Poll: Public now evenly split at 48 percent on legalizing gay marriage — in Utah

posted at 6:01 pm on January 16, 2014 by Allahpundit

I thought gay-marriage polls had lost their capacity to surprise but I was wrong. Utah is so overwhelmingly Mormon, and Mormons are so heavily opposed to legalizing SSM, that a poll of the state would necessarily produce some lopsided 30/70 result against — I thought. Not so: A third of Mormons there are now pro-legalization and the non-Mormon population is large enough (and pro-SSM enough) that, between them, they’ve made this a toss-up even in one of America’s reddest states.

For what it’s worth, there may be a silver lining for opponents here.

Residents are now evenly split on whether same-sex couples in Utah should be allowed to get state-issued marriage licences — 48 percent for and 48 percent against — and nearly three-fourths (72 percent) said same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions or domestic partnerships in lieu of marriage…

The results reflect a remarkable turn since 66 percent of Utahns who participated in the 2004 general election approved Amendment 3, which limited civil marriage to a man and a woman and barred any state recognition of other relationships such as civil unions or domestic partnerships…

Support for same-sex marriage was strongest among non-Mormons, people between ages 18 and 34 and those who described themselves as Democrats. Slightly more than a third of respondents (36 percent) said their views on same-sex marriage have shifted over time, something that was equally true of Mormons and non-Mormons. Overwhelmingly, people in both of those demographic categories said their views had become more accepting.

Mormons oppose legalizing gay marriage 32/64 while non-Mormons support it 76/21. On the lesser question of civil unions, though, they’re in sync: 65 percent of Mormons say yes versus 84 percent of non-Mormons. The latter result is, I assume, an olive branch by LDS members to gay couples to show that they don’t oppose all legal recognition of gay relationships, just the traditional concept of “marriage.” Problem is, it’s arguably harder to defend marriage laws from an equal protection challenge in court once you’ve extended substantive marriage rights to gays, even if your motive in extending those rights was well intentioned. If gay relationships are entitled to virtually every legal benefit of marriage except the label itself, a court’s going to find more often than not that withholding the label amounts to discrimination for its own sake, without a good/rational reason. The olive branch, designed to keep “marriage” as a separate sphere for straights only, actually weakens the case for it.

These numbers are interesting too:

sl

Protecting religious conscience via constitutional amendment is probably the next phase of the great gay-marriage debate — maybe even at the federal level, as there are some Democrats at the moment who are willing, if only in the name of quieting critics of legalizing gay marriage, to rhetorically endorse conscience protections. That’d be fertile ground for social cons next year if the GOP takes back the Senate. The public supports freedom of conscience in this area overwhelmingly; a two-thirds majority of both chambers in Congress isn’t out of the question, especially since red-state Democrats don’t like being seen as anti-religion. Better move fast, though, before these numbers too slowly start to erode in a country that’s becoming marginally less religious.

The other poll result above, about challenging the ruling of the federal judge on gay marriage in Utah, is where the silver lining I mentioned comes in. Even in a state that’s trending towards support for legalizing SSM, people don’t like having the rules made by judges. The Supreme Court is sensitive to that, too. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has grumbled that pro-choicers might have been better off without Roe v. Wade, since that would have left legalization to the states and that would have built a democratic legitimacy for the practice that Roe, to some extent, short-circuited. The Court’s ruling on Prop 8 last year, in which it declined the opportunity to strike down traditional marriage laws across the country, may be an example of the same logic at work. There’s almost no question that SCOTUS will, eventually, legalize gay marriage; there is a question of whether they might hold off for several years if they see the public even in conservative redoubts like Utah shifting their way. Why open itself up to “tyranny of the judiciary” charges if it can sit back and let changing electoral demographics do the job? As such, polls like this might buy more time for other conservative states to keep their marriage laws, even though they almost certainly won’t last forever.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Kody Brown soon to be the happiest man with three wives.

portlandon on January 16, 2014 at 6:05 PM

This is what has happened with gas being given a positive light in movies, TV shows etc..Their agenda years ago was to get on TV shows and become “normal” to people. Well, it has worked hasn’t it?? What a crock.. We now believe sodomy is oK Gag

Bullhead on January 16, 2014 at 6:06 PM

The question that needs to be asked of the gay lobby is, what comes after marriage? Do they go away happy, or is there a larger agenda?

