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


Return To Article
  • docrt925 Collingswood, NJ
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    I'm curious to find out if Mr. Johnson is equally/conversely surprised or offended or up-in-arms that anyone thinks that religions should force the government to do things?

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:28 p.m.

    If you have to go through the government to be able to do something, it should not be considered a right in the first place.

  • non believer PARK CITY, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    So states should be the ones to decide and be able to not recognize legal marriages performed in other states..... Sounds just like the argument for slavery 150 years ago! it is a state decision!

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    I don't have a problem with the premise in this article... the danger of it comes via our history.

    The article's topic, same-sex marriage, could easily be replaced with segregation or slavery... to me that's where the danger lies.

    Just because a State feels a certain way on an issue, does not make the State, it's citizens, or their Constitution right. Being in the majority on an issue, does not give you the final say on what 'right or wrong' is. It does give you the responsiblity to find 'the right' and do it.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    I am sadden to read so many words of hate from those clamoring for a more "civil" discourse.

    Some say Judge Shelby's decision was judicial tyranny.

    Worse than judicial tyranny is dogma-driven tyranny that tells people (who are not members) how they should live.

    Worse than judicial tyranny is a group of people, once persecuted for their non-standard beliefs and practices, persecuting others for THEIR non-standard beliefs and practices.

    It represents the absolute height of hypocrisy.

  • Bill McGee Alpine, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:06 p.m.

    The opinions of the citizens of the State of Utah - even if 100% of them agree - are completely irrelevant if their opinion violates the constitutional rights of anyone. A cornerstone principle of the constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    Given our history, you would think we would be especially careful to avoid anything that even remotely resembles denying anyone their rights. "Religious freedom" can easily be turned into a cudgel used to bludgeon others.

    For example, a few years ago, Rev. Pat Robertson began a drive to prevent anyone that was not Christian from holding public office, because, as he explained, the constitution was founded on Judeo-Christian values and non-Christians were incapable of appreciating or understanding that foundation. He singled out Buddhists, Muslims, and Atheists. BTW, he also does not believe that Mormons are Christians.

    That may seem far-fetched, but what if the majority of folks in a Bible-belt state agreed with that sentiment? Should they be allowed to ban Mormons from running for office or voting if enough people agreed with that sentiment? Once you blur the line on individual rights, how do you protect anyone?

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    Why do we apply the idea of N wolves and 1 goat, N > 1, voting on what is for dinner to gay marriage, but do not apply it to let's say, tax laws? You could argue that the progressive income tax structured so that the minority top earners are taxed at a much higher rate is exactly the wolves voting to have the goat for dinner. In fact, there are many instances of conflict between a majority and a minority that are resolved in the favor of the majority to the chagrin of the minority, and we are not talking about wolves and goats. I am inclined to think there is some agenda behind it that has nothing to do with logic, the pseudo-logic is only being used to sell it.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:47 p.m.


    bountiful, UT

    too bad the minority rules.

    Actually, the Constitution rules. It is the supreme law of the land.

    If a state passes a law that is directly against something in the constitution,(say, like, equality under the law for all), it will not pass the judicial review of said law. Pretty simple and yet brilliant. Got to love our Constitution!

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 2:27 a.m.

    too bad the minority rules.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 21, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    "The Deseret News recently published an article about same sex marriages in North Nigeria where the records show that the percentage of AIDS per same sex couples is over 4 times higher than among heterosexual couples.
    The state of Utah has the power to guard the public morals and the public health as mandated by the 10th amendment to the constitution.
    Therefore, based on incidence of AIDS, no marriage certificates should be allowed for homosexual couples."

    Are you saying that Americans should suffer consequences because people in Nigeria have HIV?

    And, if it were true that some people have HIV and want to marry, would that not discourage the spread of HIV to allow them, and encourage it not to allow them?

    How does one guard the public morals by refusing someone the right to marry? If they are in a relationship anyhow, doesn't it help the public morality if they get married?

    I am disappointed to see folks reaching so far for rationales.

  • Jemezblue Albuquerque, NM
    Jan. 21, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    It is sad that some people don't even know the history of their own state:

    1. Utah was Never a slave state. Slaves were not allowed nor believed in by the majority that were ..... wait for it..... Mormons!

    2. Utah was the Second state to allow voting rights for Women and at the time the majority that were..... wait for it....wait for it.....Mormons!

    3. So when the Mormons speak up and have already done so by a VOTE against gay marriage, I would Pay Attention and try to understand their point of view why they are voting that way.

    Try to live civilly with your neighbors with out name calling and learn some history.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    Morality. That's it. GG/

  • sfcretdennis Nice, CA
    Jan. 21, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    What people tend to forget you can not force God to change his mind. His laws well prevail no matter what anyone has to say on the matter. Human rights or no Human rights Gods laws are for us all to follow even if you don't believe in them or not and his judgement comes to us all even if you don't believe in them.

    To Bruce A. Frank San Jose, CA: The LDS church well NEVER give in and perform same sex marriage, even if it losses its tax states it well not marry same sex couples. God has said this is an abomination and you can not force a church to perform that which God has said is a sin. For if any church givens in the well face the wrath of God and which wrath do you want to face the wrath of a sinner or the wrath of God?

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 21, 2014 3:36 a.m.

    I hope bias was written into the question, its the basis of the right of the state.

    Every state, all 50, have the constitutional right and obligation to establish moral and social standards and why there are no federal laws that dare to challenge all social and moral standards because of the variety of cultures and values that immigrants thorough out the expanison of this country in its divine destiny.

    Our forefathers knew that morals and social standards of immigrants varied by country they came from and this right was given to the states to create and maintain standards that society will live by. So the state do have the right to discriminate the moral and civil and economic values of its residents.

