Mixed- Race Marriage vs.
Civil Same-Sex Marriage

Liken this quote on polygamy unto both Mixed-Race Marriage and 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 all three of those 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).

In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967), the Supreme Court struck down a state miscegenation (anti mixed-race marriage) 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."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

"I have previously expressed the belief that 'it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor.' McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 198 (concurring opinion). Because I adhere to that belief, I concur in the judgment of the Court. [388 U.S. 1, 14] "

Many claimed that since the Lovings could both choose to marry others of their own race, they weren't really denied the right to marry. It was claimed that they wanted "Special Rights". Many make that same argument regarding gays. Some claim gays aren't denied the blessings of marriage since they can choose to marry an opposite sex person. This claim is no different than the one made against the Lovings which the Court rejected. Using the same logic, the courts will undoubtedly rule the same, especially since the Lovings could have found people in their own race to whom they would be attracted and love, but gays aren't attracted to anyone of the opposite sex. Their plight is even worse than the Lovings. Who can doubt that the courts will use the Loving's precedent to protect the God given rights of gays? Should sex/gender really be different from race in the eyes of the law?

The only way for the Courts to rule against applying Loving to Civil Same-Sex Marriage is if they read it narrowly and focus only on it barring race as a legitimate restriction to marriage. if they look at the "spirit of the law" rather than the "letter of the law" and "liken it unto ourselves", they'll ask why any restrictions based on subjective morals are valid to restrict the fundamental right of marriage. Click here for a more detailed explanation of why Loving should be interpreted broadly rather than narrowly.

Some claim that since gays aren't being discriminated against because of something inherent in them, there is no real discrimination. People can't discriminate against others based on their race or sex for example because those things are not things we choose. Homosexuality is a choice and not an inherent trait and therefore laws against it are not discriminatory. The problem with this logic, even if homosexuality IS a choice rather than something they are born with, is that it is also illegal to discriminate against people based on other choices. People choose their religion. Even if they didn't choose to be born into a religion, they still choose to remain in it or leave for another. Should it be OK for the government to give certain rights to Catholics, but deny them to LDS simply because the latter is an unpopular minority or should all religions be treated equally? People also choose their political party. In Communist nations, the Communist Party is given special status and rights. Would you be happy if the Republicans had fewer rights than the Democrats or the latter have fewer than the former? There is absolutely no reason for laws which discriminate based on subjective opinions. Acts that cause no objective harm should be legal and all people should be equal under the law and have its "Equal Protection".

The Loving case also gave the following details - "On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

As you can see, the Virginia judge above used his subjective religious beliefs (as well as the prevailing local culture and attitudes) as justification for the law and its punishments. D&C 134:4, 1 Cor. 5:11-13 and 1 Cor. 10:29 condemn the use of subjective moral opinions being used to justify restricting the rights and liberties of others. Such opinions and culture have been used to justify outlawing not only mixed-race marriages, but also LDS plural marriage and now Civil Same-Sex Marriage. Prohibiting all three based on subjective sensitivities is wrong. Only objective logical reasons should be used to restrict behaviors. No such reasons exist for outlawing any of the three.

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.

(Take this quiz which has a list of several quotes from prominent individuals. Were they speaking of Civil Same-Sex Mariage or Interracial Marriage? How many can you get right? You'll see that the logic used against both is identical - bigotry based on subjective moral opinions. Those quotes from the quiz applying to Interracial Marriage seem silly and bigoted today, as will those opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage once the latter is more widely available allowing history to prove the critics wrong.)