Majority of Utahns oppose gay marriage, but attitudes shift toward civil unions, BYU poll finds

Utah attitudes on gay marriage shift significantly

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • SuziQ Springville, UT
    July 23, 2012 4:21 p.m.

    I grew up in the Bay Area of California in the late 1970s. When I was a high school senior, one of the guys in our senior class went to court so he could legally bring his boyfriend as his date to the senior ball. I have also had friends that "came out" and a bisexual boss. I think that people should be treated fairly and not based on their sexual orientation, but what I have found is that people who decide that they are homosexual tend to want everyone to not just accept them but to also accept and embrace their lifestyle choice. Why do they care what others think? Sex has always been a private matter, but it is now a very public matter with implications for public policy. While I can see some benefit to having civil unions for homosexual couples, I personally object to the rewriting of my designation as a mother having to be deleted so that a gay couple can be termed parent 1 and parent 2. I cannot see that adding same sex marriage to our culture does anything for anyone except those who are seeking for a more acceptable label for themselves.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 12, 2012 9:05 a.m.

    @ In This Case: Actual case that has been to Court and has been decided: A man gets his girlfriend pregnant. She does not want the child, he does, she gives it to him and gives up all rights to the child. The man later gets married. His wife legally adopts his child. They divorce. The mother, although not biologically related to the child, is one of the child's two legal parents. The Court determines that the mother is better able to care for the child and awards her custody. The man pays child support and has visitation. Once a child is adopted, biological versus non-biological ceases to matter - both parents are legal parents and that is all the Court cares about.

    The only difference between that case and the case you posit is the gender of the involved parents.

    When sperm or an egg is donated by a third party and the other part of the equation comes from someone within the relationship, it doesn't matter - even though only one parent is biologically related, both parents are legal.

    Same-sex couples are having children with or without marriage. Marriage does not complicate the situation.

  • Ace4309 St. George, UT
    July 12, 2012 8:59 a.m.

    @InThisCase - "It makes it more difficult because in the case of same sex relationships, only one parent is the actual biological parent. That will take priority in the decisions of who will have custody of the children involved."

    But realize that this simply isn't true in jurisdictions that actually provide legal frameworks that actually treat people equally. It doesn't have to be this way. If it is this way in Utah, for example, it is this way because Utah has deliberately refused to provide treatment in law to give homosexual people the same respect that heterosexuals receive. We can't deny a group of people equal protection and then use the effects of that deliberate denial to evidence why they shouldn't receive protection. We throw all of these hurdles that straight people don't face in the way and then we sit back and say, "See? Look how much more dysfunctional and confusing it all is; surely we shouldn't recognize or respect that." We helped make it so and yet we pretend our hands are tied as if they created their own obstacles.

  • Ace4309 St. George, UT
    July 12, 2012 8:43 a.m.

    @InThisCase- "So my friend, even though she is the egg donor, could lose her own biological child to her partner should they split."

  • Ace4309 St. George, UT
    July 12, 2012 8:21 a.m.

    @InThisCase -first, I'm not attacking you; we disagree, and I'd even say quite civilly.

    In light of your reply to me and your earlier comments, I'd recommend you spend more time studying the law. Incest is a criminal offense and the law forbids "consent" in incestuous relationships between adults. That's the end of it; no further inquiry necessary. No legal similarity to homosexuality, period.

    As mentioned, the family law evolves and in this case, the words "mother" and "father" are replaced with "parents" in jurisdictions that provide equal marriage. Interestingly, your original comment might be correct regarding polygamy, which notably is the very reason that the argument "polygamy will somehow follow 'gay marriage'" fails. The law across the board is designed on a bipartite monogamous relationship. Introducing additional parties to the framework would be nearly impossible. But gender? Not an issue.

    Finally, if you're playing the procreation card, will you please explain why we allow heterosexuals couple to marry who either can't have or don't want children? Homosexuals have always existed and our species continues. Will heterosexuals really stop procreating because gays can now sign a legal contract together? I doubt it.

  • Thomas Alex Colorado Springs, CO
    July 12, 2012 12:59 a.m.


    Wrong, all major polls show a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. The 38% came from FOX News. And everyone knows how bias they're.

    CNN Poll May 29, 2012

    "Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

    54% said yes.