    Its also why there are no federal laws that establish moral and civil laws. It was believed that people have the wisdom to defeat dishonesty and immorality without the need for these laws. Truth and humanity would defeat the unwanted and this is our right. It is our right to be biased, prejudiced, in profiling to establish law and order and rule of law. Fair is not a right and not all laws can be fair to all.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 20, 2014 7:53 p.m.

    Where do these destructive myths come from?

    Moses Lake, WA
    "...attachments that churches and certain businesses would not have to service gay marriages.... photographers, bakery shops, caterers and Pastors that are in legal trouble for not providing service to gays... pressure on a school district to insert gay curriculum into the classroom."

    A--- Let's be clear that churches and businesses are separate issue. No legislature and no judge could make a church marry people who do not fit its rules, but if a person or a church owns a business open to the public, it must obey the laws.
    B--- In some more liberal areas, where everyone knows there are Gay people and Gay couples, they appropriately inform kids about the community, not teach them sex. Remember, some kids know they are Gay at 5, and deserve to be told they are OK.

    Bruce A. Frank
    San Jose, CA
    The real problem as I see it is that the homosexual community wants to force same sex marriage on the religious community.

    C--- Actually, the real problem: some churches are afraid that their own members and their own kids who are Gay will want to be treated equally.

  • formerteacher Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 6:19 p.m.

    I sense a lot of fear of equality. Fear of the unknown is the greatest fear of all. We have seen this throughout the history of this fine country. Personal religious beliefs should not be the reason to deny equal rights and benefits to others who may believe, think or live differently. If that were the case we would be no different than some countries in the world where only one religion is accepted and there continues to be war and discrimination against anyone of an opposing faith or belief. Religion has been the cause of nearly every war in the world, whether it was the Christian wars centuries ago to the wars we see in the world today. Giving equal rights to those who do not have it will not stop any religion from believing as they wish. It does not infringe on their rights and they do not have to perform any ceremony that differs from their teachings.

  • farsidefan1 midvale, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 5:11 p.m.

    Why do religions think they "own" marriage? Marriage exists outside of marriage all over the world. If a religion is anti gay marriage then don't perform them. Trying to make laws to enforce your religious beliefs is wrong on every level. Just because the LDS faith doesn't want to accept gay marriage should have absolutely NOTHING to do with the law of the land.
    Let's step back and let our religions or lack of religious belief rule where they should - in our own lives and Churches. Many feel Islamic law should be the rule of law in countries but what about the other churches? Religion in this corner, government in that corner. May the 2 harmoniously co exist. That is how it should work.
    Personally I see this as the right to pursuit of happiness. As long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others, well, butt out. Not your business. Your ox is NOT being gored.

  • Stephen Dickey PACIFIC PALISADES, CA
    Jan. 20, 2014 3:05 p.m.

    Sounds like the same "states rights" arguments made by Virginia when it went so far has trying to jail mixed-race couples for getting married out of state and them moving to Virginia. The Supreme Court found that such anti-miscegenation laws violated the 14th Amendment and will surely do the same with same sex marriages.

    Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  • newkid45 Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    It's been my experience that when "majority of Utahns" oppose anything it's because they are "told" to by the leaders of the predominant religeon. I've experienced this through family members who are very active in "the" church of which I am not as active as I once was since I started to think for myself and come to my own conclusions.
    We, the faithful are told that we are put here to prove ourselves righteous and worthy of the return to "heaven". By doing everything you are told to do by the religeous leaders, you don't experience anything but day to day life. Make up your own mind, your own decisions, mistakes and learn from them. That's what you are "here for".

  • kofender Rockaway, NJ
    Jan. 20, 2014 11:10 a.m.

    In 1967, the residents of the United States were polled as to whether interracial marriage should be legal, and the vast majority said no. Then along came Loving v Virginia and interracial marriages were legal (much to the loud grumbling of many racists throughout the country).

    We are at a "Loving" moment. Marriage equality is legal in 17-19 states (Utah and Oklahoma currently on hold) and DC. In a couple of decades, when SCOTUS paves the way for marriage equality in all 50 states, are people going to admit they were against it? Liars and hypocrites probably won't.

    And yes, marriage equality IS going to be the law of the land, much sooner than you think. Even in Utah...

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    Salt Lake Tribune indicates their poll at 50%.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    Even convicted spousal abusers, and adult child molesters have a fundamental right to marry, but a same-sex couple? Oh no, the sky will fall, society will collapse and religious freedom will be destroyed. Seriously?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 20, 2014 10:08 a.m.


    "This is how a democracy dies. To say that the basic moralities of the majority are subject to the whims of the minority and their lifestyle choices is to kill democracy."

    There are so many inaccuracies and stereotypes going on in this one sentence, it boggles the mind. Example: to assert that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" immediately disqualifies you from the discussion due to lack of knowledge.

    Many of those against marriage equality fail to realize that we are not a pure democracy, we live in a democratic constitutional republic. That means that the people can vote to make the laws of the land, as long as those laws comport with the US constitution and do not trample upon the rights of free citizens. Utah's Amendment 3 utterly failed legal scrutiny, and that's why it was struck down. This same situation occurred in Oklahoma, with similar results after the 10th Appeals Court rules in favor of the Shelby decision.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    Bruce says: "The real problem as I see it is that the homosexual community wants to force same sex marriage on the religious community..."

    ldschristian says: "Every man in Utah already has the "right" to marry. It just has to be to a woman. And every woman in Utah already has the right to marry. It just has to be to a man. "

    From where I stand, it is the religious community trying to force opposite-sex marriage on gays.


    Have you ever had to worry about what is going to happen to you or your significant other if one of you dies? You have legal protections in your relationship that we do not. This is extremely stressful.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    Interesting, can this be true, did the sky really not fall? From the SacBee:
    "Not a single one of those 900 marriages took place in LDS temples or other places of worship. Just as was true in California, before Prop. 8, civil-marriage equality does not infringe on religious freedom. Churches—including the LDS—remain free to refuse to marry any couple that does not meet their doctrinal requirements for marriage.
    Those 900 Utah couples were married in public courthouses and in churches that support marriage equality. And, thankfully, Americans are—rather quickly—coming to see that marriage equality is no threat to religious freedom. In fact, marriage equality will actually strengthen the First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, as those religious organizations who support marriage equality will finally be free to practice it."