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 6:06 PM

This is what has happened with gas being given a positive light in movies, TV shows etc..Their agenda years ago was to get on TV shows and become “normal” to people. Well, it has worked hasn’t it?? What a crock.. We now believe sodomy is oK Gag
Bullhead on January 16, 2014 at 6:06 PM

We? We do?

aryeung on January 16, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Wow, yet another Homo ‘Marriage?’ story.

reddevil on January 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Here come the “slippery-slopers” with “next we’ll have to recognize marrying an animal and a vacuum cleaner”.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM

If SSM is so increasingly popular, why do its proponents rely so often on judicial duress rather than the ballot box?

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Anusocracy or bust!

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Here come the “slippery-slopers” with “next we’ll have to recognize marrying an animal and a vacuum cleaner”.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM

So, on what basis would you object to polygamy and incestuous marriages? Be specific.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Face social conservatives. This is a losing issue and it’s not reversing. The hole is actually getting deeper for you.

Genuine on January 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Face social conservatives. This is a losing issue and it’s not reversing. The hole is actually getting deeper for you.

Genuine on January 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Bad choice of words there, pardner.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Wonder how popular the gay mafia fascists will be when they intensify their march forward.

gwelf on January 16, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Give it to the voters and see if the poll is fraudulent.

Buddahpundit on January 16, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Black/fatman/gay/weed

Lather/rinse/repeat

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 6:13 PM

The question that needs to be asked of the gay lobby is, what comes after marriage? Do they go away happy, or is there a larger agenda?

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 6:06 PM

You will be made to celebrate. By the state.

gwelf on January 16, 2014 at 6:13 PM

The hole is actually getting deeper for you.

Genuine on January 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM

The mass graves are already being dug?

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Give it to the voters and see if the poll is fraudulent.

Buddahpundit on January 16, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Exactly.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:14 PM

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Same could be said for the exaggeration crowd. Polygamy doesn’t necessarily involve vacuum cleaners.

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Time to get the ball rolling on outlawing gay divorce.

Left Coast Right Mind on January 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM

What about it, JetBoy? On what basis would you object to polygamy?

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM

So, on what basis would you object to polygamy and incestuous marriages? Be specific.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Ad hominem.

Anyway, I’m out to beeatch about football, and I’ll leave y’all to chat about “Gay stuff”.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM

So, on what basis would you object to polygamy and incestuous marriages? Be specific.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Ad hominem.

Anyway, I’m out to beeatch about football, and I’ll leave y’all to chat about “Gay stuff”.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM

“Ad hominem”? I asked you on what basis you would oppose polygamy. What about it?

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM

When will there be a thread about what Christie has to say about it?

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Ad hominem.

Anyway, I’m out to beeatch about football, and I’ll leave y’all to chat about “Gay stuff”.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM

It’s not an ad hominem. It’s a challenge for you to consider the logical endpoint of your argument, and you’re ducking it.

Stoic Patriot on January 16, 2014 at 6:17 PM

When will there be a thread about what Christie has to say about it?

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 6:17 PM

QOTD

Count it.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Here come the “slippery-slopers” with “next we’ll have to recognize marrying an animal and a vacuum cleaner”.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM

So, on what basis would you object to polygamy and incestuous marriages? Be specific.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Surely JetBoy and Justice Kennedy aren’t going to strip away the dignity of the marriages of these people. The state isn’t preventing such unions and so the state has an obligation to grant children born into such a family the dignity they deserve and all the protections offered to other families.

