Thus it is fitting that the First Presidency of the LDS Church Tuesday offered an opinion that, no matter how much those on the other side may try to shade it, has the effect of endorsing Utah's anti-gay marriage Amendment 3.

The church, like any other individual or association, has a clear constitutional and human right to express itself on this or any other matter. Local leaders of other denominations, including Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, Wednesday took a clear stand against Amendment 3, as is their right.

But, like the proposed constitutional amendment the church implicitly backs, the LDS leadership has taken a position that goes too far.

The church has long been on record as favoring laws that limit the official recognition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman. That is what Utah law already does and what the first sentence of Amendment 3 would do.

But, like Amendment 3, the First Presidency's latest statement strays into unclear territory by backing measures “that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.”

For one thing, only the people involved in a relationship ever truly know, and ever should know, whether it is sexual. That is not a place for the law to peep.

For another, a blanket denial of any “legal status” to any other relationship is hurtful to many innocent people and meaningless to those who live in secure heterosexual marriages.

But that is exactly what the second sentence of Amendment 3 would do, by denying a “substantially equivalent legal effect” to any relationship other than those officially approved.

It is well within the purview of any church to give or withhold its own marriage blessings by any standard it chooses. But the church is not the state. The state's responsibility is not to exclude competent consenting adults from the ability to enter contracts. It is to ensure that those contracts, once executed, are respected.

The very real threat, raised by attorneys from both parties, is that Amendment 3 would go far beyond denying official recognition to same-sex marriage, that it would void common-law relationships and the sort of joint property, survivorship and medical decision-making rights that even many conservatives would gladly grant to same-sex couples.

Any Utah voter, LDS or not, should consider the arguments for and against Amendment 3. Our hope remains that voters, once alone with their ballot and their conscience, will reject it.