"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?

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.