Anything other conclusion could only be driven by hatred and rank bigotry.

gwelf on January 16, 2014 at 6:18 PM

The question that needs to be asked of the gay lobby is, what comes after marriage? Do they go away happy, or is there a larger agenda?

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Like all minority groups in America now actively engaged in pursuing their rights from the beneficiaries of heterosexual white male privilege, all they want is equality.

/

fadetogray on January 16, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Kody Brown soon to be the happiest man with three wives.

portlandon on January 16, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Each one more beat than the next. Even if they were all supermodels, I never have understood the appeal of multiple wives. Multiple girlfriends I get.

Kataklysmic on January 16, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Ad hominem.

Anyway, I’m out to beeatch about football, and I’ll leave y’all to chat about “Gay stuff”.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM

It’s an ad hominem? When talking about Utah? Really?!?

gwelf on January 16, 2014 at 6:20 PM

“Ad hominem”? I asked you on what basis you would oppose polygamy. What about it?

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Ad hominem is latin for “you’re asking me uncomfortable questions I can’t answer without being a completely unprincipled hypocrite”.

gwelf on January 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM

So…remember, this is the same public that believed they could keep their insurance. That you could reduce cost while subsidizing medical coverage for millions of Americans. They like the ideal of fair, but they aren’t that bright.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM

It’s not an ad hominem. It’s a challenge for you to consider the logical endpoint of your argument, and you’re ducking it.

Stoic Patriot on January 16, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Exactly, the thing JetBoy can’t face is that in opposing polygamy he’d inevitably be relying on “tradition” and “community standards” which somehow are irrelevant when it comes to SSM. Thus the duck-out.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:22 PM

The GOP needs to walk away from this. Really, who cares if gays marry.

rubberneck on January 16, 2014 at 6:22 PM

What does “legalizing” mean? Seriously. Someone who wants to “legalize” gay marriage, tell me what it means. Make sure your definition is consistent with “legalizing” marijuana.

besser tot als rot on January 16, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Ad hominem is latin for “you’re asking me uncomfortable questions I can’t answer without being a completely unprincipled hypocrite”.

gwelf on January 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Yep.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:22 PM

JetBoy is no conservative. He is a cut ‘n paste “if it feels good do it” person…

OmahaConservative on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Multiple girlfriends I get.

Kataklysmic on January 16, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Because you can LEAVE a girlfriend’s house.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Ad hominem is latin for “you’re asking me uncomfortable questions I can’t answer without being a completely unprincipled hypocrite”.

gwelf on January 16, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Heh. All my previous comments mentioning ad hominems just went pffft. /

22044 on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

It’s a challenge for you to consider the logical endpoint of your argument, and you’re ducking it.

Stoic Patriot on January 16, 2014 at 6:17 PM

I’m so not in the mood to get into this nonsense again…but I’ll just say this and I’m outta here.

If you, or anyone else, believes gay marriage will lead to all other legal marriages, then why not get rid of marriage for anyone altogether? Legal hetero marriage led to the gay marriage issue, so let’s just cut the head of the monster and be done with it.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Give it to the voters and see if the poll is fraudulent.

Buddahpundit on January 16, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Exactly.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:14 PM

It’s an obvious attempt to influence SCOTUS on the pending Utah case.

Kataklysmic on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

If you, or anyone else, believes gay marriage will lead to all other legal marriages, then why not get rid of marriage for anyone altogether? Legal hetero marriage led to the gay marriage issue, so let’s just cut the head of the monster and be done with it.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Now, you know I don’t berate you on this stuff, but if you’re OK with getting rid of all marriage, why then do you need gay marriage so bad now?

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 6:25 PM

I’m so not in the mood to get into this nonsense again…but I’ll just say this and I’m outta here.

If you, or anyone else, believes gay marriage will lead to all other legal marriages, then why not get rid of marriage for anyone altogether?

