-minded" in this!

"It is vain, and especially in a republic is it vain, for any man to suppose that the freedom of any citizen or class of citizens, however humble or even unpopular they may be, can be infringed without endangering the rights and freedom of all. Many otherwise, good citizens of the Republic, simple and fundamental to the preservation of rights and freedom as is this principle, seem so far to fail in appreciation of it, that they stand by while the rights of others are invaded, and sometimes swept away, without making so much as a protest against the injustice."
(B. H. Roberts, The Missouri Persecutions [Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon and Sons, 1900], 99 - 100.)

Having been one of those "unpopular classes" whose rights were denied, why do we, as a church, "stand by while the rights of others are invaded, and sometimes swept away, without making so much as a protest against the injustice?" We don't just stand by either. We are the aforementioned invaders. We of all people should know the value of marriage rights. Didn't George Q. Cannon state above that, "We as a people have suffered from these things, and we ought to be the first and foremost to defend human liberty."?

"(W)hen a person or a nation is lifted up in "the pride of their hearts" they feel others should not have the same rights and privileges they have; thus they are willing to fight either to prevent other people from getting these rights or to gain other privileges for themselves."
(Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976], 240.)

This is exactly what we did with Prop.8 in California. Consider the following -

"Although the boundaries of individual moral rights are complex and controversial, as we have seen, vague notions of public interest cannot be relied upon in a utilitarian sense to extinguish individual rights.. While the majority of the community may find polygamous marriage relationships repugnant, repugnancy unassociated with entitlement claims cannot invalidate the rights of believers to practice polygamy. (Mormonism, Philosophical Liberalism, and the Constitution by R. Collin Mangrum, BYU Studies, vol. 27 (1987), Number 3 - Summer 1987 131.)

Liken the above to Civil Same-Sex Marriage. "While the majority of the community may find same-sex marriage relationships repugnant, repugnancy unassociated with entitlement claims cannot invalidate the rights of gays to practice same-sex marriage." Civil Same-Sex Marriage may be "repugnant" and an affront to our values of right and wrong, but that isn't a sufficient reason to deny others their right to Equal Protection. Why should our unique, socially repugnant, non-traditional form of marriage (plural marriage) be granted governmental approval, but not same-sex marriage? There is no secular/justifiable reason. Would same-sex couples have to form their own church and preach marriage as a religious rite and obligation so that they too, like us, could claim that the government is prohibiting the free exercise of their religion?

There is an irony inherent in the Church's taking a public position opposing homosexual marriages, wrote Elder Oaks -

"... The leading United States Supreme Court authority for the proposition that marriage means a relationship between a man and a woman is Reynolds v. United States , 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, in which the United States Supreme Court sustained the validity of the anti-polygamy laws, the Court defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The court's stress in that case was on one. The modern relevance of the Reynolds opinion is in its reference to marriage as being between a man and a woman. The irony would arise if the Church used as an argument for the illegality of homosexual marriages the precedent formerly used against the Church to establish the illegality of polygamous marriages."
(Dallin H. Oaks, "Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals", 7 August 1984).

I guess that the rightness or wrongness of a legal decision, like Reynolds v. United States, depends upon a person's feelings about it and whether one's own ox is being gored or one is goring someone else's. Consider -

"I think sometimes when I look around and see what transpires in this city, that there is a little too much liberty; not that I would infringe upon the rights of any man or any woman; I would give every man and every woman the privilege of doing that which they pleased, so long as they did not interfere with my rights and the rights of others. We do not feel at liberty to interfere with the rights of our neighbors, nor to infringe upon the rights of anybody, nor do we believe that anybody has a right to infringe upon our rights. If they are infringed upon, we will stand up in self- defence and seek legal redress. But our friends (?) on the outside, think we ought not to be allowed that liberty. They say it is treason for us to go into court to test the validity of a law passed against our liberties? They claim this liberty themselves, but they are not willing to accord the same liberty to us."
(Charles W. Penrose,Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 24: 310 - 311.)

The above could have been written by a Civil Same-Sex Marriage proponent regarding LDS opposition to them being given their full and equal rights.

"We recognize the right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and think that people ought not to be molested in that worship, and that they should be perfectly free to carry out their religious convictions, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. That is the line we draw, and when men step beyond that, then the secular law ought to step in and protect people in the exercise of their rights, and from the designs and wicked acts of those who seek to infringe upon them."
(A Discourse by Charles W. Penrose. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, August 19, 1900)

"[W]hen men step beyond that, then the secular law ought to step in and protect people in the exercise of their rights." That is EXACTLY what the Varnum v. Brien ruling did. The County had crossed the line due to sectarian pressure, and violated the rights of the plaintiffs. The secular law stepped in and protected the people in the exercise of their rights.

"A government in which men would act as their own conscience might prompt them to do, with this restriction, however, that in that which they did they must not infringe upon the rights of others or prevent them from exercising the agency which they themselves exercised."
(President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, October 1933, Afternoon Meeting 85.)

"I have no right to any act which would take the freedom from someone else."
(Elder Joseph F. Smith, Conference Report, October 1945, Afternoon Meeting 32.)

We "must not infringe upon the rights of others" nor "prevent them from exercising their agency". These are two separate but intertwined things - Civil Rights and Agency. Harming either is both a crime and a sin.

Why is it so hard for us (LDS) to be logically consistent? Why are we fighting against the clear logic of the Varnum v. Brien ruling, fighting against our historical experience with marriage rights, and fighting against scripture? In closing, be reminded that we need not steady the ark by ignoring or disregarding the above evidence.

Let's do what is right and let the consequence follow!