The debate boils down to whether the "letter of the law" or the "spirit of the law" should prevail.

Consider President Monson's words -

In his second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul the apostle urges that we turn from the narrow confinement of the "letter of the law" and seek the open vista of opportunity that the Spirit provides. I love and cherish his statement: "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. ( 2 Cor. 3:6)"
(Thomas S. Monson, Live the Good Life [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988], 58.)

In other words, both Paul and President Monson are advocating that we look at the big picture. We should take a "bird's eye view" rather than a "worm's eye view" of things. If we look at it broadly we see the big picture and not get bogged down on the minutiae which detract from the spirit.

Those wanting a strict / narrow interpretation of the Word of Wisdom must realize that it doesn't specifically outlaw marijuana or cocaine or any other drug. Such a strict / narrow interpretation would allow LDS to use drugs if we go by just the "letter of the law" rather than the intent / "spirit of the law". The first of the Ten Commandments says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Ex. 20:3) Those who narrowly interpret this see nothing wrong with having hobbies which keep them too busy to attend church or fulfill callings. These hobbies are not gods to whom they pray or offer sacrifices they'll say. Those who "liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning" (1 Nephi 19:23) will take the broader view looking at the underlying principle and claim that those hobbies are indeed "gods". Those seeking to justify such activities argue for the narrow interpretation. Those arguing to justify their bigotry toward gays do so by narrowly interpreting the Loving decision rather than "likening unto us" it's underlying principle of rejecting subjective moral restrictions.

We LDS also wanted a broad interpretation of the First Amendment's definition of freedom of religion to include polygamy.

Regarding broadening definitions, many non-LDS Christians could have asked us whether Mormons should be allowed to change the definition of what a Christian is. For the past 1500 years, a Christian was someone who believed in the Athanasian Trinity, baptized infants, etc... Do we LDS have a right to redefine and broaden the term "Christian" so that we LDS can apply it to ourselves? Isn't that what same-sex couples want to do so that they can have equal civil rights and secular social status? Read more on this in our essay found here.

These examples all teach us to liken the "scriptures" unto ourselves. Consider how this principle is rightly used -

"I did liken all scriptures unto us. This I take to mean that Nephi, in his sermons explained the Scriptures and applied their teachings to their own needs and circumstances. That is the correct way of reading the Scriptures...In reading any of the standard works of the Church it is well to ascertain the literal meaning of the passage read first, and the lesson it was intended to convey to those to whom it was first communicated. And then it might be well to ask, What lesson does it convey to my time and age? To my nation? My community? My family? Or to myself?"
(George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, edited and arranged by Philip C. Reynolds, 7 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1955-1961], 1: 205,206.)

By "likening" the previous cases of the Word of Wisdom and "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." unto Loving, we see that the only reasonable position is to look at the underlying principle which rejects subjective moral restrictions and adopting an interpretation which maximizes human rights and individual freedom.

Consider President Faust's words regarding maximizing human rights -

"I am a conservative on fiscal and property matters, and I am a liberal in terms of human values and human rights."
(James E. Faust and James P. Bell, In the Strength of the Lord: The Life and Teachings of James E. Faust [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1999], 86.)

LDS doctrine believes in a liberal view of human rights. Consider -

"Because of its emphasis on free agency, individual accountability, and freedom of belief and conscience, LDS theology is quite compatible with Western traditions of liberal democracy that champion individual and minority rights, personal freedom, and religious pluralism. Laws are to ensure 'the rights and protection of all' so that every person 'May act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which [God has] given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment' (D&C 101:77-78)."
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1104.)

Consider this comment from the Doctrine and Covenants Commentary -

"It is strange that many men should have such a strong desire to force others to adopt their views and practices. It is strange to contemplate that prisons, torture, and death have been employed in the service of compulsory religion. No doubt, most of those who have resorted to such means have done so believing that they were trying to benefit their fellow-men by compelling them to believe and to do right. They did not call themselves persecutors. Nor do their modern successors regard themselves as persecutors, if they slander the members of unpopular churches, boycott them socially, and otherwise, and do everything in their power to prevent people from becoming interested in them. But, no matter how they regard themselves, they are persecutors, and as such they are in the service of Satan, who is the originator of the compulsory plan of salvation, and who has tried to enforce it among men from the beginning. God's kingdom is founded on perfect liberty."
(Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1978], 650 - 651.)

Those who try to compel people to do right, they are persecutors, and as such they are in the service of Satan.

Please consider these comments by Hyrum L. Andrus on this verse. His comments show that we should concentrate on the "maintenance of human rights rather than being responsive to popular opinion."

Such an emphasis on exalting human rights over popular opinion is found in D&C 134:4 which condemns those who let "their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others..." The equal rights of all are to be maintained.

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). We know that marriage has a legal/secular component because even clergy state that they perform marriages "by the power vested in me by the state of...I pronounce you husband and wife". We also know that people can't go to their clergyman to obtain a legal divorce. These aspects of marriage are clearly the domain of Caesar thereby refuting the idea that marriage is solely the domain of the church.

Religious belief and doctrine have no right to infringe on the rights and liberties of others. D&C 134:4 confirms this.

The prophets likewise agree -

"(A)ll men should be politically free and equal to vote as they please and to sustain what politics they please, so that they do not infringe on the rights of others."
(Wilford Woodruff, The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, edited by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969], 193.)

"A man may act as his conscience dictates so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others. That is the spirit of true democracy, and all government by the Priesthood should be actuated by that same high motive."
(President David O. McKay, Conference Report, October 1938, Afternoon Meeting 134.)

There are literally dozens of such quotes.

The bottom line is that we are free to do and say as we please so long as we respect the equal rights of others. Our religious beliefs alone against certain acts are not sufficient justification to infringe upon the equal rights of others.

D&C 134:9 likewise condemns the use religious influence upon government to deny others their equal civil rights. We LDS want to use our influence to "judge the liberties" of others.

"Religious freedom does not imply nor provide license to infringe or impose upon the rights and liberties of others."
(L. G. Otten and C. M. Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982-1983], 2: 375.)

Only acts that infringe upon others warrant punishment and them being banned.

In conclusion, we LDS wanted a broad and liberal interpretation of the Constitution regarding marriage rights and restrictions. We wanted to have our freedoms despite the opinions of the majority in society. Gays too want a broad and liberal interpretation of the Loving decision regarding marriage rights and restrictions. They too want to have their freedoms despite the opinions of the majority in society. Consider -

"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.)

LDS who advocate a narrow interpretation of the Loving decision hypocritically do so in opposition to the clear teachings and history of the Church.