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    Ha. I am so glad that tax benefits and a few other rights entailed true happiness. All of that pure love and righteous love. Gay people were only prevented from experiencing true bliss in this life because the government had not yet given them tax breaks, or a marriage license. Yes! This is great. If gay marriage is allowed in utah, then only now will gay people be truly happy.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    @ldschristian 10:56 p.m. Jan. 19, 2014

    Every man in Utah already has the "right" to marry. It just has to be to a woman. And every woman in Utah already has the right to marry. It just has to be to a man. We are not withholding the right to marry for anyone. Everyone already has the right to marry.


    Let's take your argument back to the 1960s in Virginia:

    Every Negro (using the term of the time) in Virginia already has the "right" to marry. It just has to be to a Negro. And every Caucasian in Virginia already has the right to marry. It just has to be to a Caucasian. (The same argument being made for any racial designation in Virginia at the time. ) We are not withholding the right to marry for anyone. Everyone already has the right to marry.

    That argument was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Article 14 to the US Constitution says ". . . nor shall any State . . . deny to ANY person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the laws" (emphasis added). Separate but equal isn't equal. The Supreme Court decided that a long time ago.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 20, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    @ banderson

    "The real issue is whether something will stabilize or destabilize a country."

    Did you ever notice that the decline of the U.S. is correlated with the rise of fundamentalist-type religiosity? I think a strong argument can be made that religion has had an undermining effect on our country. It certainly has shown itself hostile to knowledge and growth. How is this moral or good?

    Frankly I think it is more often the case that we are moral and good DESPITE religion than because of it.

  • Dennis Harwich, MA
    Jan. 20, 2014 7:21 a.m.

    For those of you that don't understand, majority is not the issue here. It's the legal rights of citizens of the United States.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Jan. 20, 2014 12:35 a.m.

    When this is all over, if and when marriage equality carries the day, those who are so adamantly opposed might seriously wonder if they truly wanted the democratic-republic style of government that this country is, with the distinct separation of church from state that has caused many of its fine citizens to wonder about its most obvious secular nature. Perhaps there will be a hue and cry over the "Godlessness" of it all. Sadly for those folks, it is what it is, and what it is not is a theocracy. Should anyone want one of those, and then believe it is possible to design one, I'm sure he or she and a group of like-minded individuals could find suitable land upon which to form that theocracy. But I don't believe it would be as wonderful as the dream, nor as secure. So lick your wounds, mourn awhile, and stay here in this messy but free, secular democratic-republic with the rest of us.

  • ldschristian Salt Lake City / USA, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 10:56 p.m.

    Every man in Utah already has the "right" to marry. It just has to be to a woman. And every woman in Utah already has the right to marry. It just has to be to a man. We are not withholding the right to marry for anyone. Everyone already has the right to marry.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 10:32 p.m.

    this is actually quite humorous. The tit for tat about whether the citizens of the state can decide an issue or not is meaningless if the action is immoral! The real issue is whether something will stabilize or destabilize a country. If something that is wrong is given the right under the law to be O.K, then it really doesn't matter whether it is Constitutional or not, does it? In fact, you might as well dump the Constitution in the ocean. laws that are immoral will destroy a country. IT IS THAT SIMPLE!

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 10:16 p.m.

    I should hasten to point out that the "majority" isn't always right, and the "majority" shouldn't always have their way. I think we have far bigger fish to fry now that struggling to protect people from themselves. Nearly every attempt to legislate morality has failed miserably, and we should be concentrating on the wrongs that are perpetrated upon UNWILLING participants.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Jan. 19, 2014 10:05 p.m.

    I don't feel that a poll set up by the Deseret News is a scientifically sound survey.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:45 p.m.

    @ Alfred

    That would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Business owners cant discriminate against who can buy their cakes, or who can sit at their lunch counters. Also, the Civil Rights Act has had zero effect on religion, so your fears in that respect can be put to rest.

  • Stephen Daedalus Arvada, CO
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:37 p.m.

    @Alfred: "Where [at the] state or federal level do we see that flowers or wedding cake businesses are required to serve anyone they don't wish to serve? If a business can be required to serve a gay couple, then, to be fair, a church can be required to perform Same-sex marriages."

    Different issues.

    "When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity." United States v Lee (1982) "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate." Employ. Div v Smith (1990)

    Translation: state or federal statutes may impose obligations on businesses (ex. anti-discrimination laws) and even though an owner may feel compliance would violate his religious beliefs, he cannot refuse and look to the Constitution for absolution.

    Now, if a state law requires a church to admit or marry anyone against its wishes, that law would be slam-dunk unconstitutional.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:16 p.m.

    Alfred, businesses are licensed by the state, religions are not. There in lies the difference.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:05 p.m.

    Really: Actually all you have to do is read the comments in favor of Same-sex marriage. We are said to love our fellowman because we don't favor same-sex marriage. We are said to be bigots and hateful consistently. Either you are ignoring these facts or your head is buried in the sand. When we speak we are told that our religious views have no place in the public square that we don't love the constitution.

    Now for inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage. In the late 1800's Congress and the US Supreme Court defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Thus they outlawed and made it a crime for anyone in this country to enter into a polgymous marriage. When they ruled inter-racial marriage equal the Supreme Court did not redefine marriage as between one-man and one-woman. DOMA again didn't redefine marriage but stated the same as Congress and the Supreme Court had already ruled. Marriage in the United States was define as marriage between one man and one woman.

  • venitar Provo, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:42 p.m.

