Comments about ‘Poll: Majority of Utahns against same-sex marriage and say states have the right to decide’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 18 2014 10:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

Although the LDS Church is certainly a majority in Utah and has great influence, people who are not members or part of the church should be able to choose how to live their lives without being looked down on and discriminated against through unconstitutional state laws. This include same sex marriage and anything else that doesn't follow the doctrine of the LDS Church.

blue springs, MO

majority opposes sin ? well it is about time !

Mesilla/USA, NM

Tyranny of the majority...enough said.

Gonzales, LA

Utah congrats on not being bullied or persuaded by the left and progressive parties. How thankful we should be to have the vision of this moral break down and realize that it does nothing for family values nor perpetuation of children. I believe every person has freedom of choice and it should be honored within the laws provided. I am glad to hear the silent majority speak and truly wish it would happen all over this nation, I believe it would make a difference in many things and in the progress of most people.

Seattle, WA

I think it is a stretch to say the "majority of Utahns against same-sex marriage" when the sample size was only 746 Deseret News/KSL readers. The results are totally inconsistent with several other polls I've seen.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

In the end, the argument that gay relationships are just like straight relationships is clearly false and can only be argued by the willfully blind.
Utah should not participate in mass obfuscation of reality

Silver Spring, MD

With all due respect to Mr. Johnson, I believe he is constructing a straw man argument.

Speaking only for myself as a gay person and an observant Jew, the line between religious rites and civil rights is bright. My partner of many years and I married in a mainstream Reform Jewish temple-- the very same temple where he had become bar mitzvah decades earlier. It was important to us as observant Jews to receive the blessing of our community, our families and of God. We were pleased that we didn't need to go searching for a rabbi willing and able to marry us. Had our rabbi said, "no", we would have had to go elsewhere.

All that said, our religious marriage was never recognized by the state in which it was performed. For that, we needed a civil marriage license. When citizens of our state approved marriage equality for us, we married civilly. Now our relationship is protected legally under the law.

Two separate issues. No church is required to marry anyone who doesn't conform to its rules and dogma. The state, on the other hand, must be open to all, and protect us all equally.


This is not a pure democracy.

The 10th amendment is in the bill of rights as originally penned by the founding fathers of our constitutional republic.

This 10th amendment is a provision which gives the states and the American people the RIGHT to retain all powers not delegated to the federal government.

Protecting and guarding the public morals and the public health are to be responsibilities of the state governments.

Judge Shelby is in violation of the bill of rights.

Obamacare is in violation of the bill of rights.

Simple Truths
Salt Lake City, UT

Anyone else notice how these numbers are about 10 points off every other survey on this topic, even KSL reader surveys? Makes me wonder if they split up the survey pool by geography instead of population e.g. half the population lives in the metro area so they should represent half the survey vs an even number of respondents should be from each county etc.

Also, anyone notice how this survey says that a majority supports civil unions but then a majority also would vote yes on Amendment 3 today even though it outlaws the civil unions they support? That tells me the either this survey is a mess, or that a lot of Utahans who support A3 don't understand it. Eh, either way, with these numbers, Amendment 3 would never pass muster today. To many Utahans are waking up to the truth: the fact that someone is different than you is not a good excuse to restrict their freedoms especially when it comes to something as personal as love and family. .

Salt Lake City, UT

The whole idea that public opinion matters is a sensationalized sound-bite that trounces the constitution. Public opinion did not favor a woman's right to vote. In southern states prior to 1860 or so, public opinion did not appose slavery. Many of the amendments to the constitution came to be as result of what the founders could not for see. this is one of those issues. What sadden's me every time an issue like this comes up is often respondents forget or don't know how to prioritize and discriminate their person morality in a way that protects the rights of the minority in regards to the constitution. Fortunately, we have the US constitution to provide that guidance.

Wasatch Front, UT

There is no such thing as "same sex marriage". Call same sex unions whatever you want, but two does or two bucks legally bound is not marriage. I am for equal protection in terms of taxes, medical/visitation rights, housing, employment etc. The equal protection clause should not be ignored. But don't destroy the biologically based, historically supported, lifetime (and beyond to many) commitment of a man and a woman by destroying the meaning of the word marriage.


The article is misleading.
Last I checked there are around 2.9 Million people in Utah, and this poll was done with 746.
That's 0.0002% of Utah's population, hardly a minority let alone a majority.

If you look, 918 same-sex couples were married and I'm pretty sure they approve of same-sex marriage.

You can make anything a majority if you pick and choose who you poll.

Berkeley reader
Berkeley , CA

Today's editorial in this paper bemoans the number of children being raised by single parents and concludes with says this observation:

"Children raised in homes led by married parents are much more likely than others to avoid poverty and be emotionally and psychologically well-adjusted. They are even, one might say, more likely to “value themselves as fully human.”

That is a point on which there should be no confusion."

