No, by saying this is nice and good you are acknowledging that this is a positive step from a Church that has been notoriously homophobic in the past. You are only slapping people in the face if you say it’s enough. Of course it’s not enough. The measure itself still allows the Mormon Church to discriminate. The measure does not afford full equality. However, every step towards equality is “nice and good”, and this is one hell of a positive step.

Seriously, no one should think for one second that this fight is over. The Mormons will still stand in the way of marriage equality, adoption by same sex couples, and many other rights we are entitled to. However, it does afford us rights we did not have before, does suggest that the rest of Utah could be on the way to introducing similar legislation, and these rights are granted with the blessing of a Church that has the power and influence to have blocked the passage of this legislation.

And as you mention DADT, one could imply from the words the Mormons have used that they would not oppose the revocation of this policy and allow gay men and women to serve openly in the military. If an individual or organization supports legislation preventing an employer from firing an employee on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, I see no rational reason why they would believe it’s perfectly fine for the military to discriminate in this way.

Could be wrong, but either way I don’t see it as a slap in the face to anyone, save perhaps other religious organizations that may well be spitting blood because of the position the Mormons have taken.

Just a couple thoughts from the outside here.

I don’t THINK the constitution dealt with the issue of tax free status organizations.

Using tax free status to collect money from those whom you would restrict constitutional rights of equality just seems, well, unconstitutional, or am I missing something here?

If you want to campaign in the legal/political forum, forego tax free status and do/say what you want.

If you want to be political, forego tax free status.

This does not seem like rocket science; again: from the outside looking in.

At the same time, it would be foolish to regard this as anything other than a positive step. ”

Problem is it is just another GAY Jim Crow baby step to FULL EQUALITY. We are no longer putting up with HOMO JIM Crow Laws…. like the ones President Obama likes so much.

So say Thank you, and then go out and work for FULL EQUALITY under the Fourteenth Amendment, after all, by saying this is nice and good you are SLAPPING those 13,000 VETERANS kicked out under DADT in the face. Happy Veterans Day.

And, so, “separation of church and state doesn’t appear in the Constitution.” Big deal, the Supreme Court recognizes one implied in the first amendment and by the founding fathers’ intentions. And FYI, the U.S. is a constitutional republic, so our Supreme Court’s interpretation of the first amendment is binding on all states, including backwards Utah.

Democracy is rule by the people—by individuals—not rule by a community. While those people are typically members of a community, such as a city or state, it is not the community en bloc that rules. Furthermore, the people of a community have diverse beliefs, not just one religion, and all of them get to vote. That includes the evangelical down the street, but it also includes me as a socially progressive Christian and my next-door neighbor as an atheist. Finally, the results of a vote don’t have to reflect anyone’s religious morality. In fact, a primary purpose of the courts is to prevent a majority, including a religious majority, from imposing its will upon a minority.

Incidentally, the limitations on non-profit organizations go beyond supporting a candidate to substantial political involvement—and those limitations include churches, so the argument that they have nothing to do with churches is simply incorrect.

The Constitution has been called the bedrock of our Democracy, but it isn’t frozen in time. Additional law is built upon that bedrock. For example, most qualified jurists today agree that a right to privacy exists, even though it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Similarly, the first amendment isn’t an adequate reflection of the separation of church and state as we know it today. Granted, some conservative “strict constructionists” disagree with this viewpoint, but they are a small minority of jurists.

As an aside, I really appreciate the Mormon focus on family. I simply wish that their focus included my family.