Doesn't Scripture Denounce Civil Same-Sex Marriage?

The Doctrine & Covenants clearly states that the Lord raised up wise men to write the Constitution of this country -

D&C 101:77-80 - We LDS are to act.."According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

Consider this comment from the Doctrine and Covenants Commentary -

"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 verse -

"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.)

"When he [God] establishes his kingdom it will protect all in their equal rights; I as a Latter-day Saint, will not have power to trample on my fellow-man who may not be orthodox in my opinion, because I am a Latter-day Saint; nor will my fellow-man to whom I am heterodox, have the power to trample upon me. Does not that look right? That is the kind of kingdom we have to contend for; that is the kind of kingdom we have to establish, and it is already provided for in the Constitution given unto us by God, and through the glorious labors of the fathers who laid the foundation of this government, who were inspired and raised [up] by our Almighty Father for this express purpose." (Hyrum L. Andrus, quoting George Q. Cannon, Joseph Smith and World Government [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1958], 29.)

"This philosophy is set forth in James Madison's famous Federalist No. 10, where the Father of the Constitution espoused the ideal of a pluralistic society under a government founded upon a vertical and horizontal separation of powers. Such a system is legalistic, and as such it is concerned with the maintenance of human rights rather than being responsive to popular opinion."
(Hyrum L. Andrus, Liberalism, Conservatism, Mormonism [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1965], 18 - 19.)

The Lord's clear intent is that we abide by the Constitution while, like Nephi, looking forward to the law being done away with. "...we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled" (2 Nephi 25:24). Nephi looked forward to Christ's coming to live under his law and we LDS should look forward to the return of Christ and the government and laws he'll establish. Until then, we are to live according the Constitution and the scriptures. The scriptures are very libertarian. They firmly assert that all of God's children are equal and that none are "more equal than others". No one is given more rights than others and no one can impose their morals on others.

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 KJV as for example Acts 25:25, Acts 27:1, 2 Cor. 2:1, etc...). In other words, our liberties / freedoms are not to be determined by the consciences (personal moral opinions) of others. 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 that law and therefore can’t be judged by it. Why should his liberty be judged of another law's (man's) conscience? He is saying that he doesn't play by those rules but his own rules (the law of Grace). 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 judged of another law's (man's) conscience?

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?

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...” (emphasis added). It is contrary to God to try to take away the civil rights of others based on our own religious beliefs. We are not to force our subjective moral standards on others in violation of their legal rights and privileges to benignly do as they please.

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 134:9a - “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 our ideas of what constitutes a proper marriage (polygamy)? 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 their rights to practice what they feel constitutes a proper marriage when we screamed like a pig under a gate when our own ox was gored for doing the same? What does the Lord say about hypocrites?

D&C 98:5-7 states that any law that violates the Constitution is evil. 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.)

Any campaign to deny anyone his or her equal rights and equal protection under the Constitution is clearly unconstitutional and, therefore, evil.

D&C 121:41 states that, "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;" Those that use force and threats are condemned a few verses earlier as exerting "unrighteous dominion".

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 (teaching the Athanasian Trinity, Calvin's TULIP, infant baptism, etc...), is vitally important. LDS would be sinning if they let their "religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others...” by passing laws outlawing practicing religious teachings which violate LDS doctrine. Full equal civil rights for all is to be promoted.

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.)

If we are going to deny gay marriage and codify marriage along what the scriptures say, the laws regarding marriage will look like this -

• Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen. 29:17-28; 2 Sam. 3:2-5)
• Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3; 2 Chron. 11:21)
• A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut. 22:13-21)
• Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen. 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30)
• If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut. 25:5-10)