You make a good point about separating out the issues, and putting to rest those which aren’t all that relevant to the specific question of marriage. The LDS statement regarding housing and employment can be a step in the right direction on this point. At the same time, however, I hope that future efforts along these lines can be just a bit more artful in their execution. While I understand that LDS leaders must have been sensitive to seeing that their gesture wasn’t misinterpreted, perhaps the official statement could have made that point without using language which honestly feels like a backhanded slap to many GLBT people. If I had the chance to give “friendly advice” to the LDS public affairs staff, I’d suggest that they replace “do not do violence to the institution of marriage” with something a little more temperate, such as “do not impact the institution of marriage.” (I hope I can say that, Geoff, without running afoul of your desire for uplifting comments–if not, feel free to scratch the second paragraph.)

But because I have spent so much time writing about defense of marriage, the caricature is, “oh, he’s a right-wing homophobe.” Don’t worry, I’m aware of this caricature and it’s frustrating for me. I know this is trite, but I DID grow up in San Francisco, I’ve been around gays all of my life, and I DON’T feel uncomfortable around gays. One of my roommates in college was openly gay, shared a bathroom with the guy, was friends with his boyfriend, etc.

So, separating out the issue of marriage from other gay rights issues is really, really important because we can concentrate on things that are important rather than the noise that is not relevant to the defense of marriage debate.

I have often felt that way about Sutherland, but I am far left, so it is good to hear it from you. I think they get a lot of attention in Utah because they are one of the only think tanks in town.

Bryce,

It was a good exercise all around. No hard feelings, I hope.