Latter-day Saints for Civil Same-Sex Marriage
HOME
California's Proposition 8
Iowa's "Varnum v. Brien"
What We Are Proposing
What People Ask Us
Other Considerations



The Web Our Site

A More Thorough Examination Of The Doctrinal
Evidence Regarding Civil Same-Sex Marriage

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that it is proper to oppose Civil Same-Sex Marriage for theological reasons. We categorically reject this claim as being contrary to the scriptures and the official teachings of the Church. Here's how we came to this conclusion -

  • The prophets have stated that their own words are overruled by scripture and that we are to ignore anyone's teachings, including their own, if those teachings contradict scripture. Scripture trumps the words of all men. Consider these two quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee.

    This sentiment is echoed here by FAIR, the premier LDS organization / website dealing with LDS apologetics.

    President Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency, once wrote: "We do not believe in the infallibility of man. When God reveals anything it is truth, and truth is infallible. No President has claimed infallibility."
    (Editor's Table, [Improvement Era, September 1912]: 1045.)

    It is clear that the prophets believe that they CAN be wrong, so unless and until a statement is raised to the status of scripture as Harold B. Lee outlined above, it can't overrule previously given scripture.

  • It is therefore clear that not everything coming from the mouths of the Brethren, including statements of a doctrinal nature, is given by inspiration and we are to only accept those sayings which agree with scripture.
  • The issue of whether to accept or reject the Church's policy on Civil Same-Sex Marriage is therefore whether or not it is in agreement with scripture.
  • D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 say that it is wrong for LDS and others to let their religious opinions/morals "..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.)

    The Church's opposition to Civil Same-Sex Marriage is clearly and admittedly based on our religious beliefs regarding marriage and homosexuality. The only issues that could be raised to defend this is whether or not people have a civil right to marry the consenting adult of their choice as Civil Same-Sex Marriage allows...or... Whether denying same-sex couples marriage, while allowing opposite- sex couples to have it violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution's Equal Protection clause.

    Elder 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.)

    Though many people consider marriage a singular institution, it has a few components. It has a legal/secular component wherein the government grants legal rights and responsibilities to both parties. There are over a thousand legal benefits which the Federal government alone gives married couples. 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. To many, though not all, there is also a religious component. We LDS add our own unique religious components (eternal marriage and plural marriage) to the religious aspect as well. Same-Sex Marriage is contrary to our religious beliefs and we therefore don't permit it in the Church.

    Elder McConkie's 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 State (Caesar) 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.

    Let's move on to 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 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 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.

    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?

  • The D&C states that the Constitution was divinely inspired and set up to maximize personal freedom so that we can have the most freedom to exercise our agency (101:76-80) and any laws that violate constitutional principles are evil (98:5-7).
  • That same commentary, regarding (98:5-7), states, "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.) Does a ban on Civil Same-Sex Marriages infringe upon freedom and the rights and privileges of mankind thus violating constitutional principles? In the case of California's Proposition 8, at least, it does.

  • The Loving case, allowing mixed race marriages, showed that laws based on subjective morals are wrong.
  • There was no compelling state interest in such restrictions and they served no objective purpose but were there only because of religious and secular bigotry. Laws restricting marriage in such a manner were declared by the Court to be in violation of man's right to marry. Man HAS a right to marry per the Constitution. The Court said marriage was part of our God-given right to the pursuit of happiness.

  • The Court also stated that such laws violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution's Equal Protection clause which states that the laws of the land have to be applied equally to all and not be discriminatory.
  • Laws that discriminate based on physical traits such as race and gender are regularly thrown out. Likewise laws that discriminate based on chosen traits such as religion or political party are likewise thrown out. The laws must treat all people equally and none are "more equal" than others. Click here for references.

  • Also, please take time to evaluate the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, Varnum v Brien as well as our commentaries on the ruling.
  • The clear constitutional logic shown therein plainly demonstrates that all people have a civil right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

  • Even if Civil Same-Sex Marriage is not a right, it surely is a legal liberty.
  • D&C 134:4 condemns infringing upon the rights (as in the Loving case) and liberties (those things which are not rights, but are allowed by statute). Even if there isn't a right to marry (though the Loving case CLEARLY states there is), voting against established statutes providing liberties which maximize freedom and the exercise of agency (as directed in D&C 101:76-80), is clearly wrong as well. Such is the case of California's Proposition 8 at least.

  • Since Civil Same-Sex Marriage is clearly a right/liberty, opposing it is clearly contrary to scripture and therefore must be rejected per the clear teachings of the scriptures.
  • The only way for us NOT to violate scripture in opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage is for the Lord to declare opposition as being right and to have such a declaration be approved by the 12 Apostles and approved via Common Consent by the body of the Church. Consider this quote by Harold B. Lee. This was done with the revelation on the priesthood in 1978. Unless and until that happens, we have no scriptural choice but to oppose banning Civil Same-Sex Marriage. The New Testament, Book of Mormon, and D&C require that all things be done in order and by Common Consent in the Church. Ignoring the above points of logic ignores the need for things to be done in order and is therefore another violation of the scriptures as well as a clear example of "steadying the ark". It's that simple.

    In keeping with these teachings, we believe that withholding the legal benefits offered by Caesar harms gay couples, their children and therefore society at large. We therefore believe that government officials specifically authorized to perform marriages should be required under law to perform marriages for gays and lesbians in the same way they are required to perform them for any other couple. This protects the Equal Protection and equal rights of all.

    Churches are private organizations with First Amendment protections and as such must be allowed to act as they see fit. Those churches not wanting to perform marriages for gays and lesbians must be free to follow their beliefs and not be forced to perform such services. Though abortion and divorce are established legal rights, the government doesn't force the Catholic church to honor or recognize either. Those churches that have no problem with marrying gays and lesbians should be allowed to do so and have such marriages be equally valid and binding before the law as any other marriage.

    All opposition to Civil Same-Sex Marriage comes down to it being contrary to one's religious opinions/moral beliefs. Opponents may try to justify their opposition by raising other issues, but those are easily refuted, as you will see in other sections of this site. Attempts to outlaw Civil Same-Sex Marriage are clearly contrary to the teachings of the scriptures, both ancient and modern. The scriptures are superior to the teachings of all leaders, including the President of the Church. Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage is therefore contrary to the official teachings of the Church. Those promoting opposition to Civil Same-Sex Marriage are guilty of "steadying the ark" and are clearly violating the teachings of the scriptures and are therefore in need of repentance. It's that simple.

    If one is not convinced to supporting giving same-sex couples marriage, we have "A Common Sense Solution That Respects The Rights & Feelings Of All". We welcome any and all questions, comments, and concerns regarding our logic and the application of teachings from the scriptures.