For this is not something that many other churches, including my own, have been able or prepared to do. I wish, of course, that Michael Otterson, who is also a decent and sincere man, had not framed the position in such a defensive way:

“The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage.”

That’s a lamentably inflammatory way to describe gay citizens’ genuine attempt to seek equality in civil marriage - which we certainly don’t see as “violence” in any way at all. But the extremity of that quote may well have been necessary to avoid a backlash among conservative Mormons. And I would much rather focus on the positive gesture than the back-handed swipe that accompanied it.
—–

I do think that the statement is inflammatory. I suppose its purpose might be interpreted as the writer does here (that it was necessary to avoid backlash).

Again, I agree that it is important that the LDS Church supported this legislation — because, I am sorry to say, I don’t think that Utah (and SLC in particular) has very effective separation of church and state. :-/

I fail to understand how civil marriage does any “violence” to the institution of marriage, because the LDS church will no more be forced to marry gay men or lesbians or any non-member than it does now. There was no real need that I can see for making that statement in those words.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-mormon-move.html

It certainly is a step in the right direction to pass laws against discriminating on the basis of one’s sexual orientation. And to admit that passing those laws does not threaten marriage. However, I also think that statement in someway states that this equality will not be extended to the marriage laws.

And, let me add, that the church was too much emphasized for a political issue. It implies that the church runs the city. While SLC may or may not be predominantly LDS, there are other religions with large populations in SLC.

Just my take,

Sheryl

Conservatives who opposed the ordinances say in the same article that, of course the church supports the ordinances - it is exempted from complying with them, but the “rest of us” are being discriminated against because of our religious beliefs.

Neither the church nor any of its wholly owned subsidiaries (including its universities, schools and at least portions of the new City Creek condo/shopping complex) are required to comply with the nondiscrimination ordinances.

Hopefully the Church will keep to a minimum the places where it might deny housing or employment to members of the GLBT community and seek to put its actions where its words are and open more doors than it closes and nurturing the relationships that are being made between two disparate communities.

Certainly there is a place for restricting student housing on a religious college campus, or employment within the Church Office Building, but there appears to be less reason to restrict housing or employment in the larger community represented by places like City Creek Center or Deseret Book. Particularly when church policy is to accept fully and completely celibate GLB members wherever they may be.

I am tremendously offended at the idea that equality under CIVIL law somehow “does violence to the institution of marriage.”