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

That didn’t answer the question. What objection could there possibly be to ANY kind of marriage? Come on.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:26 PM

I’m so not in the mood to get into this nonsense again…but I’ll just say this and I’m outta here.

If you, or anyone else, believes gay marriage will lead to all other legal marriages, then why not get rid of marriage for anyone altogether? Legal hetero marriage led to the gay marriage issue, so let’s just cut the head of the monster and be done with it.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

So you don’t really have an argument.

Why exactly are you squeamish about polygamists having their relationships decriminalized and blessed by the state?

gwelf on January 16, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Bullying works.

CurtZHP on January 16, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Bullying works.

CurtZHP on January 16, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Sorry, but I don’t buy the polling on this issue. If it were true, the Dems would proudly proclaim their SSM advocacy.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Sorry, but I don’t buy the polling on this issue. If it were true, the Dems would proudly proclaim their SSM advocacy.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Push-polls are wonderful. Even in Kooklafornia it was defeated multiple times at the polls.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 6:28 PM

If you, or anyone else, believes gay marriage will lead to all other legal marriages, then why not get rid of marriage for anyone altogether? Legal hetero marriage led to the gay marriage issue, so let’s just cut the head of the monster and be done with it.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Because we think that marriage exists to provide for a set of vows ensuring a stable relationship so that children created by the participating spouses have a formal recognition of the responsibilities that come with that act of creation.

So given that we’re capable of defining what a marriage is and what purpose it serves, perhaps now you’ll be good enough to answer ddrintn’s challenge.

Stoic Patriot on January 16, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Face social conservatives. This is a losing issue and it’s not reversing. The hole is actually getting deeper for you.

Genuine on January 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM

The hole is getting deeper for everyone.

Count to 10 on January 16, 2014 at 6:29 PM

If you, or anyone else, believes gay marriage will lead to all other legal marriages, then why not get rid of marriage for anyone altogether? Legal hetero marriage led to the gay marriage issue, so let’s just cut the head of the monster and be done with it.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

No, it did not lead there. The corruption of legal hetero marriage is what led to this insanity.

Marriage in which the cheater faces no consequences for the breaking of their vows is not marriage the government should be giving preferences to.

fadetogray on January 16, 2014 at 6:29 PM

The question that needs to be asked of the gay lobby is, what comes after marriage? Do they go away happy, or is there a larger agenda?

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Look to nature, since we’re all just really smart animals. When does the black bear just decide to quit visiting the dumpster? It nature’s way to push an advantage until you meet resistance. Every group seeks advantage and will pursue that advantage until something stops them. It takes a lot of guilt production to overcome this compulsion.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 6:29 PM

QOTD

Count it.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 6:18 PM

That’s what I’m afraid of. Another big chance for QOTD to drop below 200.

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 6:30 PM

So you don’t really have an argument.

gwelf on January 16, 2014 at 6:26 PM

They all have the same argument, and it’s “take my word for it”.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 6:31 PM

It’s an obvious attempt to influence SCOTUS on the pending Utah case.

Kataklysmic on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Yeah, working the refs. It’s like planting the meme that Sotomayor is a wild-eyed Catholic zealot.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Marriage has a demonstrable benefit to society, which is why the state has an interest in promoting it. Gay unions do not have such a track record, however. Thus, the state should not have an interest in promoting them. Both, however, are legal. Unlike polygamy, or anything that looks like it, in Utah – where you can be charged with an actual crime for engaging in it.

besser tot als rot on January 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM

What about it, JetBoy? On what basis would you object to polygamy?

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Polygamy is more healthy, pro-creative, historical, in nature, and biblical then homosexuality.

Its a 100% reasonable question I would like someone to answer.

I am against mainstreaming and rewarding both with marriage btw.

