Wouldn't A Constitutional Amendment Banning Civil Same-Sex Marriage Resolve The Issue?

Doing this would resolve the doctrinal issue of being required to follow the Constitution and resolve the legal issue of "equal protection" and all other legal obstacles. The problem, for Latter-day Saints, however, is that this doesn't resolve the scriptural issues forbidding us from infringing upon the rights and liberties of others. Consider the following verses -

1 Cor. 10:29 - “...for why is my liberty judged* of another man’s conscience?”
(* Note - the Greek word for “to judge” used here is also rendered “to determine” elsewhere in the KJV as for example Acts 25:25, Acts 27:1, 2 Cor. 2:1, etc...). In other words, our liberties / freedoms are not to be determined by the consciences (personal moral opinions) of others. In context, verses 27 through 33 have Paul saying that we should limit our otherwise allowed behaviors if they offend others, which offense may cause them to reject the Gospel. In verse 29, though, Paul says that we do this only for the sake of the others’ conscience and rejects the idea that the opinions of others can limit our freedom. If the opinions of others can’t limit our freedom, how can we hypocritically state that OUR opinions can limit the freedom of others?

The basic underlying principle is that we, as LDS, have our own moral laws and others (non-LDS) have their own various sets of moral rules. We have no right to impose our laws, beliefs or opinions on them (nor they on us), for why is their liberty judged of another man's (our) conscience?

We have a legal right to impose our will on others via a constitutional amendment, but it is still contrary to scripture.

D&C 134:4a - “We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others...” (emphasis added). It is contrary to God to try to take away the civil rights of others based on our own religious beliefs. We are not to force our subjective moral standards on others in violation of their legal rights and privileges to benignly do as they please.

The citizens of Massachusetts have the "liberty", if not the "right", to have civil same-sex marriage per their own laws. Passing the proposed amendment would objectively "infringe upon the rights and liberties of" the people of Massachusetts and is therefore contrary to scripture.

Again, we have a legal right to impose our will on others via a constitutional amendment, but it is still contrary to scripture.

Bruce R. McConkie, in his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, gives us additional doctrinal support to oppose the banning of Civil Same-Sex Marriage. He discusses -

Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:22-26. He states -

"How better could the Master Teacher proclaim his doctrine of separation of church and state than he did here in avoiding the trap of the Pharisees and Herodians?
These scheming and hypocritical "spies" offered Jesus these two alternatives as possible answers to their diabolically clever question: (1) Say, 'Yes, pay the hated poll tax to Rome as the law already requires,' which answer would cause the Pharisees to inflame the people against him. Or: (2) Say, as the sect of Zealots taught, 'No, Israel is a theocracy; God only is her King; pay no tribute to a foreign power,' in which event the Herodians would have delivered him "unto the power and authority of the governor," charging him with sedition and rebellion.
But from his lips instead came the decree: 'Render unto God and Caesar their own.' That is, in this present world where wicked men will not repent and come unto the fulness of the Lord's perfect order of government, there must be two separate powers—ecclesiastical and civil—the one supreme in spiritual matters, the other in temporal. Neither power can dictate to the other. And men are subject to them both."
(Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols.,[Salt Lake City: Bookcraft], 1:600,601.)

The civil and legal rights and benefits pertaining to marriage are clearly the domain of government (Caesar). Religious belief and doctrine have no right to infringe on the rights and liberties of others. D&C 134:4a confirms this.

D&C 134:9a - “We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government...” Wasn’t government force used at the prompting of the majority’s morals to take away our rights to practice our ideas of what constitutes a proper marriage (polygamy)? That action was clearly condemned by the Brethren.

Liken this quote unto Civil Same-Sex Marriage -

“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.)

Though many dislike both institutions, there is no reason to ban them if there are no “entitlement claims” (i.e. claims of harm to rights to which one is entitled).

Why is it OK for us to be hypocritical and gore the oxen of others by taking away their rights to practice what they feel constitutes a proper marriage when we screamed like a pig under a gate when our own ox was gored for doing the same? The Church is clearly wrong wanting "to mingle religious influence with civil government...”. Advocating the proposed amendment clearly does this.

D&C 121:41 states that, "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;" Those that use force and threats are condemned a few verses earlier as exerting "unrighteous dominion".

Imposing our will on others and forcing them to obey our subjective morals via law is still force. We are commanded to use persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned to encourage righteous behavior. Using force to make people live righteously was what Satan proposed.

Again, we have a legal right to impose our will on others via a constitutional amendment, but it is still contrary to scripture.

The Eleventh Article Of Faith, which allows people to "worship how, where, or what they may", shows that respecting the civil rights of others, even when doing things with which we doctrinally disagree (teaching the Athanasian Trinity, Calvin's TULIP, infant baptism, etc...), is vitally important. Our doctrine requires us to be tolerant of the peaceful acts and speech of others, even if they exercise those rights in ways we consider sinful.

Though not equal to scripture, the following First Presidency Statement shows that it is wrong to deny "full civil equality for all of God's children."

"We say again, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.

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.)

The bottom line is that the scriptures denounce efforts by many, including many LDS, to let their "religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others..." If the intent of the Constitution allows some people to be 2nd class citizens whose equal rights don't need to be recognized and that "some are more equal than others", then we are free to support the proposed amendment denying gays equality. If, however, the Constitution really meant to ensure that all people are equal with equal rights and equality under the law, then supporting the proposed amendment is evil. Ignoring the scriptures because you want to prevent bad things from happening which otherwise would occur if you don't ignore the scriptures is called "steadying the ark". This too is condemned and was the plan of Satan. Scripture can't be ignored, nor superseded by statements of policy.