SOUTH JORDAN — As the emotional debate over gay marriage unfolds across the nation, one Utah city council is making its position perfectly clear: The only valid marriage is between one man and one woman.
South Jordan City Council member Leona Winger has proposed and Mayor Kent Money has directed staff to draft a resolution to be voted on by the council March 30 that "marriage in South Jordan be recognized as only between one man and one woman."
South Jordan might be the first city in Utah to take such a step, according to city staff and the Utah League of Cities and Towns. Leaders of other cities, such as Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson, have left it to others to decide, pointing out that in Utah, counties issue marriage licenses, not cities.
Winger said she believes the City Council needed to take a moral stand and said that the resolution is not an ordinance change. City Manager Ricky Horst said the resolution, if passed, would carry no legal weight but simply reflect the sentiments of the council on the issue.
Taking a position on such a controversial issue may mean taking some public relations hits, council members realize. Some are calling the move divisive, even hateful, while one concerned South Jordan resident said she believes it's simply a waste of time and tax dollars.
Money said he had no problem with taking such a stand and directed city staff to determine if any other Utah cities have done the same.
Council member Mary Wenner said although she didn't oppose the resolution, she was concerned that South Jordan was going to draw unwanted attention to the community.
"If they're speaking for 100 percent of the population, then why would they need it?" said Michael Mitchell, executive director of Equality Utah. "There are gay and lesbian families living in South Jordan, just as there are such families living in every community and state."
Utahns will decide in November if the state constitution should be amended to specifically define marriage as between "a man and a woman."
Mitchell points out that Utah already has a law forbidding gay marriage, "and we're now looking at a constitutional amendment, so why does South Jordan feel that they have to make some sort of moral stand?"
Taking a position on such a politically charged issue, Mitchell said, is "mean-spirited" and divisive to the South Jordan community.
South Jordan citizen activist Laurie Vance said she, in part, agrees with Mitchell.
Although she doesn't personally agree with gay marriage, Vance said the South Jordan City Council has no business taking such a stand.
"I appreciate them looking out for my moral welfare," Vance said, " but when are people going to learn you cannot legislate morality? Why are they wasting time showing everybody what our moral stance is, if it may not reflect the moral stance of the entire community?"
Vance said she believes the resolution would not only divide her community but show South Jordan "as the community that would not welcome gays."
Horst said city leaders know there is a risk that an unflattering light might be shed on South Jordan, adding, "I'm not sure that's what we want."
E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com