KMav on January 16, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Problem is, it’s arguably harder to defend marriage laws from an equal protection challenge in court once you’ve extended substantive marriage rights to gays, even if your motive in extending those rights was well intentioned. If gay relationships are entitled to virtually every legal benefit of marriage except the label itself, a court’s going to find more often than not that withholding the label amounts to discrimination for its own sake, without a good/rational reason. The olive branch, designed to keep “marriage” as a separate sphere for straights only, actually weakens the case for it.

Which is Exhibit A why this has never been just about “equality” for the gay rights crowd. They’re out to jab a finger in the eyes of straight people of faith.

Bitter Clinger on January 16, 2014 at 6:35 PM

I live in Utah and here’s my take on this:

1. I and many others are fed up with gays/bi/tri/whatever group forcing us to somehow accept their fetishes and demanding they be considered “normal” by judicial fiat.

What you are seeing here, IMO is not so much support for gay marriage but an “eff it” attitude. Just let them marry whatever they want (man-man, woman-woman-woman, man-woman-woman…whatever) and get government out of the business (go to a flat tax w/ no deductions). That’s were I fall.

2. The younger LDS (18-30) were brought up in the new culture where PC reigns and everyone is afraid to say something that might be offensive to someone somewhere. The LDS Church itself has backed down big time since prop 8 (even refusing to submit an amicus brief in the Utah appeal) and pushing for anti-discrimination laws/ordinances (and being exempt from such)*.

They are going along with the rest of US culture that protects gays and favored minority groups “uber alles”. They are much more supportive of gay marriage than the 30+ crowd.

3. Utah isn’t as conservative as many think. There is plenty of lip service but that’s where it ends.

*This has made some members mad that they will be forced to rent a basement apartment to a gay couple but the Church can prohibit gay couples from BYU etc despite Church lobbying for passage of the law.

batter on January 16, 2014 at 6:35 PM

PS – I now fall into the get gov’t out and go to a flat tax.

batter on January 16, 2014 at 6:36 PM

No, it did not lead there. The corruption of legal hetero marriage is what led to this insanity.

fadetogray on January 16, 2014 at 6:29 PM

I don’t think that corruption of marriage led to this. It is a problem, I agree, but I don’t think that it caused this.

And, I have no idea what “hetero marriage” is – do you mean “marriage?”

besser tot als rot on January 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Evasion #1.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Evasion #2.

* JetBoy runs away? *

Evasion #3 — the ultimate one …

“Evasion is the root of all evil.” – Ayn Rand

ShainS on January 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM

The reason for how fast things are changing is that straight men–especially younger one–now experience the normalization of gay men as a positive in their life. They no longer have to fear any deviation from some masculine norm will result in accusations of being a fag. I live in a college area, and I frequently see guys my gaydar says are straight hugging in ways that would have been unacceptable ten years ago. (Innocent hugging! It’s not twerking.) Yesterday, I encountered a twenty year old straight boy I know and his friend. He wanted to talk to me for a while, so he hugged his friend good bye and then hugged me. I think he may a little extreme in his hugging of male friends. He is pretty beta, but he illustrates the current norms.

Another example of the norm is my dentist who is still in his twenties. He is what the Left like to identify as a minority, but yet started ranting to me against affirmative action. I said I agree and that I am conservative except on abortion and gay marriage. He also identified as a conservative but he said opposing gay marriage now is just stupid and he wished the Republicans would give up on the issue.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Give it to the voters and see if the poll is fraudulent.

Buddahpundit on January 16, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Exactly.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 6:14 PM

This happened in Minnesota. (Yeah, I know)

The GOP state legislature gave the GM folks 18 months lead time to act. That was the difference.

The Gay Marriage folks out-organized, out-spent and out-communicated the Anti-GM folks.

On election day it wasn’t even close.

(A voter ID bill went down in flames, too)

The GOP was a non-factor.

Be careful what you wish for.

Bruno Strozek on January 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Homosexuals’ version of MLK great line:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character, but by the laudable nature of of their homosexual conduct.