    If the first amendment supports the right of gays/lesbians to boycott restaurants because of their beliefs, why doesn't it also support clergy who choose to boycott performing gay marriages? If you force clergy to perform marriages they don't agree with, you need to force gays to buy food at restaurants they don't agree with. The gate swings both ways.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    Dan Jones is a respected, mainstream, professional polling organization, but I have a serious question about the survey methodology. Public opinion surveys such as this one are typically anonymous. I have participated in opinion polls many times, being called by Jones or other survey agencies for political or marketing research and have never been asked for my identity. So how is it the reporter was able to quote two respondents to the survey, one on either side of the issue? Were poll respondents informed that the poll was not anonymous? Were they given the option of identifying themselves? Or did the reporter randomly call people until he found two people who had participated in the survey (which seems statistically unlikely)? Anonymity or the lack thereof would have a significant influence given the sensitive nature of the survey topic.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 19, 2014 7:42 p.m.

    Irrespective of how one feels on the issue of same sex marriage, I find it amusing that some post that we (the voting populace) do not get to vote on what rights we or others get.

    That is entirely false. Since the dawn of our republic we have decided what we would consider rights and what we would not. To believe that it is now different is absurd.

    The founders decided what rights would be part of the constitution. Others have been added since. Other countries have decided otherwise and different rights are recognized (or not). Rights are what we agree to recognize. Nothing more.

    For over 200 years we did not recognize a right of gay marriage. It was not a right. Now, the pendulum appears to be swinging that way. That is because people are deciding it is a right. It reflects a shift in popular opinion.

    If you want to know what innate human rights you have go to a totalitarian country and agitate for change. The answer will be provided to you very quickly. The answer is none.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 7:33 p.m.

    @ Bruce, "The real problem as I see it is that the homosexual community wants to force same sex marriage on the religious community..."

    Do you see the LDS church forced to marry Catholics or Jews in their temples? Fear not, the first amendment is and remains well and good, sky will fall argumentation is without merit.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:57 p.m.

    "This is how a democracy dies. To say that the basic moralities of the majority are subject to the whims of the minority and their lifestyle choices is to kill democracy."

    This is also how morality passes... Ben Franklin said: 'Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.' John Adams said: 'Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'

    "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.)."

    Marriage is not a religious function. It's a contract between two people. Marrying is a government function authorizing and acknowledging a contract and can be preformed by government personnel and religious leaders alike. Thus, it is not a protection under the 1st Amendment.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:52 p.m.

    "Majority of Utahns against same-sex marriage..."

    Of course they are. If a person wants to marry they can't choose choose a sibling, a child, an aunt or uncle, or a son or daughter. And they can't choose a group of people, such as polygamy. And they shouldn't be able to choose someone of the same sex. There's alotta restrictions to who can marry whom/what.

    "...and say states have the right to decide"

    Of course states do. It says so in the US Constitution. There's nothing in the US Constitution about marriage. It says powers not specifically identified in the Constitution as federal powers are reserved to the states and the people. The right to define marriage is such a power delegated to the states. Some contend that the Constitution says you can't discriminate. Utah's marriage law does not discriminate. It applies to all citizens equally. In fact, carving out and allowing one particular marriage combination, such as same-sex, would introduce discrimination against all other possible combinations.

  • pldabbs Draper, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:42 p.m.

    "The Purpose of Marriage is Not Procreation"
    The Purpose of Marriage is Not ONLY Procreation
    Fixed it for you.
    To deny that reproduction and a stable family unit is not a PART of what marriage is about is to deny history.
    To claim that marriage is ONLY about "love" is to ignore history entirely.
    Marriage for love is a recent development in human society. Indeed, in many parts of the world, it still remains an oddity rather than the norm. Developing love AFTER marriage was the hope, but it was not deemed a necessary part of the relationship.
    To get married solely for ‘love’ or ‘benefits’ is incorrect. Procreation is a necessary part of the marriage relationship. If a person wants to enjoy the blessings of marriage then do it right! Artificial insemination is a copout. In GM it is impossible without a surrogate mother. And what kind of normalcy are you giving children with a female dad or a male mom?
    Dictionary: Father… male parent; Mother… female parent.
    Male: sex producing sperm cell or male gamete
    Female: sex producing egg cells
    Change definitions of male & female like was done with ‘marriage’ (same sex) then maybe. Good luck!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:33 p.m.


    The 10th Amendment PROHIBITS violations of the US Constitution by the states, thus, Utah's amendment 3 is invalid. Read it, states do NOT have the right to over-rule the US Consitution.


    You're right. Instead of calling it "same-sex marriage", we should just call it "marriage". That's what it is.

  • bradk77 sandy/USA, 00
    Jan. 19, 2014 5:58 p.m.

    If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry anyone your own gender. Problem solved.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 5:42 p.m.

    If the percent of people who wanted to permit civil unions now, and the percent who had voted for the proposition that was against them are the same, this makes me wonder something disturbing--did the people who took this poll even read what they were asked? Of course, they may have not been the same ones--it was an incredibly small sample to be representing enven a state this size. Still, it would have been a larger number who voted, I should hope, on the proposition, and I'd like to think that those who answered a poll question would have been interested enough to also have voted. Which, sadly, leaves me with the question nagging me even more loudly--did they read those questions--or simply answer with knee-jerk responses?

    And one other thing...the question of kids being browbeaten into being in favor of marriage equality at college--my sixth grade teacher said, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". Maybe the student needed to protect himself from judgmental adults back home, and it was the best excuse he could come up with on short notice.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    "Sad. Those who argue for traditional marriage and against SSM are called 'haters' and 'wolves' in the comments. Is this in keeping with the new Desnews policy?"

    Funny, I keep seeing this claim being posted, but I keep missing the evidence. Maybe a few people are calling others names, but it isn't happening nearly as often as people would make you believe it is.

