Plural Marriage vs.
Civil Same-Sex Marriage

Mr. H. -- Viewed socially or philosophically, apart from all religious consideration, do you regard polygamy as worthy of perpetuation at the cost of perpetual antagonism between your people and their countrymen?

Mr. T. -- However we may respect the government and its institutions, I would respectfully say that we are not the parties who produce the antagonism; IT IS MEN WHO PLACE THEMSELVES IN ANTAGONISM TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. -- From the Deseret Evening News, 25 January 1879.

The same applies to same-sex marriage. Gays are not the ones causing the controversy. Those who refuse to respect the Constitution and its guarantees of Equal Protection and the equality of all men are the ones causing the antagonism.

Liken this 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).

When gays ask permission to marry, government officials suggest that gays don’t deserve "special rights" just for them and if they want the benefits marriage, that they marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. The gays will say that since they are not straight, that that doesn’t make sense. The official may tell the gay that they CHOOSE to be gay and that America won't provide gays with "special rights" based on their lifestyle choices. What gays do in the privacy of their own homes is one thing, but why should American society, built on monogamy, have to change to accommodate gays' chosen lifestyle? The gays may also say that they pay taxes and their tax monies are being used by the government to give government benefits and protections to straights while they are denied those same benefits and protections. Click here for a list of these rights. Their claims fall on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be gay rather than marry an opposite sex partner.

I imagine that when Mormons desired to practice polygamy, US officials suggested that Mormons didn’t deserve "special rights" just for them and if they want the benefits of marriage, that they practice monogamy like everyone else. The LDS may have said that since they are not strictly monogamists, that that doesn’t make sense. The government official may have told the Mormons that they CHOOSE to be polygamists and that the United States won't provide Mormons with "special rights" based on their lifestyle choices. What Mormons preach in the privacy of their own homes and churches is one thing, but why should American society, which was based on traditional Christianity (which preaches strict monogamy), have to change to accommodate the Mormons' chosen lifestyle? The Mormons may also have said that they paid taxes and their tax monies were being used by the government to give government benefits and protections only to monogamists while they were denied those same benefits and protections. This fell on deaf ears because they CHOOSE to be polygamists rather than being monogamists.

Sound familiar? There is little difference in the type of discrimination we LDS faced in the past and what gays seeking marriage face here today.

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.

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

"There is an irony inherent in the Church's taking a public position opposing homosexual marriages," wrote Elder Oaks. "... The leading United States Supreme Court authority for the proposition that marriage means a relationship between a man and a woman is Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, in which the United States Supreme Court sustained the validity of the anti-polygamy laws, the Court defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The court's stress in that case was on one. The modern relevance of the Reynolds opinion is in its reference to marriage as being between a man and a woman. 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).

As pointed out previously, the correct term isn't "irony", it's "hypocrisy" and is therefore evil and contrary to the Gospel of Christ.