BuckeyeSam on January 16, 2014 at 6:38 PM

The LDS Church itself has backed down big time since prop 8 (even refusing to submit an amicus brief in the Utah appeal) and pushing for anti-discrimination laws/ordinances (and being exempt from such)*.

batter on January 16, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Don’t forget their unforgivable action in forcing gays into Boy Scouts.

besser tot als rot on January 16, 2014 at 6:38 PM

And, I have no idea what “hetero marriage” is – do you mean “marriage?”

besser tot als rot on January 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM

I was using his term, and I should have put the expression in quotes.

fadetogray on January 16, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Mormons in favor of SSM? Can we say MINO now …
http://www.ldsmag.com/blogs/editors-blogs/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage

Following recent court actions bearing on same-sex marriage, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles today sent the following instructions and guidance to congregational leaders throughout the United States. Leaders were asked to share this information with their members in appropriate settings.

On December 20, 2013, a federal district judge in Salt Lake City issued an order legalizing same-sex marriage in Utah, striking down century-old state laws and a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman. The United States Supreme Court has put that ruling on hold pending consideration of the issue by an appellate court. During the interval between the district court ruling and the Supreme Court stay, numerous same-sex marriages were performed in Utah. Legal proceedings and legislative action in some other states and countries have given civil recognition to same-sex marriage relationships.

As we face this and other issues of our time, we encourage all to bear in mind our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27–28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well-being of society. Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and crucial to eternal salvation.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.

While these matters will continue to evolve, we affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully. The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree.

As members of the Church, we are responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to illuminate the great blessings that flow from heeding God’s commandments as well as the inevitable consequences of ignoring them. We invite you to pray that people everywhere will have their hearts softened to the truths of the gospel, and that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.

AesopFan on January 16, 2014 at 6:39 PM

The GOP was a non-factor.

Bruno Strozek on January 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM

The deuce you say! The GOP a non-factor in a political debate?!? Now I’ve heard it all!!!

besser tot als rot on January 16, 2014 at 6:41 PM

You know, shortly after the federal judge rammed this down our throats here in Utah, someone jumped the gun. They filed a lawsuit against the LDS church. Fortunately/Unfortunately (depending on your point of view) they forgot to ask permission of the actual plaintiff’s first. It was quickly dropped and you’d think it never happened. After all, the gay movement doesn’t dare take that step yet.

Forcing the churches is on the docket AFTER SSM is legalized by the Supremes, when nothing can be done to stop it.

Remember kids, the 1st amendment did jack squat to protect churches the last time one had a disfavored set of rules about marriage. Indeed, jailing Mormons was juuuuust fine before. I’m pretty sure it’s not long before it happens again.

At least this time I can chat with the local Catholic minister in the cell next to me.

Vanceone on January 16, 2014 at 6:41 PM

The vandals are taking more ground every day, so just deal with it roman.

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM

While were at it, one gay couple not so happy about their decision right now… http://kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_9164.shtml

“…The couple recognized by the Department of Workforce Services as technically married is not celebrating.

As a wedding gift they were told that they can no longer get help from Work Force Services…

…With gay marriages on hold Lincoln whose on disability was asked by Work Force Services how much his husband earned a year, when he told the agency, they told him his marriage was legitimate and his “husband” made too much money and they will halt Lincoln’s disability and Medicaid coverage.”

batter on January 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Hot Air, now with 75% leftist opinions. All gay, all amnesty, all GOPe views all the time.

njrob on January 16, 2014 at 6:43 PM

The ruling class wants to focus on gays and so-called immigration reform while 97% of the country says there are more important things to do.

Gallup: Most important problems
gays/moral/religious 5%
immigration/illegal aliens 3%

Wigglesworth on January 16, 2014 at 6:43 PM

***

Legal hetero marriage led to the gay marriage issue, so let’s just cut the head of the monster and be done with it.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

No, the desire for homosexuals to have their conduct be considered awesomely awesome in its awesomeness led to the drive for SSM.

