Shouldn't We Just Vote On It And Let The Majority Rule?

Please consider the following few issues where the Courts have stepped in to protect the rights of the minority against the selfish desires of the majority:

• Jim Crow Laws
• Mixed-Race Marriages
• Miranda Rights
• Separate But Equal Accommodations

The Courts, rather than the Legislature, are the prime guardians of individual rights since the lawmakers are elected by the citizens and therefore are incented or pressured to pass laws reflecting the will of the majority. Since the majority is often hostile to the rights and wishes of the minority, the laws passed by legislatures can ignore the rights of the unpopular minority. The job of protecting the sheep from the wolves, therefore, falls to the courts. The statue of Justice is blindfolded and holding a scale. This portrays her as judging only by the weight of the facts presented by each side and not giving consideration to whether one side is an unpopular minority or promoting and unpopular position or not. She grants special favors to none and her blindfold represents her not playing favorites. Legislators on the other hand write laws favoring campaign contributors and special interest groups who help the legislator keep his cushy job. The weak and powerless can not turn to them for the protection of their rights. They are forced to use the (hopefully) unbiased courts to retain their equal rights.

Let's liken this civil rights 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).

Please consider the following scriptures and quotes from the prophets which affirm the position that we are not to impose our morality on others via the force of law (as was done to us regarding plural marriage) -

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 134:4 - “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...” It is anathema to God to force our subjective moral standards on others thereby denying them their rights and liberties.

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.)

D&C 134:9 - “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 plural marriage? That action was clearly condemned by the Brethren. Why is it OK for us to be hypocritical and gore the oxen of others by taking away the right of adults to chose how they practice marriage when we screamed like a pig under a gate when that self same right was denied us? What does the Lord say about hypocrites?

Consider this quote regarding D&C 98:5-7 from a Doctrine & Covenants commentary –

“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.)

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 King James Version - for example Acts 25:25, Acts 27:1, 2 Cor. 2:1, etc...). In other words, our liberties and freedoms are not to be determined by the consciences (personal moral opinions) of others. If the opinions of others can’t limit our freedom, how can we be hypocritically state that our opinions can limit their freedoms? 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?

Please consider these quotes from the prophets regarding people wanting to impose their views and morals on others -

"If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way." (HC 5:498-99.)
(Joseph Smith, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Alma P. Burton [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1977], 199 - 200.)

"My independence is sacred to me—it is a portion of that same Deity that rules in the heavens. There is not a being upon the face of the earth who is made in the image of God, who stands erect and is organized as God is, that would be deprived of the free exercise of his agency so far as he does not infringe upon other's rights, save by good advice and a good example." JoD 10:191.
(Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, selected and arranged by John A. Widtsoe [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954], 62.)

"There is a host of do-gooders, who constantly criticize our free choice system, ready to solve all human problems with legislation, willing to impose their version of the millennium on you and me, unwilling to rely on the judgment of the individual."
(Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 628.)

"The greatest right humans possess is the right of free choice, free will, free agency. This above all is what today's true conservative strives to preserve for his fellowmen and for himself. Ironically, it is this very objective that has helped to give credence to the myths. Because the conservative fervently believes in human freedom, he is slow to tell everybody else how to run their lives. It goes against the conservative grain to be a political, social, or economic busybody, and especially to beat the drums for government action on virtually every existing problem."
(Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 691.)

"Men may think as they please, but they have no right to impose upon others their…views."
(Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], 533.)

"We have all been taught the doctrine of personal free agency and that no individual is ever compelled by force or other means to comply with divine edicts and philosophy."
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 4: 69.)

Jesus taught that we are to be a light unto the world and that our good works (Charity, etc…) and example will draw men to us and our gospel. This is also done “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned…” A shepherd loves the sheep and they willingly follow him. A sheepherder uses force to drive the sheep. We are commanded to be shepherds. Forcing men to come to us at gunpoint via the force of law is the exact opposite of this as the verses and quotes listed above attest. The Taliban used force and compulsion to impose their morality on others. Should we emulate them?

The idea of force and compulsion was rejected in the pre-existence where Satan advocated using force to make us obey. Those advocating the use of force to extract obedience become advocates of the Adversary and advance the Devil's designs. Ezra Taft Benson said, “To have been on the wrong side of the freedom issue during the war in heaven meant eternal damnation. How then can Latter-day Saints expect to be on the wrong side in this life and escape the eternal consequences? The war in heaven is raging on earth today. The issues are the same: 'Shall men be compelled to do what others claim is for their best welfare' or will they heed the counsel of the prophet and preserve their freedom?"
(Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1965, Afternoon Meeting 122 - 123.).

Siding with Satan in taking away the freedom of others will have very serious consequences indeed.