First, kids and conflict. While certainly we'd love to protect children from conflict, generally, Christofferson gives a specific context for the conflict he says the Church wishes to avoid, and that specific context is garbage. He says that when a child is named and baptized in the church, that "triggers" several things, including a membership record, assignment of home and visiting teachers, and an expectation that the child will participate in Primary and other Church programs. These things, he says, "likely are not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living..." Did he just call a same-sex couple a "family"? Anyway, "... in the home setting where they're living, as children, where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that could engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise when the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."
The Church is withholding what it claims are "saving ordinances" from the same little children the Savior welcomed on the grounds that the Church's expectations might cause conflict. Ok, you could do that ... or you could change the Church's expectations. Expectations, unlike the doctrine of Christ, are malleable and changeable. How about a policy change that requires Church discipline for insufferably self-righteous home teachers who would use their "divine calling" to run roughshod over the predictably sensitive feelings of children whose parents are so obviously different from those of many of their peers? You think I'm kidding, but no. We're commanded to be loving and kind, right? Don't break that commandment, 'mkay? To be clear, of the few home teachers I've known who actually fulfill their calling, I strongly doubt any would try to turn children against their homosexual parents. In my experience, most would be so taken aback by the sheer presence of a same-sex couple that they would tiptoe around even the most mundane of subjects. But then again, I live in Utah, where we're so socially homogeneous we have a hard time even finding a Democrat.
Anyway, my point is that if this really is a saving ordinance, and if Christ really commanded His followers to baptize everyone, and if Christ really commanded his followers to love little children, how about the Church censure the dimwit home teacher instead of wholesale barring these children from baptism.
Christofferson's second argument is that this policy exactly follows the policy for children of polygamous couples, a policy the Church has held for what Christofferson calls "generations". There is a parallel, he said, between polygamy and homosexuality, he says, though he never says in exactly what way they parallel each other, nor in what respect that parallel has anything to do with Church policy. In fact he never says anything else about it, just that there's a "parallel", and that the Church has had its polygamy policy for "generations". In other words, it's ok to reject kids from homosexual couples because they "parallel" kids from polygamous families (or is that "home settings"), and we've rejected plyg kids for generations. So it's ok.
The problem, of course, is that that policy on kids from polygamous parents is as hateful as the new policy on kids from same-sex parents, even if it started a long time ago.
A few other interesting notes. first, Christofferson speaks of children disavowing their parents' homosexual practices, and claims that "assenting" to the doctrine of the Church is probably ha better term. Great, except that "disavow" is the word the Church has used everywhere else. And finally, this gem. In jarring contrast to Christofferson's sermon of not yielding to society or allowing doctrine to change, the interviewer declares that the Church over the past year has gotten lots of attention for its "message on being fair to everyone." This caught my eye because I try to pay some attention to the Church and, well frankly this is the first I've heard of that particular message. It's certainly possible I've paid attention to the wrong channels, or not paid attention at all, or something, but I wondered whether the nature of the interviewer had anything to do with it. He's Michael Otterson, managing director of the Church's public affairs department, or in other words, the guy who gets paid for publicizing the message the Church wants to put out, and exactly the guy who would have been in charge of shining the light on the Church's "message on being fair to everyone".
So there you have it: it's ok to deny what you see as required blessings to people whose parents disagree with you, to spare them the heartache your thoughtless followers might cause down the road, and if that bothers you, don't worry; we've been doing the same thing to polygamists for years, and no one has complained yet.