    What we are really witnessing is that people are challenging each others' comments. That doesn't mean they are being called haters or wolves. Yes, some have been called bigots, but isn't that the risk one takes when they say that one group of people doesn't deserve the same rights the rest enjoy?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    @Riccar, re: " have seen this gay rights agenda go from domestic partnerships, to "everything but marriage", to gay marriage. Each time with the attachments that churches and certain businesses would not have to service gays....."

    Just replace "gays" with "African Americans" for the appropriate perspective. Then research Public Accommodations law, meaning Catholics cannot refuse service to Mormons because of strongly held religious beliefs..

    Understand better?

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 19, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    "Where, in any legislation at any state or federal level do we see forcing of religious groups to perform same-sex marriage?"

    Where, in any legislation at any state or federal level do we see that flowers or wedding cake businesses are required to serve anyone they don't wish to serve?

    If a business can be required to serve a gay couple, then, to be fair, a church can be required to perform Same-sex marriages. After all, marriages are not considered a part of freedom to worship or establishing a religion as outlined in the 1st Amendment.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    @ Oatmeal

    I haven't seen many "loving" comments from the traditional marriage crowd.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Jan. 19, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    Bruce A. Frank--you got it all right except 'the LDS will eventually cave' part.

  • Chilidog Somewhere, IL
    Jan. 19, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    Bruce Frank stated: "The real problem as I see it is that the homosexual community wants to force same sex marriage on the religious community. "
    Bruce, do you have any actual evidence to support this claim? I have been following this issue for a while now, and I have yet to see a single example of any gay people "forcing themselves on the religious community" that you claim.

    In fact, it is often the other way around with various religeous communities forcing their particular beliefs on others.

    Which, if I am not mistaken, is exactly what you are trying to do here.

    Please don't take this as a personal attack, but it is this type of attitude that you share with many others, an attitude that your view is the only acceptable view, that is the real issue here. Same sex marriage will have exactly zero impact on your life. So what is the basis of your objection to it?

  • Chilidog Somewhere, IL
    Jan. 19, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    It would appear that the majority of Utahns, if this poll is correct, are also opposed to the US Constitution.

    How else would you explain the total disregard for the protections of the 14th amendment?

    Anyone providing buisness services to the public must do so to all members of the public.

    Discrimination for whatever reason is ugly, immoral and wrong.
    If you advocate for the right to discriminate, then you have some real problems.

  • Jleydsman utah, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    In following this lawsuit I find it unusual that a judge would not order an immediate stay (like in Oklahoma) for such a controversial situation. Also, the original date of 1/7/14 was suddenly changed to late December.Also, the number of people who were married in a couple of days indicates maybe they were notified, in advance, that the date change and lack of a"stay", were coming! As time goes by it looks very suspicious.

  • InLifeHappiness Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 1:41 p.m.

    The Governor’s statement at the end of the article shows irony – Governor now states he upholds the law, yet previous news articles show this governor and Utah A.G. disallowed government officials to uphold Shelby’s ruling and even closed government offices to same sex couples. Federal A.G. Holder had to issue a federal statement to uphold Shelby’s ruling in Utah to override their non-compliance once again to recognize the Utah SSM marriages, allow them to continue paperwork with driver licenses, SSN, etc. Whether the Utah governor and Utah A.G. will be prosecuted for these multiple infractions are unknown, but indicative of the government hypocrisy existing in Utah. This poll is also interesting, as 26% of SLC are composed of same-sex parents according to UCLA Law Review, SLC has been one of the top gay city for the past five years, and religious fervor has minimized throughout the years. Other polls printed recently show the opposite. Is this why the state needs more time to prepare their appeal - are they unable to find legal means to support the Amendment 3?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    @ LovelyDeseret

    This country is not, nor has it ever been, a democracy. We are a republic and are ruled by the Constitution.

  • The Real Maple Syrup Ogden, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    I am pretty certain that this headline would have read the same fifty years ago, only with "segregation" in place of "gay marriage."

    When states decide that they aren't going to protect the right of all it's citizens, then it's the job of the Federal Government to step on and do it. Just like the Little Rock Five.

  • rick122948 boise, id
    Jan. 19, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    When will we ever learn to accept that one person forcing their belief on another that holds different beliefs is never right. Our ancestors fought a revolution to assert their rights against the tyranny of the king. Denying the minority equal protection under the law is just as tyrannical.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    I think this poll confirms a trend that those who follow this issue on a national basis have noticed. Utah seems willing to compromise on this issue - far more than other states. All three recent polls show a majority favor Civil Unions (something Amendment 3 precludes by the way).

    To quote a previous Deseret News article:

    "Utah is seeing the same kind of movement that we see in the United States generally," said Chris Karpowitz, a BYU political science professor and fellow at the center. "We're getting massive change in public opinion in a very short period of time." "What makes Utah voters different," Karpowitz says, is that they are moving "not toward full support of marriage equality but toward civil unions." (Deseret News July 9, 2012)

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 19, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    Has any society prospered with "gay marriage", as a norm?

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    Sad. Those who argue for traditional marriage and against SSM are called "haters" and "wolves" in the comments. Is this in keeping with the new Desnews policy?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    The problem with polls is in the way the questions are ask.


    1. Do you oppose same sex marriage? Most will answer Yes.

    2. Do you oppose personal freedom? Most will answer NO.

    3. Do you oppose the personal freedom to marry someone of your own sex?

    4 Do you oppose the use of the word marriage for same sex marriage?

    5. Do you oppose giving same sex partners the same economic advantages that traditional marriage partners have?

  • moniker lewinsky Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    People have the right to decide for themselves; not others. I know this can be a terribly difficult concept to grasp. But this is how it works.
    Yes, religious freedoms should still be protected. But it should not be necessary to withhold rights from one party in other to protect the rights of another. We're smarter than that. We can figure out a way.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    @ LovelyDeseret - What is moral about discriminating against another human being for no rational reason?