BuckeyeSam on January 16, 2014 at 6:44 PM

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Yes. The goal, as I see it, is to create a protected class of citizen.

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 6:44 PM

The Marxist Progressives are infiltrating red states. This is just more proof.

Key West Reader on January 16, 2014 at 6:45 PM

batter on January 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Heh! Delicious…

OmahaConservative on January 16, 2014 at 6:45 PM

besser tot als rot on January 16, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Point taken. I did forget about that.

batter on January 16, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Mormons in favor of SSM? Can we say MINO now …

Oh MINOs are a dime a dozen. Harry Reid and Jon Huntsman are exhibits A & B.

Kataklysmic on January 16, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Here come the “slippery-slopers” with “next we’ll have to recognize marrying an animal and a vacuum cleaner”.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM

As long as the vacuum cleaner and Animal are not the same sex.

portlandon on January 16, 2014 at 6:49 PM

At least this time I can chat with the local Catholic minister in the cell next to me.

Vanceone on January 16, 2014 at 6:41 PM

You can have a prison ministry!

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 6:49 PM

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Lemme ask you: Where does the line get drawn? What’s next after gay marriage, dope, whatever the flavor of the day pushed by the elitists as disguised bread and circuses gets mainstreamed or legalized?

Jetboy likes to laugh about it ‘leading’ somewhere.

This is the next step. THIS is being pushed by an elected CA lawmaker.

It never ends. That is, not until we, the rabble, are sufficiently enslaved. I assume you’ve read 1984. Did you ever think you’d see the day that the word ‘hatespeech’ would be mainstreamed? What is the logical next step? Thoughtcrime!

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 6:50 PM

If you, or anyone else, believes gay marriage will lead to all other legal marriages, then why not get rid of marriage for anyone altogether? Legal hetero marriage led to the gay marriage issue, so let’s just cut the head of the monster and be done with it.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

The assertion that

gay marriage will lead to all other legal marriages

is not parallel to

Legal hetero marriage led to the gay marriage issue

It’s one thing to argue that if A->B->C, and C is undesirable, then we should get rid of A.

It’s entirely different to say B->C, A-> people agitating in favor of B, C is undesirable; therefore, we should get rid of A because it’s just not fair to have A without B.

Incidentally, you demonstrate the validity of your opponents’ argument vis-a-vis the slippery slope. The whole point of marriage is that it’s an exclusive institution. The conservative argument you mock goes more or less, “The logic being used to advance gay marriage has no limiting principle. If valid for the purpose of forcing recognition of gay marriage, it’s valid for the purpose of forcing recognition of any other ‘marriage’ people can come up with. At that point, when everything counts as marriage, marriage ceases to exist as a meaningful institution.”

Your proposed “solution”: Let’s skip straight to the end and dissolve marriage for everyone.

sadarj on January 16, 2014 at 6:50 PM

I live in Utah, and I trust the Salt Lake Tribune about as much as I trust MSNBC.

flataffect on January 16, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Vanceone on January 16, 2014 at 6:41 PM

You can have a prison ministry!

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Just to establish my position: Long Klieg and Concertina.

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Yes. The goal, as I see it, is to create a protected class of citizen.

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 6:44 PM

I believe they’ll keep going, for no other reason than they can, and they enjoy it. They like poking a finger in the eye of the society that they feel has rejected them for so long. About the polygamy thing, do we really believe that Jetboy believes they can stop polygamy? They know SSM ensures the recognition of polygamous marriages and bigamous marriages, and they don’t care. They just need to confuse the issue long enough for SSM to slip in and then they’ll switch to supporting polygamy and bigamy for the very same reasons.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 6:53 PM

sadarj on January 16, 2014 at 6:50 PM

I can’t believe you had the patience to type that up. When I read his post, the illogic of it almost gave me an aneurysm.

besser tot als rot on January 16, 2014 at 6:55 PM

That’s true, flat affect– The Salt Lake Tribune is like the New York Times, only without the Times intellectual honesty and rigorous, evenhanded reporting.

