Didn't President Hinckley State That Same-Sex Marriage
Is Not About Civil Rights But Morality?

"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality."
(Gordon B. Hinckley, Why We Do Some of the Things We Do," Ensign, Nov. 1999, 52)

Many LDS take that as fact without evaluating the logic of his statement.

We know that this IS about civil rights. See this essay showing all of the CIVIL rights and benefits that come from marriage. Even if same-sex couples pay thousands of dollars in lawyer fees, the can only secure a small fraction of the rights heterosexuals acquire from marriage. About 125 years ago, Congress outlawed polygamy. Congress, despite LDS claims to the contrary, asserted that, "This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality." In outlawing polygamy, Congress imposed it's own subjective morality on the Church regarding what constitutes a proper legal marriage (a Civil Right). Church leaders vehemently denounced Congress for this infringement upon their civil/constitutional rights. 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 or what one's civil rights are?

We should liken our experience, feelings and logic regarding polygamy unto ourselves in the case of Civil Same-Sex Marriage!

Liken this quote about polygamy 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).

Those opposing mixed-race marriages due to their own subjective morality (the judge, whose ruling was over turned stated that God separated the races and didn't want intermingling) likewise could have said the above. 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.

In 1958, in the midst of the struggle for Black civil rights in America, Martin Luther King declared: "When any society says that I cannot marry a certain person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom."

Below, we quoted Elder Bruce R. McConkie's Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, in which he discusses the Savior's admonition to "Render unto God and Caesar their own." He goes on to state that the things pertaining to government are to be done by government and that the Church cannot trespass on Caesar's domain, nor can Caesar trespass upon the Church's domain. This gives us additional doctrinal support for the absolute separation of church and state. Civil rights accruing from marriage (see this essay outlining the 1000+ rights just from the federal government) are objectively the domain of civil authority, the government, and NOT the Church, no matter our disdain for it.

The recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, Varnum v. Brien, also emphasizes separating Church and State. It stated that, "The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, 'Marriage is a civil contract' and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code section 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage." The issue is NOT about subjective sectarian morality. It is about CIVIL RIGHTS. A short, "Cut To The Chase" summary of the ruling can be found here. A more thorough examination of the ruling is found here. We would ask that you please, at the very least, read the "Cut To The Chase" summary of the ruling and examine the logic presented.

We would love to hear how the Court misapplied the law or exhibited faulty logic in their ruling. We doubt that anyone will be able to show any. Good luck if you choose to try.

We know that the prophets have not always been correct in their pronouncements. See "Aren't The Brethren Always Right And Will Never Lead Us Astray?" for details on this. In light of this, the Brethren have told us to ignore their words if they contradict scriptures. See "What Do The Prophets Say About Their Words vs. Scripture?" for details on this as well. We know that the scriptures support separating church from state - D&C 134:9 - "We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government...". D&C 134:4 confirms separating church from state -

"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..."

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.)

1 Cor. 10:29 also emphasizes this point - "...for why is my liberty judged* of another man's conscience?"
(* Note - the Greek word for "to judge" used here is also rendered as "to determine" elsewhere in the KJV as for example Acts 25:25, Acts 27:1, 2 Cor. 2:1, etc... It is also rendered as "to be called into question" in Acts 23:6, Acts 24:21; etc...; as "to go to law" in 1 Cor. 6:6; and as "to be so decreed" in 1 Cor. 7:37.)

Please consider how the word is rendered in other Bible translations -

(New King James Version)
"... For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience?"
(English Standard Version)
"... For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?"
(New Living Translation)
"... For why should my freedom be limited by what someone else thinks?"
(Amplified Bible)
"... For why should another man's scruples apply to me and my liberty of action be determined by his conscience?

In other words, liberties and freedoms are not to be determined, defined, or limited by the consciences (personal moral opinions) of others. Since we can't use our own moral opinions to limit the rights of others, we have no right, doctrinally, to oppose Civil Same-Sex Marriage, which their own morals allow.

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? 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 the law of Moses and therefore can't be judged by it. 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 (rights) be judged (restricted) of/by another man's conscience (personal moral beliefs)?

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?

It is anathema to God to force our subjective moral standards on others thereby denying them their civil rights and liberties.

The issues of subjective morality should only be addressed by the churches and only regulate the beliefs and behaviors of their adherents who voluntarily agree to abide by them. The issues of civil rights and liberties must be addressed only by the state. This is the doctrinal basis of separating church from state.

Bruce R. McConkie, in his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, gives us additional doctrinal support for the absolute separation of church and state. 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.)

Elder McConkie states further -

"Wherever one dominant church has controlled a government, or a government (as in communistic nations) has dictated or proscribed systems of worship, men have been denied that agency without which they cannot work out their salvation."
(Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols.,[Salt Lake City: Bookcraft], 1:601.)

The 2000/2001 Priesthood/Relief Society manual stated - "(W)e favor: The absolute separation of church and state; No domination of the state by the church; No church interference with the functions of the state; No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion; The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs; The equality of all churches before the law."
(Joseph F. Smith, Teachings Of Presidents Of The Church,[Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], pg. 125)

These statements clearly teach that the legal/secular aspects of issues should be rendered unto Caesar (the government) and the religious aspects, if any, should be rendered unto God via religion. The legal/secular aspects of marriage (eligibility, rights, responsibilities, etc..) should be determined by the government and be free from sectarian interference. Neither the Church nor the State should be able to trespass on the other's domain. Such trespasses infringe upon our agency per Elder McConkie.

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 - "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.

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 and may find immoral (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 or immoral.

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.)

It is clear that we are to treat everyone as we expect to be treated. We are to give all their equal rights. 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 or immoral.

Consider this comment on D&C 101:77-78 from the Doctrine and Covenants Commentary dealing with those who disagree with this doctrine -

"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.)

Please consider the following comments by Hyrum L. Andrus on this same passage -

"In speaking of the central purpose to be achieved through the Constitution of the United States, God said in a revelation to Joseph Smith that this great document had been established 'that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him. (D&C 101:77-78). (Italics added in the original.) In other words, the central purpose of the Constitution is to establish a climate of freedom in which each individual may act, according to the doctrine and principles he espouses, in determining his future. Any policy of government that militates against this central purpose is unconstitutional."
(Hyrum L. Andrus, Mormonism and the Rise of Western Civilization [Provo: BYU Extension Publications, 1966], 25.)

Those who are "compelling them to believe and to do right...are persecutors, and as such they are in the service of Satan..."

We must always stand guard so that we don't let our "religious opinions prompt (us) to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others..." (D&C 134:4). We must, as Elder McConkie states, "Render unto God and Caesar their own" and never confuse or conflate the two.

We LDS shouldn't be hypocritical to our own experience and to the scriptures.

Even Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles recognized this hypocrisy in the following -

"The irony would arise if the Church used as an argument for the illegality of homosexual marriages the precedent formerly used against the Church to establish the illegality of polygamous marriages".
(Dallin H. Oaks, "Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals," 7 August 1984).

The correct term isn't "irony", it's "hypocrisy" and is therefore evil and contrary to the Gospel of Christ. Let us avoid hypocrisy and "compelling them to believe and to do right" thereby becoming "persecutors, and as such they are in the service of Satan..."