Who Gets To Define The Terms
"Marriage" And "Christian"?

* Belief in the Athanasian Trinity (The Nature(s) of the Godhead)
* Calvin's TULIP
* A Closed Canon etc...

Though any knowledgable LDS can easily show biblical references that refute these items, we still are viewed as "non-Christian" by those who deem these teachings as essential to Christianity.

What puzzles us is that such Christians seem to feel that they own the copyright on the term "Christian" and only grant those with similar beliefs their permission to use it. We are also puzzled that the biblical verses that define a Christian are ignored completely in favor of these subjective non-biblical "requirements".

The response to this challenge we LDS seem to have is to either show how those so called "requirements" aren't biblical or at least are subject to contrary interpretations. Showing that they aren't so important so as to disqualify someone as a Christian is also an option. We can also show verses that actually define what a Christian is rather than say Doctrine "X" is a requirement while "Y" isn't.

Defining what "marriage" is, like defining what a "Christian" is, is very subjective and the definition of it in our secular government must be based on objectivity rather than using subjective "requirements" based on our own subjective moral beliefs.

One example of using subjective moral ideals to define marriage deals with those opposing mixed-race marriages. We know that the Loving case, banning miscegenation laws, showed that when it comes to imposing restrictive moral laws on society, it is about civil rights rather than being about subjective morality.

The LDS practice of plural marriage, and its use of the term "marriage", was an affront to, and a perversion of, the traditional Christian use of the term "marriage" meaning one man to one woman. Those who fought to outlaw plural marriage undoubtedly thought that they too were defending marriage. There is no difference, in principle, between what we LDS wanted then and what gay people wish to do today - to marry another adult of their choice, despite it being unpopular with the majority and the majority culture and without government imposing subjective restrictions on them.

About 125 years ago, Congress outlawed polygamy. In doing so, Congress imposed it's own subjective morality on the Church regarding what constitutes a proper legal marriage. Church leaders vehemently denounced Congress for this. Should we LDS be trying to do the exact same thing by imposing our own opinions on others, in contradiction to scripture, regarding what constitutes a proper legal marriage? We LDS shouldn't be hypocritical to our own experience and to the scriptures.

If we are going to codify marriage along what the scriptures say, the laws regarding marriage will look like this -

• Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen. 29:17-28; 2 Sam. 3:2-5)
• Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3; 2 Chron. 11:21)
• A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut. 22:13-21)
• Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen. 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30)
• If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut. 25:5-10)

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.

D&C 134:4 - 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.

Regarding D&C 134:4, consider this quote from a Doctrine & Covenants commentary -

"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.)

The Bible states that using subjective moral ideals to limit the rights of others is wrong. Consider -

1 Cor. 10:29 - ...for why is my liberty judged* of another mans conscience?
(* Note - the Greek word for "to judge" used here (KREE-no, Strong's word #2919) 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 cant limit our freedom, how can we hypocritically state that OUR opinions can limit the freedom of others? Verse 30 says that since Paul is saved through grace (and not by living the Law of Moses), why should he be judged for doing something that the Law of Moses forbids? He is saying that he is not subject to that law and therefore cant be judged by it. Why should his liberty be judged of another law's (man's) conscience? He is saying that he doesn't play by those rules but his own rules (the law of Grace). He doesn't want the old laws limiting what he can do under the new law. He will voluntarily refrain from doing things forbidden under the old law so as to not offend those still under that law, but the old law does not restrict him otherwise, for why should his liberty judged of another law's (man's) conscience?

The basic underlying principle is that we, as LDS, have our own laws and others (non-LDS) have their own various sets of rules. We may avoid ordering pork when dining with Jews or vegetarians, so as to not cause them offense, but the laws which the Jews observe have no claim on us and our liberty is not to be judged by another law's (man's) conscience. Just as their laws have no power over us, neither do our laws, in a non-theocratic society, hold sway over them. They are free to do as they wish until they decide to join us and adopt our laws. We have no right to impose our laws, beliefs or opinions on them, for why is their liberty judged of another man's (our) conscience?

Marriage grants hundreds of legal rights and responsibilities to couples. We know from a Congressional study that there are over 1000+ rights given to married people (PDF File). A few common ones include -

• Assumption of Spouse's Pension
• Automatic Inheritance
• Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
• Bereavement Leave
• Burial Determination
• Child Custody
• Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
• Divorce Protections
• Domestic Violence Protection
• Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
• Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse in Court
• Insurance Breaks
• Joint Adoption and Foster Care
• Joint Bankruptcy
• Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
• Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
• Certain Property Rights
• Sick Leave to Care for Partner
• Visitation of Partner's Children
• Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
• Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

Which of the above OBJECTIVELY REQUIRES a couple to be of different sexes? NONE!!

These are rights and benefits that gays pay for with their taxes yet to which they are denied access. Many claim that by having a lawyer draw up documents that many of these can be obtained. In truth, only a few can and even getting those few can cost thousands and thousands of dollars in legal fees. Heterosexual couples get them for free simply by saying, "I do". How would society react now if mixed-race couples were denied these benefits? How are the constitutional rights of "Equal Protection" and equality under the law advanced by this? Why are some citizens "more equal" than others?

We seem to forget about the children of same-sex couples. These are innocent kids who have done nothing wrong and yet society withholds their needed legal protections. These innocent victims are simply "collateral damage" in a war against equality and for subjective morality.

As stated, 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 Constitution allows some people to be second class citizens whose equal rights don't need to be recognized and that "some are more equal than others", then we are free to oppose giving gays equality. If, however, the Constitution really meant to ensure that all people are equal with equal rights and equality under the law, then opposing full equality for any group is evil and contrary to scripture. 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. Scripture can't be ignored.

The bottom line is that the definition of marriage has both a legal and a spiritual aspect. We render unto the Church the spiritual aspects and render unto Caesar the legal/secular aspects. Our secular Constitution requires OBJECTIVE and logical reasons to infringe upon any group's rights of "Equal Protection" and equality under the law. Let's follow the scriptures and keep legal issues and Church dogma separate as per the teachings of Christ.