"The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches. "
I think this was well said. The LDS church does not object to equal rights but has an intrinsic belief that marriage, by divine definition, is between a man and a woman. I feel that both sides of this issue have gotten mixed up in a battle over the mincing of words and what needs to be drawn into focus is the rights of both groups. I believe that there is a mutually agreeable solution to this conflict. The LDS church should be allowed to maintain its right to believe and support a strict definition of marriage, that it is between a man and a woman, and reserve the right to only marry men and women and only place adopted children to families with both a husband and a wife. Gays should have equal access to medical, housing, insurance, employment, and probate rights.
If a legal status can be created that allows both groups those options, call it whatever you would like, let them own the definition of "marriage" if you allow us to preserve our beliefs of a "traditional marriage" or "heterosexual union".By fighting over this singular definition it seem that we have made this battle mutually exclusive when it needn't be. Why can we not issue all those rights to Gays without stripping religious groups of their rights to define and support marriage by their definition. Must they be mutually exclusive. Is it offensive to the Gay community if we support you in your rights but choose not to participate in the practice?
This mustn't be an all or nothing for either group.