The Times exists to do three things: Bash Republicans and Bash the LDS church. They are committed to those two goals.

Vanceone on January 16, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Oh, the third thing is Bash BYU and promote the University of Utah.

Vanceone on January 16, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Vanceone on January 16, 2014 at 6:55 PM

I’m awaiting your reply on another thread.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:56 PM

That’s true, flat affect– The Salt Lake Tribune is like the New York Times, only without the Times intellectual honesty and rigorous, evenhanded reporting.

Vanceone on January 16, 2014 at 6:55 PM

Uhhh…..

Kataklysmic on January 16, 2014 at 6:56 PM

There are millions of CINOs so why not MINOs too.

Wigglesworth on January 16, 2014 at 6:56 PM

We just got through another gay thread on HotAir. All I will say is that I am a gay conservative who is for gay marriage.

SC.Charlie on January 16, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Dang AP. Last time you waited 24 hours to move this to the left column.
Tonight it took you what…40 minutes?!

22044 on January 16, 2014 at 7:05 PM

RINOs & CINOs & MINOs, oh my.

Although conservatives are RINOs – is that right?

22044 on January 16, 2014 at 7:05 PM

If you, or anyone else, believes gay marriage will lead to all other legal marriages, then why not get rid of marriage for anyone altogether? Legal hetero marriage led to the gay marriage issue, so let’s just cut the head of the monster and be done with it.
JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Wouldn’t it be easier to leave the traditional definition of marriage in place rather than change it and go through all this?

Dongemaharu on January 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM

SC.Charlie on January 16, 2014 at 7:03 PM

I realize you probably don’t wish to comment further but I’m wondering, why are you not (apparently) a conservative homosexual? And no, I don’t think it’s semantics.

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Lemme ask you: Where does the line get drawn? What’s next after gay marriage, dope, whatever the flavor of the day pushed by the elitists as disguised bread and circuses gets mainstreamed or legalized?

Jetboy likes to laugh about it ‘leading’ somewhere.

This is the next step. THIS is being pushed by an elected CA lawmaker.

It never ends. That is, not until we, the rabble, are sufficiently enslaved. I assume you’ve read 1984. Did you ever think you’d see the day that the word ‘hatespeech’ would be mainstreamed? What is the logical next step? Thoughtcrime!

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 6:50 PM

You illustrate the problem that with arguments that legal marriage of gays will lead to legalizing polygamy and bestiality. Once you make those arguments you are on a slippery slope where some idiot is going to suggest that legal marriage of gays will lead to legalization of pedophilia.
I can’t even begin to engage a paranoia in which letting gay people lead normal lives leads to the enslavement of society. It’s sad that you think that way, but I don’t want to go there, even in an attempt to find humor in it.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Wouldn’t it be easier to leave the traditional definition of marriage in place rather than change it and go through all this?

Dongemaharu on January 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM

If you did it would derail their pretending !

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Is there a reason why the non-mormon population in UT is so liberal. It’s over 70%; that’s basically San Francisco/Boston numbers for non-mormons throughout Utah, not just Salt Lake City. Do they just hate mormons or something?

IR-MN on January 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM

Wouldn’t it be easier to leave the traditional definition of marriage in place rather than change it and go through all this?

Dongemaharu on January 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM

You think our founding fathers sat around and said “Hey, wouldn’t it be easier to just be British colonies and not go all this “revolution” stuff?”

It would have been easier. But nothing easy is worth fighting for.

And what exactly is the “traditional definition of marriage”? I mean, at what point in history, and in what culture, do you pinpoint this “traditional marriage”? Should non-virgin brides still be stoned, as they were long ago? Should a wife be considered her husband’s property? Because that’s “traditional”. How about dowries?

See what I mean?

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4