    ABC Poll May 17, 2012

    "Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?"

    53% said yes.

  • In This Case Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 12, 2012 12:10 a.m.

    It makes it more difficult because in the case of same sex relationships, only one parent is the actual biological parent. That will take priority in the decisions of who will have custody of the children involved. In the case of a hetero couple, both parents typically are the biological parents. In the cases of adoption, that is an entirely different part of family law. And if one parent later marries, lets say, a different dad of the child and adopts the child, and then those parents split, the biological parent most likely will always get full custody and maybe even sole custody.

    These situations are nothing new, you are right, but they are not nearly as simple as you describe it. Yes, I know this first hand. It doesn't really matter to me what anonymous people commenting on a news article think. Same-sex marriages would complicate family law. NATURE intended for men and women to procreate. I guess if same-sex couples don't want to involve children then it wouldn't be that complicated, but that is not reality. The smart thing would be to look at all angles before making things even more complicated.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 11, 2012 11:41 p.m.

    @n In This Case: And my non-custodial parent lost their biological child to the custodial parent.

    Surrogacy, in-vitro fertilization, adoption - the situation you are talking about is not that different and is really nothing new.

    Why is it more confusing to determine the best parent when they are both the same gender than it is when they are different genders?

    Even without marriage, custody of children often falls to the Court to decide. Are you arguing that in the situation you posit it will be easier to determine which woman gets to raise the child if the two women are not married to each other than it will be if they are married? When couples with children - married or unmarried - break up, they usually get a court order determining custody and child support. Two men, two women, or a man and a woman, custody and support are pretty standard. I am not sure why you think same-sex marriage makes it more confusing.

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 11, 2012 9:32 p.m.

    the ability to have children "biologically has never been a requirement of marriage, for someone so keen on the law I would think you already know that. As for nature homosexuality exist throughout all nature not just humans.

    As to who children go with in case of divorce you are trying to make it far more complicated then it has to be. the child goes to the parent that is best suited to care for the child. really not that hard to figure out.

  • In This Case Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 11, 2012 9:00 p.m.

    @Ace4309 - Just clarifying you comment back to A Voice Of Reason, incest can also be between consenting adults. I am in no way condoning it, because I DO think that is something that should never be allowed, but again, I am passing judgement on two consenting adults who may want to marry each other even though its not socially (and in the case of homosexuality as well, not physically) natural. Before you attack me, speaking scientifically, there is no natural way to conceive a child through homosexual relations, and relations of incest can result in genetic defects to the child. If we follow the laws of science and nature, both situations go against those laws. It seems very prudent that societies have followed that in creating laws for their own government.

  • In This Case Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 11, 2012 8:59 p.m.

    @Kalindra - But the parent who gave birth to the child is the birth mother, even if the egg belongs to the other mother. Birth mother rights are much stronger in states like Utah, so my friend, even though she is the egg donor, could lose her own biological child to her partner should they split. My point is that same sex families can get very confusing. How do you write laws to encompass all the situations that may arise when things get complicated like this? I am not attacking anyone's desire for marriage and family, nor am I making a judgement call about what kinds of relationships are stable (hetero or homosexual) only that IF the relationships end in divorce, it can get very complicated. Without recognizing same-sex marriage, the definitions of who children will live with doesn't necessarily fall on the courts to decide. Is that right? Not for me to say, but it definitely is a valid point to discuss, even though George is not willing to think beyond and see how complicated it can get.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 11, 2012 8:19 p.m.

    @ In This Case: My parents broke up a couple of times before they married and, after they were married, they separated at least 4 times before they finally divorced. In spite of this, my siblings and I are our parents children, custody was awarded to one parent and the other parent paid child support and had visitation.

    Family law has changed many times throughout history. There was a time when the father had all the rights - to the extent that women were property and were not allowed to own anything, everything belonged to the husband. There was even a time when a man could legally rape and beat his wife. It was illegal for a man to abuse his animals before it was illegal for him to abuse his children.

    Very recently, and still ongoing to a certain extent, family law held that women were always the better choice for custody of the children - even if there was strong evidence that the mother was abusive or unstable or on drugs. Women were considered so much better at being parents, that some widowers were forced to allow an aunt to raise the child(ren).