How can the Utah government and LDS church justify their emphasis on children's welfare against their intractable opposition to giving civil rights to those children being raised by two loving same sex parents? It's untenable, and suggests that their opposition to SSM is just animus cloaked in religious doctrine. They don't have a leg to stand on.

Seattle, WA

I hope this poll helps relieve the concerns about religious protection in case of legalized same-sex marriage. 72% of people said laws should be passed to affirm that churches cannot be compelled to perform SSM. 22% said those laws are not necessary.
Mr. Johnson's interpretation of that 22% is confusing: "It makes me feel like if a same-gender couple goes to an orthodox Jewish rabbi and says, 'Marry us in your synagogue,' the 22 percent would say he has to say yes."
No, I don't hear anyone saying this. The 22% recognize that laws already protect religious liberty and their right to discriminate. The government already cannot interfere in a church's rites or ordinances, including marriage, so 22% of people believe additional laws to affirm this are not needed.
In any case, it is clear that there is no conspiracy to compel churches to perform or even accept same-sex marriages. I hope that this fear at least can be put to rest.

Sandy, UT

This is irresponsible journalism. Omitting the fact that the 1st amendment of the US Constitution is what's stopping service providers and churches from having to be involved in any same sex marriages appears to be purposefully done to create shock value among readers without Constitutional law knowledge. Further you allow a lay person's reading of the poll to inform your readers about the intentions of the 22% to suggest to your readers that 1/5 of Utah think same sex couples should be able to force involvement of churches and merchants against the practice. That is clearly wrong. Rather than letting people without knowledge of the legal underpinning or basic statitstical analysis capabilities to comment on polls of this importance is irresponsible journalism as it leaves readers less informed than they had been prior to reading. I suggest using basic research and qualified input next time.

Simple Truths
Salt Lake City, UT

I'd like to explain, from my point of view, why so many people are against laws that "protect" churches from having to conduct same-sex marriages. We already have a law that does that. It's called the First Amendment. I wonder if people don't trust the First Amendment. Churches already have the freedom to pick and choose who can and who cannot marry (or be baptized, or attend, or hold office ... ). That's why Catholics aren't suing to marry in the temple. It's the reason Mormons aren't suing to marry in the Madeline.

So making an extra law to reinforce the First Amendment is like bracing the granite walls of the temple with 2x4's.

I'm gay. I think you should have the freedom to set whatever rules you want inside your faith. I have those same freedoms. The Constitution agrees. Putting the entirety of the legislative system to work just to send a message to gay people saying, "Yeah but, we really don't want you in our church." Is as hurtful as it is redundant. It's like going out of your way to specifically tell someone you hate them. Ouch.

Glendale, CA

I really need some help here. I hope someone with a traditional opinion on this matter can answer this for me. My religion embraces same sex marriage. I thought the First Amendment protects us from the government passing laws which favor one religion over another. Is that not what the HR3 does? I know you are trying to protect your religious beliefs but does that have to come at the price of suppressing my religious beliefs?

Glenrock, WY

This entire issue, on which we're spending so much public time, attention and money, could be solved by ending government licensing of any private, domestic partnerships ("marriage," "domestic partnership", etc.). This would end, as well, government's conferring preferential tax treatment and providing other differential legal benefits based on such licenses. Obviously, the domestic relations bar (i.e., divorce lawyers) wouldn't be happy, but the savings to society would be immense. If individuals want spiritual sanction for an interpersonal union, they can go to churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. to get it. But keep the government out of it.

The only serious argument I hear on this relates to the welfare of children. But child support and welfare obligations of parents exist independently of whether parents have a licensed marriage. And government-licensed unions obviously have been no guarantee that children will be raised in the 1950s-style conventional households that supporters of government-licensed "marriage" appear so ardently to desire.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Kings Court
"The Salt Lake Trib. also did a poll on Gay Marriage four days ago and found that it was split 50/50 on the issue. So I wonder whose poll is accurate. "

I think somewhere around 40-55, closer to this poll than the Survey USA poll (Tribune). Same-sex marriage support in Utah is usually more than a dozen below the national average in polling.

" There's nothing in the US Constitution about marriage. "

So the federal courts were wrong to strike down interracial marriage bans, in your opinion?

"The only reason why young people are more accepting of gay marriage is due to being hammered constantly in universities and colleges to accept it.."

Young people were also at the forefront of the civil rights movement too.

"infact history shows that societies that accepted and embraced the gay lifestyle will eventually dissapered go to ruin and self destroy."

That's not even accurate.

Glendale, CA

I shake my head when I read that people believe churches will be forced to marry SS couples. Churches are protected from this...just like a Jewish couple cannot demand to be married in a Catholic church. I think these people are being "Chicken Little". Now as for commerce..we have local non discrimination laws. And yes, sexual orientation is one such minority, along with race, creed, color and disabilities. Do you think these businesses should have the right to discriminate against these other minorities?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments