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

Except, of course, for the freedom to say things like “I believe homosexuality is wrong”.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:42 PM

You are more than free to say it. You just seem to hate having pushback. What I hear you saying is, “I don’t like people having a different opinion.”

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:45 PM

You have yet to provide a victim in allowing gay marriage.

What good would it do? You’d just deny it with your child-like ‘wisdom’.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:45 PM

You are more than free to say it. You just seem to hate having pushback.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:45 PM

“You can say what you want, but you’ll be in my solib Gulag for saying so.” That’s “pushback”.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:46 PM

But, but, but!!!! Hillary never lied! She couldn’t recall!

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 9:47 PM

A fat, tatted, doughy pig like Lena Dunham is able to have sex with countless men and what’s this about few sexual options?

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Let’s be fair. While your description of Ms. Dunham has merit, she is not heinously ugly. And I think you would agree that she is the type of person would do about anything to show how different and special she is–including being bisexual. Let’s see what her sexual orientation is at age 40.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 9:47 PM

Church attendance has nothing to do with morality.
Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:42 PM

If you can’t see how church attendance might have something to do with morality, then I’m not surprised that you can’t see other truly subtle connections.

DFCtomm on January 16, 2014 at 9:48 PM

You have yet to provide a victim in allowing gay marriage.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Could be plenty. The anti-homosexuality baker who is forced to cater to a gay wedding. The church that is forced to perform a SSM ceremony. The “hate crime/thought crime” penalties that would come along for thinking that SSM is wrong, aka your “pushback”. But in the end, as designed, marriage itself would be the victim.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Dust off your sandals and don’t look back. Next village, people.

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Why is America falling in the world?

Endless discussions rationalizing sodomy and unnatural relations.

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Not just America, though we are increasing our speed, but most of Europe.

I see what’s happening in Russia and Australia (you know, one of those countries that we need to be more like to join the rest of the world in the 21st century that banned guns) with the outright banning of gay marriage.

If we survive, it is coming here. Not because of gays, but not leaving well enough alone.

If marriage doesn’t mean anything to them, as Jetboy earlier admitted, why fight for it?

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Dust off your sandals and don’t look back. Next village, people.

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 9:49 PM

But, what if there are ten good…nevermind.

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Dust off your sandals and don’t look back. Next village, people.

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 9:49 PM

Yeah, I think you’re right. The genie’s been out of the bottle for a long time now.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:51 PM

JetBoy is wrong. I was exiled from the gay community for being too conservative. At least, that’s what my leftist friends tell me.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 8:48 PM

I mentioned in another thread…I’ve been booted from LGBT forums because of being a conservative. The most entertaining arguments I get into are at the gay bars. I’m a political junkie, so it happens often…my gay friends get a kick out of me. Whenever I get into a political discussion, it usually ends with the other person throwing their hands in the air and storming off, right after I’m called a Nazi traitor or an Uncle Tom.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM

So you’re proving that gays and lesbians are childish and stupid bigots who can’t act intelligently or civilly, and that such behavior is completely normalized and typical in the gay and lesbian community.

Therefore, why should these incompetent children have marriage?

northdallasthirty on January 16, 2014 at 9:51 PM

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 9:47 PM

Sex is readily available everywhere regardless of what one looks like. The ugliest guys I’ve known always had an attractive girl. Don’t ask me to figure that out.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Of course they are separate. Gay marriage hurts no one and expands individual liberty. Redistribution of wealth harms the society’s producers and leaves the unpaid charge card to our children. Integrating these two is unjustified.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:31 PM

And yet the gay and lesbian community does it repeatedly.

Prove your conservative bonafides by stating that gay-sex marriage organizations like HRC that support Democrats and endorse the Obama Party’s socialist viewpoints are completely and totally unjustified.

northdallasthirty on January 16, 2014 at 9:54 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

This is interesting too, and we hear it all the time from solibs in some form or other: “you’re on the wrong side of history blahblah”, as if history is never a retorgrade slippage into mess, but is always some progression to a higher state of being. Delusional. It’s warmed over Marxism.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM

socons contains the only group predicting the end of the world.
Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Take a shot. The lefty troll said socons again.

njrob on January 16, 2014 at 9:56 PM

Don’t ask me to figure that out.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Money is hard.

Jeddite on January 16, 2014 at 9:56 PM

But, what if there are ten good…nevermind.

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 9:50 PM

That’s His call to make, not ours. We’re supposed to keep on truckin’.

Christien on January 16, 2014 at 9:57 PM

The Village People are a strong argument against…..

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 9:57 PM

This is interesting too, and we hear it all the time from solibs in some form or other: “you’re on the wrong side of history blahblah”, as if history is never a retorgrade slippage into mess, but is always some progression to a higher state of being. Delusional. It’s warmed over Marxism.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM

Yep.

The hilarious part is that these bigots like JetBoy, thuja, Panther, Genuine, and the like expect us to believe that they actually WOULD stop or exercise some type of moral restraint, after their constant blathering about how you have to support having sex with whatever anyone wants to have sex with and the necessity of forcing people to accept gay-sex marriage.

If that were the case, they wouldn’t be here screaming at us; they would be trying to make an intelligent case as for why gay-sex marriage was a good thing. But they can’t, which is why they run to the courts and try to exploit antireligious hate, bigotry, and Lena Dunham-esque promiscuity.

northdallasthirty on January 16, 2014 at 9:58 PM

Money is hard.

Jeddite on January 16, 2014 at 9:56 PM

No, I’ve known plenty of rank & file ugly guys with no more money than me. They always seem to find good looking broads. Or they find them.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:59 PM

socons contains the only group predicting the end of the world.
Panther on January 16, 2014 at 9:00 PM

Except for your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters who shriek that the world will end unless we ban all coal, force everyone to use one square of toilet paper, etc.

The hatred bigots like Panther have for so-cons has nothing to do with moral strictures; it’s that Panther and its fellow bigots are not in charge of the moral strictures. Gay-sex marriage supporters are just as zealous as and have less restraint than the Taliban.

northdallasthirty on January 16, 2014 at 9:59 PM

And yet the gay and lesbian community does it repeatedly.

Prove your conservative bonafides by stating that gay-sex marriage organizations like HRC that support Democrats and endorse the Obama Party’s socialist viewpoints are completely and totally unjustified.

northdallasthirty on January 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM

First, I’m a Libertarian not a conservative. That is a title for you GOP shills who want to feel slightly superior to your fellow liberty stealing toadies of the establishment. That was a mouthful.

Anyone or group that supports Obama is an idiot. How they justify it isn’t for me to give evaluate. It would probably be hilarious but I’m sure they have some twisted rational.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 10:02 PM

No doubt the anusocracy theocracy sodomite advocates would institute Bacha bazi in a heartbeat.

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 10:03 PM

You’re a libertine, not a Libertarian. A society, by definition, cannot be socially liberal and economically conservative.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Sex is readily available everywhere regardless of what one looks like. The ugliest guys I’ve known always had an attractive girl. Don’t ask me to figure that out.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 9:52 PM

I certainly can not get sex from anyone whom I would think for one second about have sex with. What am I doing wrong then? Why am a failure as a homosexual? I’m decent looking. I have friends and am at least somewhat socially competent. Tell me the secrets of sexual success, you adulterer.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 10:06 PM

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 10:06 PM

I didn’t say you could get it from anyone you wanted. I certainly can’t.

I think Captain Kirk said it best when he said to Charlie “Charlie, there’s a million things in this world you can have and a million things you can’t have.”

And I will admit to doing a couple of Lena Dunham types.

But I don’t go around braggin’ about it :D

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 10:09 PM

Don’t you guys ever get tired of insulting each other?

kcewa on January 16, 2014 at 10:09 PM

Go to prison and you’ll be sweetheart of the cell block.

Traditional marriage isn’t to blame for your life’s problems.

viking01 on January 16, 2014 at 10:12 PM

Don’t you guys ever get tired of insulting each other?

kcewa on January 16, 2014 at 10:09 PM

What kind of idiot are you?

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 10:14 PM

Could be plenty. The anti-homosexuality baker who is forced to cater to a gay wedding. The church that is forced to perform a SSM ceremony. The “hate crime/thought crime” penalties that would come along for thinking that SSM is wrong, aka your “pushback”. But in the end, as designed, marriage itself would be the victim.

ddrintn on January 16, 2014 at 9:49 PM

You forgot school kids in GULAG (aka CA) who are FORCED to hear about “gay history”. For any idiot out there still somehow believing that liberals, and thus (most) gays are “for children’s welfare”, this is the lowest anyone can do: Prey on young, innocent minds.