    @ Esquire in re: the meaninglessness of the poll: I agree with your point: A poll isn't relevant to the Constitutional issue at hand. What it is useful for is to reveal the movement of hearts and minds in the direction they always go when knowledge and information begin to win. They "bend towards justice."

  • Archie1954 Vancouver, BC
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    There seems to be a little matter of the Constitution and the separation of church and state involved here. Perhaps if the people of Utah feel very deeply about this matter they should petition to leave the United States of America which would allow them to live under a theocracy.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    @kolob1 No, that really isn't the case, and a quick search on Huffington Post alone will show you plenty of examples where churches and businesses have been sued for refusing to service homosexual couples. Therefore, we obviously need explicit laws in place that bolster the Constitution and defend the rights of people who don't want to support same-sex marriage in their churches and businesses, since activist judges don't seem to be deterred enough by the Constitution alone.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    Hello, Dennis,

    You said, "Discrimination and bigotry are illegal," however, that isn't entirely true.

    Bigotry is not illegal because you can't legislate how somebody feels about somebody else. For example, it is perfectly legal for me to have unflattering feelings and opinions regarding police officers from Baker County, Oregon. It is also legal for me to discriminate and deny services in my business to certain people, which is why the shoeless and shirtless in our society are so repressed.

    What we cannot do, because it is explicitly spelled out in our laws, is discriminate against somebody because of their religion or their race. However, we discriminate all the time against people's sexual preferences, such as laws that prevent polygamy, so doing so is obviously not illegal.

  • Sunset Orem, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    @ Bruce A. Frank

    Let's be honest. You cannot show a single case in which a church has faced pressure to violate their own religious beliefs. Businesses, yes, but those don't have rights. The religious community does not have a legal monopoly on marriage. Nobody's religious rights are violated if I get a gay marriage, just like mine aren't violated if you get a straight marriage. No church is being forced to provide facilities or services to accommodate beliefs with which they disapprove. All laws that have expanded services to minorities, such as the contraception mandate, have explicitly provided exemptions for churches. Sorry, but religious freedom is more under threat from radical evangelicals trying to use the state to ban mosques or police departments that use religion as a basis for systemic discrimination and spying.

    @ Clinton

    The problem is that some claim religious rights where there are none. You don't have a religious right to government support of your faith, or to impose your faith on others. Heterosexuality is forced on others ALL the time. Our culture is saturated in it. If straight people don't have to hide their sexuality, neither should gay people.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    "....and say if gay marriage were legal, Utah should pass laws to protect places of worship from having to perform weddings for gay and lesbian couples."

    So right now the LDS church restricts who has access to their temples. Only members in good standing are allowed to enter past the lobby. No one has tried to force them to allow straight non mormon couple to get married, or to allow friends and family that aren't LDS to be able to go to the wedding. Since getting gay married is against the LDS rules it would make them ineligible to be married in the temple. Since the LDS churches right to allow whom they want to get married in the temple hasn't changed, it seems like a second law would be overkill.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    @jrp7sen What makes you think that the same people who oppose same-sex marriage don't also oppose divorce? Just because it isn't in the news five times a day doesn't mean people don't care about it.

    Regarding the myriad questions about polling, polls differ because the questions in each poll differ and because the people being asked in each poll differ.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 19, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    I cringe a bit when people say something like "marriage has been the foundation of civilization for the past "6000 years". Societies and cultures that many would consider to be uncivilized also recognized the distinct but equal roles that fathers and mothers have in the raising of children. I would presume that the same was true before the dawn of civilization.

    Perhaps in the next generation will approve SSM. But at least, it won't be my generation that decides after 100,000 years of human society that children don't need a father and a mother.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    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?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    @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.

  • Gunnysack Glenrock, WY
    Jan. 19, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    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.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    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?

  • Simple Truths Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    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.

  • jasontucker Sandy, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    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.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Berkeley reader Berkeley , CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    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.

  • JoseJones SLC, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    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.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    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.

  • Esimerp Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    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.

  • Simple Truths Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    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. .

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Linguist Silver Spring, MD
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    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.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    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

  • Utefan34 Seattle, WA
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    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.

  • tgurd Gonzales, LA
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    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.

  • rondonaghe Mesilla/USA, NM
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    Tyranny of the majority...enough said.

  • djk blue springs, MO
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    majority opposes sin ? well it is about time !

  • Kaotic USA, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    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.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    This is how a democracy dies. To say that the basic moralities of the majority are subject to the whims of the minority and their lifestyle choices is to kill democracy.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    I would bet that the majority of people in the South, and perhaps the entire U.S., were opposed to civil rights for minorities in the early 1960s. Regardless of your views on the issue, and you are entitled to believe as you wish, if this is an equal rights under the law issue, then a poll is meaningless. The Constitution is the prevailing authority, which is what conservatives want. The application of the Constitution does not apply only on those issues you like. It doesn't work that way, at least not in the U.S.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    So 57% think they should have civil unions and yet 54% would still vote for amendment 3 that expressly prohibits and bans civil unions. That right there is pure animus towards gay people. They are so intent on discriminating against gay people that they would pass an amendment prohibiting something that they themselves believe gay people should have.

  • quickmatch Oak Park, IL
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    Where, in any legislation at any state or federal level do we see forcing of religious groups to perform same-sex marriage? I can't find any, but I can find a great deal of writing that states the exact opposite: religious groups are not forced to perform any act or service concerning marriage that goes against their tenets. Why, then, the constant harping from religious groups about this subject? Fear, of course, and ignorance, which breeds and feeds on fear--a vicious, destructive cycle. And, of course, I must believe that many religious individuals and groups use the existing argument as an attempt to force their own religious and personal ideas on others; an activity that was observed by the framers of the Constitution as a threat and dealt with in the First Amendment.