    Laws change all the time.

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 11, 2012 8:17 p.m.

    pretending not portending sorry.

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 11, 2012 7:58 p.m.

    @in this case
    funny this really has not been an issue in any of the places that gay marriage is allowed. I am going to take a stab at maybe they could use the term parents in place of mother and father. as to custody gee I guess they would just have to do it the same way they do know for heterosexual couples. really not a compelling argument sorry.

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 11, 2012 7:55 p.m.


    "Relativism is rejected by the vast majority of philosophers for good reason."

    So lets see sorry charles comment is based in known and easily verifiable statistical fact and your opinions are based on your interpretation of ancient writings of other men. WHich one do you really think philosophers would rally find relativistic in nature?

    "Again, disagreement is one thing. But disagreeing with the EXISTENCE of other opinions is dangerous, and highly un-American."

    How is portending that anything sorry charlie said even remotely translates to them disagreeing with the existence of other opinions a valid argument? what do you think philosophers would think of the tactic of protending that you are being repressed because others offer a more compelling factually based argument then your own?

  • In This Case Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 11, 2012 7:15 p.m.

    The debate over same-sex marriage has been ongoing for ages, but one thing I never see people discuss is family law and children. Currently, family laws define parties in the family as mother, father, dependents or children. How on earth do you redefine family laws, not just in each state, but nationally, birth and death records, other records of who someone is and where they came from, etc. I have a friend who is a lesbian and she is now too old to conceive and carry a child but wants her partner who is much younger than her to carry HER egg and give birth to what biologically would be her child but by birth would be her partner's. They have split several times over the years so even if they love each other, the relationship really isn't that stable. If they split for good, whose child would he or she be? How does a court even begin to make a ruling on that? I feel for her desire to be married and have a family but the issue is far more complex than just defining it as a moral issue or legal issue. Others are affected.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 11, 2012 4:07 p.m.

    how is your selective interpretation of the a written work by people thousand of years ago any less relative then my position?

  • Ace4309 St. George, UT
    July 11, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    The writing is on the wall, even in Utah.

    Firstamendment, I, and countless others, might be tremendously offended by your comment - which does the very thing it claims to be trying to defend against - except you're so far off the mark of truth that it's not worth allowing it to get to me. Mean-spirited and hurtful, perhaps, but threatening? Hardly. Everyone, including you, can say and insist whatever they want, but it's not going to change reality, nor is it going to diminish the love and devotion that so many gay couples have. And I suspect that they don't care what you think of their relationship anymore than you'd care what they think of yours (if you've got one). You're only convincing yourself and your choir.

    A voice of "Reason": you compare homosexuality to beastiality and incest under the guise of relativism. Are you so ignorant of homosexuality or are just hoping everyone else is? We're comparing consensual relationships to non-consensual relationships, unless we're willing to be so arrogant that we are comfortable telling two other adults that consent to an activity that they do not, in fact, consent.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2012 1:24 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    What matters more to you, following God's prophet or legislating equality? "Equality" is not a commandment, not even a doctrine. We are all equal before God. But treating each other with kindness, as equals, etc. and treating each other's ACTIONS as equally acceptable and moral are not the same thing. To treat everyone's actions as morally equal was the devil's plan, NOT God's. While you continually fight the church on here, I would ask you (as I have before) to reconsider. You are not God. You are not a prophet of God. Neither am I. However, the men who have been authorized to speak for God have consistently reminded in kindness, rebuked, and commanded the truth. All I ever hear from you is to follow another doctrine, a different one.

    I'm not perfect. I'm a sinner and make lots of mistakes. Our prophet has authority to speak for God, you don't. You telling me who's "side" I am on is not within your own authority and is completely inappropriate, ESPECIALLY while you so frequently argue contrary to what our priesthood AUTHORITIES have instructed. They have authority, you do not.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 11, 2012 11:40 a.m.

    A voice of Reason
    Salt Lake City, UT

    You realize it was conservative idealism, intolerance and absolutism that drove the Mormons into exile?

    You realize that Mormons were the 1st to live in peaceful, unorthodoz marriages long before Prop 8?

    You realize that we Mormons should be the first to recognize intolerance, bigotry and in-equality and should stand against it?

