The fifth time might be the charm for Rep. David Litvack's tougher hate crimes legislation, but it might also be a tougher fight.

A majority of Utahns say in polls they support such a law, but lawmakers have rejected the idea so far. Opponents are rallying and reworking their arguments against it.

In the latest statewide poll, 64 percent of Utahns said they support a law that would enhance penalties for "attacks based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age or other categories."

Of the 623 people polled, 31 percent said they were opposed to it in the latest Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV poll conducted by Dan Jones & Associates. The survey was taken Jan. 3-6 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

"To me it's a sign of consistent support," Litvack said.

Other minorities issues lawmakers will consider this year include immigration bills. One is a renewed effort to repeal a law allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses. And SB89 would create a "mutual benefits contract" for couples who can't legally marry.

Litvack's bill, HB50, lists protected groups as including but "not limited to race, color, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age or gender." It intensifies penalties by one step for crimes committed primarily because of "actual bias or prejudice."

Working in the bill's favor this year, Litvack believes, is the passage of Amendment 3: The argument that including "sexual orientation" as a protected class could become a slippery slope leading to gay marriage is diminished. The amendment wrote a ban on same-sex marriage and other "domestic unions" into Utah's constitution.

"The passage of Amendment 3 definitely takes away some of their arguments that the inclusion of sexual orientation will lead to something bigger, something grander," he said.

Opponents, including Gayle Ruzicka, president of Utah Eagle Forum, say it's unfair to base a crime's penalty on a defendant's motive.

"It's insane," Ruzicka said. "We're not even considering laws that are all equal. They talk about discrimination, but hate crime laws are laws that discriminate against certain people . . . who are penalized based on the things they were thinking while committing a crime."

The poll results, Ruzicka said, are likely because people don't understand the issue.

Litvack said prosecutors and law enforcement officers have told him the existing law, passed in 1992, is so vague it's unenforceable, largely because it fails to classify any protected groups of citizens.

"Law officers are unable to use it; they have been asking for an enforceable tool for many years," he said. "Every other state that has workable hate crimes laws includes classifications."