  • sigmund5 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    it is absolutely astounding that anyone could believe or led to believe that anyone's religious freedom is being infringed upon. Even more so is the crazy belief that the government is going to force any church to marry anyone. It is absolutely inconceivable! But what is of interest is how a religion operates that they can get into the consciousness of people that they would believe such utter and complete nonsense. That is the scary part of certain religions. How can you possibly believe it?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    I saw a poll published by the SL Trib a few days that found very different results. It found support v opposition to gay marriage to be exactly equal. I wonder if both polls just found what they wanted to find?

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    When same sex marriage becomes legal in UT. no additional laws will be needed to protect any religion. Ample protection already exists under the Constitution. UT should not let UT politicians continue to pull the wool over their eyes and needlessly spend their tax dollars for frivolous endeavors. By all accounts tax dollars are needed in UT's public schools and shouldn't be spent on a crusade to no where. Wake up Utahns

  • rusby Minneapolis, MN
    Jan. 19, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    Heaven help us all if that 22 percent were to ever become a majority.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    This nicely sums up the reasons why rights accrue to individuals before mobs or states. If all it took was a simple majority to overrule the constitution, Utah would be a very different place today. We're americans first, and I'm not giving up the rights and freedoms that are inherent in being american no matter how many locals disdain them. I am grateful for the protections offered by the constitution against the will of a utah majority.

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    The article failed to mentioned that more LDS members than every before support gay marriage.

  • themanwho Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    Now I know that this is how polls work, but it seems crazy that only 700ish people in the state were asked their opinions. Such a poll needs to be scrutinized as the information might be, and probably is, very flawed. For instance, here are a few questions that need to be asked: Were those polled spread out across the state or from specifically chosen locations? What was the primary religious beliefs, if any, of the people polled? How were those polled selected? Were those polled part of the voting process in 2004? I am not trying to say that the statistics are incorrect, but I am suggesting that we should always be weary of such a poll.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    "if gay marriage were legal, Utah should pass laws to protect places of worship from having to perform weddings for gay and lesbian couples." That is already the case. Quit pandering to the mob. If the State of Utah had the right to control everything they wanted in Utah you would eliminate the Constitution. If other states had the same right(s) they may eliminate religions that they don't like, such as those that label their religion(a) an abomination.

  • TruthBTold SLC, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    As a resident, tax payer, worker, community member, and church attender in the state of Utah, I appreciate this poll and article above all others in the past month. These polls reflects the opinions, feelings, beliefs and attitudes of my neighbors and fellow state citizens, and not the opinions of those outside this state. That is what I was seeking several articles ago, and unfortunately berated by my out-of-state friends for. Thank you DN/KSL and Dan Jones for conducting this survey.

    Yes, times are a changing, we see that in the poll numbers. However, it also seems likely that with the same rulings going on in different stares lately, the citizens of Utah recognize that Judge Shelby should have immediately stayed his decision and let this go to SCOTUS to determine constitutionality and States vs. Federal rights.

    IMHO, I believe this ends up being a States Rights decision and the citizens of Utah and all other states will be allowed to choose and vote according to the dictates of their own conscious.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 19, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    "72 percent said laws should be passed to protect churches, synagogues and other places of worship from having to perform same-sex marriages."

    I sincerely hope this finding is in part a testament to how rattled religionists are at the growing challenge to religious dogma and authority.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    Consider the source of this poll. The poll the Tribune conducted showed that 48 percent of Utahns approve of gay marriage. Anyway it doesn't matter because we don't get to vote on peoples rights. If that were the case then the majority could reinstate slavery or deny women the right to vote or outlaw the practice of certain religions.

  • Dennis Harwich, MA
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    It doesn't matter what the majority thinks. It's what's right, fair and within the law. Discrimination and bigotry are illegal. It's pretty simple. What if the "majority" of the population outside of Utah decided Mormonism couldn't be practiced. Would that be OK? The fundamental rights of the individual are bound by the constitution.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:49 a.m.

    I'm probably like most people and couldn't care less what people do with their lives as long they don't interfere with mine. That's the problem with gay marriage though, while some gay couples are happy to keep their sexuality in their bedroom where it belongs, too many gay folks make their sexual preferences their entire identity, and try to force their attitudes towards homosexuality on others; such as the gay couple in Colorado who sued a cake shop for refusing to make their wedding cake.

    The fact is that to many, homosexuality is a sin and against the doctrines of their various religions. Supporting homosexuality is also seen as a sin. Therefore, I think if we're going to have gay marriage in our society, it is prudent that we also implement laws protecting the religious rights of those who feel the moral need to distance themselves from it.

    Disrespecting the rights of religious people is no less myopic and bigoted than disrespecting the rights of homosexuals or anybody else.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:47 a.m.

    Goooooood for you, Governor Herbert?

  • Joemamma W Jordan, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:46 a.m.

    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.. It's pure peer pressure not wisdom.
    A young man at church during one of our metings expressed his views on the matter by saying that he got so much pressure from friends that he felt like caving into agreeing with gay marriage.
    The bottomline is, the issue it's being forced unto young people by making them feel guilty for being honest.. Alinsky tactics are being used such name calling, ridiculing, and shaming people into agreeing with gay marriage.
    I will advise young people to stay true to their religious principles and analize the concept of gay marriage from a secular prospective as well as religious and the answer will always be the same.. gay marriage does not offer any benefit to our society, infact history shows that societies that accepted and embraced the gay lifestyle will eventually dissapered go to ruin and self destroy.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    Well soon they will have no choice! And we all have a more happy and equal country!

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:26 a.m.

    Two wolves and a goat do not get to vote on what's on the dinner menu.

    This is why we have a constitution - to protect the rights of the minority from what's currently popular with the majority.

  • Bruce A. Frank San Jose, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 6:21 a.m.