    You realize the Holocaust sent Millions of non-Christians, Liberals, Communists, and Homo-sexuals and other "un-desirables" to the gas chambers?

    You might want to reconsider and examine who's side you are really on....

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2012 9:17 a.m.

    Sorry Charlie!,

    One simply has to look at the increase in relativism from the youth in this country to see how things are falling apart.

    Relativists: "equality!"
    Me: "Only man and woman deserves recognition"
    R: "Then you are oppressing others by imposing your morality on them"
    Me: "Would you recognize incestuous marriages? Man-animal marriages?"
    R: "That's different"
    Me: "Actually no, then you are imposing a morality just as much as I am"

    The problem is NOT that we disagree. I have NO problems whatsoever with people believing that gay marriage is worth recognizing, or even if that recognition is a right. I disagree with them, but have no problem with them having that opinion. The problem I have is that relativist does something far worse. It's a facade of equality but its end function is utter tyranny. Relativism is rejected by the vast majority of philosophers for good reason, it can't be rationally supported. It ultimately functions to say "what I say is right and anyone else is wrong automatically" without regard for reason or rational argument.

    Again, disagreement is one thing. But disagreeing with the EXISTENCE of other opinions is dangerous, and highly un-American.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    July 10, 2012 9:43 p.m.

    ever increasing problems? such as very low crime rates, dropping teen pregnancy rates, decreases in abortion rates. sorry but the world really is not falling apart.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    July 10, 2012 7:28 p.m.

    President Hinckley came out in stating that we do not appose fair legal treatment for everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation - I took that to include civil unions. I'm not willing to call it 'marriage'.

    I am convinced that there is a direct correlation between the ever increasing problems in society and every level and every facet - and the disintegration of the traditional family unit. And I am well beyond believing that the government has a new idea that will solve all of our problems.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    July 10, 2012 6:36 p.m.

    I have increasingly become less tolerant of any type of gay marriage or civil union over the past several years because I no longer see it as a political issue or a civil rights issue, but as a moral one. Marriage is between one man and one woman and any convention to try to make it seem otherwise has no basis in Christian (or for that matter, Latter-Day Saints) values. It was strongly condemned when the Greeks and Romans engaged in the practice as noted in the Book of Romans in the New Testament. Many studies show that those who engage in homosexual practice are depressed and often suicidal. This is not a problem with a lack of acceptance, but a loss of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Some have condemned me for my views on the subject, but I have seen the damage this practice creates in the lives of those who engage in it. Yes, we can feel compassionate toward those engaged in this practice, but those who are involved in homosexuality need to stop the practice in order to feel whole again.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 10, 2012 4:37 p.m.

    sorry there not their. As my old english teacher used to say their, there, they're.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 10, 2012 4:09 p.m.


    you got one thing right their are those that are pushing a dishonest and harmful agenda and the rest of your comment just illustrates how far you are willing to go to deceive others in pushing your agenda.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    July 10, 2012 3:19 p.m.

    I think my attitude has changed. I used to be more supportive of gay marriage and unions. But, as I've researched these issues (thanks to encouragement from full time commenting activists), I've come to understand the potential harm that comes from mainstreaming homosexual activity. We should love everyone. And, if we truly love those suffering from unwanted homosexuality, and those who have given in to the propaganda, we will encourage and support them in their daily lives rather than help push the agenda that pushed them into sad situations. Love will teach all that they can help others avoid tragedies by pointing out truths about homosexuality, rather then trying to hide the truth. Love sees no need to mainstream homosexual activity. And love does not seek to "destroy" those who support the sanctity of traditional marriage.

    The agenda that some are pushing is dishonest, and harmful, and has been shown to increase the numbers of children and adults who give in to homosexuality, and come to believe they were born to abandon families and spouses for homosexual desire.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    @Thomas Alex
    Actually you're both right. The 54% you're referring to is a poll that gave two options, marriage or none. This poll had three options, marriage, civil unions, or none.

  • Thomas Alex Colorado Springs, CO
    July 10, 2012 10:27 a.m.

    "Nationally, 24 percent favor civil unions and 38 percent favor same-sex marriage."

    Wrong. 54% of Americans support same-sex marriage. Somebody is using outdated stats.