    The real problem as I see it is that the homosexual community wants to force same sex marriage on the religious community. In the process they also want to force all who are religiously opposed to supply facilities and services regardless of the business' religious position. I expect eventually that a church will not be able to refuse to marry a homosexual couple, under threat that the church will loose its tax-exempt status...and the churches, including the LDS faith, will cave to the economic pressure. It will take only one law suit and the right bunch of "Progressive" judges to turn the First Amendment topsy-turvy!

  • Riccar Moses Lake, WA
    Jan. 19, 2014 5:54 a.m.

    I have seen this gay rights agenda go from domestic partnerships, to "everything but marriage", to gay marriage. Each time with the attachments that churches and certain businesses would not have to service gay marriages. Since then, I have heard of photographers, bakery shops, caterers and Pastors that are in legal trouble for not providing service to gays. I have also read of pressure on a school district to insert gay curriculum into the classroom. My concern is: How far will this go? Are there really exemptions? And, if so, will they get any legal protection? Many small businesses, Pastors and churches could not survive financially if they have to defend themselves in court.

  • flo-jay Boston, MA
    Jan. 19, 2014 5:37 a.m.

    Unlike where i live I say let the people vote, then if yes make that the law of the state if no then make that the law of the state.

  • Gibster San Antonio, TX
    Jan. 19, 2014 4:27 a.m.

    Does not matter. 50 Years of legal precedent says that the 14 Amendment is there to protect the rights of minority groups like this.

    Stop trying to legislate morality!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 1:52 a.m.

    So 57% support civil unions... and 54% support Amendment 3 which in addition to same-sex marriage bans civil unions...

  • danr San Bernardino, CA
    Jan. 19, 2014 1:16 a.m.

    A law protecting the church from gay marriage is superfluous and unnecessary. Religious freedom is sacrosanct in this country. This is just more fear mongering by conservatives and an opportunity to demean and ostracize Utah's gay citizens, AGAIN.

    Anyone without a recommend cannot attend the temple wedding of a family member or friend. It doesn't matter how Christlike and loved a person is, the the LDS church can deny that person entrance to the ceremony. This is upheld by the US Constitution. What makes anyone think gays can make the church allow gay marriages in the temples???

    The rights of minorities in America are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Mormons, of all people, should value this.

  • Capsaicin Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 1:02 a.m.

    Collectively accepting gay marriage as acceptable is ONLY an equality issue. It's a short term, feel good, pointless cause because it undermines everything heterosexual marriage stands for.

  • Ax-man OREM, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 12:40 a.m.

    Everyone supporting a decision or concept does not make it right.
    Everyone rejecting a decision or concept does not make it wrong.

    Some try to use the fact that the majority of Utahns are against SSM to reject it.
    Some try to use the fact that the majority of Americans favor legal SSM to support it.

    Both methods are wrong. Plessy v. Ferguson was the law of the land. Dred Scott v. Sandford was also "legal." Few would argue today that they were fair or right. But the numbers that support or reject those decisions, then or now, do not give them any strength.

    Decisions and public policy must not be based on the opinion of the day - whether you're Bill Clinton or Congress in 1996, or Robert Shelby in 2013.

  • jr85 United Kingdom , 00
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:22 p.m.

    I'm not stating which side of the argument I am on but it is really frustrating when two polls on the same question say completely different things. One polls says a majority of Utah supports same sex marriage while this one says the opposite. Muddles the argument further. Interesting to see how this will all turn out

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:13 p.m.

    "....and say if gay marriage were legal, Utah should pass laws to protect places of worship from having to perform weddings for gay and lesbian couples."

    Uh, like the First Amendment? The paranoia is spinning out of control.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:58 p.m.

    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. There is quite a big difference between these two poll results.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:53 p.m.

    What would the Founding Fathers think about the voting rights of the majority vs. the rights of the minorities?

    "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

    Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, (03-04-1801)

    "If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... "

    John Adams --- " Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States"

    Moreover, if more than 50% encompasses enough reason to change the law of the land, what will become when the scales tip to a simple 51%/49%?

    My majority alone, many of the rights we see as distinctly American would not have happened.

  • IndeMak South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:52 p.m.


  • jrp7sen Logan, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    Not that Utahn's opinions or beliefs influence the realness of another person's life and their ability to love another human being. Nobody should could care what they want. It has nothing to do with them.

    Gay people are human beings. Human's fall in love, therefore, gay people fall in love and their love is just as pure, kind, gentle, lovely and righteous as the next love.

    These people, if so paranoid about marriage, should focus on the high divorce rates over people actually trying to get married.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:39 p.m.

    Now that I asked about the polling questions the graphics show up with the story. After looking at the data, it appears that people were confused and contradicted themselves on a few questions. For example: 57% of respondents claim to support civil unions for same-sex couples, yet 54% claim they would vote for amendment 3 again with the exact same wording prohibiting civil unions. Another interesting note is that 45% of respondents say that we should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but I don't see any question asking whether or not we should recognize the same-sex marriages performed in Utah.

    It's interesting data, for sure, but I would like to compare them side-by-side with the other polls that have been conducted.

  • BYU_Aggie Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:37 p.m.

    For those curious about the LDS Church's stance on "civil unions," here's a quote taken from an interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman of the Seventy (the article is titled "Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction”):

    "ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn't expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn't matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it;s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, 'That is not right. That's not appropriate.'"

  • road2provo Davis, CA
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:31 p.m.

    There appears to be a discrepancy between the infographic and the article on Judge Shelby's decision. The agree and disagree percentages are swapped between the two.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:24 p.m.

    I am interested in seeing exactly how the questions were worded in this poll. This one seems contradict every other poll that has been conducted recently, so I question the data-gathering approach and whether a bias was automatically written into the questions. Does anyone know where to find the questions to this poll?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:15 p.m.

    Many take no stand with abortion either! So! Whether people have convictions or not, the state of Utah has a right, not just to disagree, but to claim that right and defend it! Hopefully others who can develop some self respect will come around to the same!