Also, LBGT is now in bed with NAMBLA to advance that agenda as well as proven in last year’s Gay Pride parade in SF where NAMBLA were proudly displayed front and center.

But I guess there is no damage from preying on young minds and bodies.

riddick on January 16, 2014 at 10:18 PM

What kind of idiot are you?

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 10:14 PM

Um, is this multiple choice?

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 10:18 PM

First, I’m a Libertarian not a conservative. That is a title for you GOP shills who want to feel slightly superior to your fellow liberty stealing toadies of the establishment. That was a mouthful.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 10:02 PM

A libertarian who supports laws giving preferential treatment based on sexual orientation, removing freedom of association, and banning public expression of religious beliefs.

LMAO.

Anyone or group that supports Obama is an idiot. How they justify it isn’t for me to give evaluate. It would probably be hilarious but I’m sure they have some twisted rational.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Gay-sex marriage supporters overwhelmingly endorse, support, and praise Obama.

No surprise there.

northdallasthirty on January 16, 2014 at 10:19 PM

It’s time for me to watch the highly intellectual TV show Teen Wolf and go to bed. I just want to say that I think Lanceman is a great guy even if he is wrong on this topic.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 10:19 PM

That’s why we’re here. If I wanted everybody to agree I’d go to Redstate.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 10:21 PM

I certainly can not get sex from anyone whom I would think for one second about have sex with. What am I doing wrong then?

As they say in marketing, one cannot demand caviar price for fish guts.

Why am a failure as a homosexual? I’m decent looking. I have friends and am at least somewhat socially competent. Tell me the secrets of sexual success, you adulterer.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 10:06 PM

What, you mean that you settle for sex for people that you think are below you?

I’d call that narcissism and overinflated self-esteem. Perhaps you should honestly assess why you hold everyone in contempt with whom you sleep.

northdallasthirty on January 16, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Tell me the secrets of sexual success, you adulterer.

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 10:06 PM

Having a brain helps. A LOT. So does self respect. A LOT.

Explains why you’re having problems since you’re lacking both.

riddick on January 16, 2014 at 10:26 PM

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 10:06 PM

Ah, crap. Most of the success I’ve had comes from being 6 1/2 feet tall. Broads like that crap for some reason. I despise standing next to some dude that’s 6’8″. I don’t like feeling short one bit.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 10:29 PM

What kind of idiot are you?

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 10:14 PM

There are kinds?

kcewa on January 16, 2014 at 10:30 PM

50 years ago, if you said Gay marriage, you’d be laughed out of the room.

Whose laughing now?

portlandon on January 16, 2014 at 7:24 PM

50 years ago? Less than 15 years ago I was at a Democratic Party fundraiser in a very blue northeastern state talking with a number of pols and operatives when the subject came up.

“Gay marriage? HA HA HA HA HA. I mean, c’mon????”

Just goes to show you what a small, fanatical, well-organized minority can do.

Centre Party gathering, Berlin 1929:

“Nazis? HA HA HA HA HA. I mean, c’mon????”

Dreadnought on January 16, 2014 at 10:42 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

There was nothing wrong with marriage. There was something wrong with taxation without representation. The colonies were getting abused endlessly, and they had enough.

And if you can’t wrap your head around the traditional definition of marriage, then you probably have trouble with other self evident truths, like the definition of the word “is.”

Dongemaharu on January 16, 2014 at 11:12 PM

First, I’m a Libertarian not a conservative. That is a title for you GOP shills who want to feel slightly superior to your fellow liberty stealing toadies of the establishment.

Panther on January 16, 2014 at 10:02 PM

.
I definitely feel “smug and superior” … no doubt about that, but who are these “fellow liberty stealing toadies of the establishment” ?

I see “the GOP Establishment” as being to the left of yourself.

listens2glenn on January 16, 2014 at 11:20 PM

What will Focus on the Family do with themselves if gay marriage is legalized nation wide. They won’t have a reason to exist anymore.

libfreeordie on January 16, 2014 at 11:25 PM

What will ACORN do if the states start requiring photo ID to vote? They won’t have a reason to exist anymore!

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 11:31 PM

Focus on the family will do what they’ve always done: promote the family. Oh, and probably still fight gay’s attempts to forcibly introduce children to gay sex in schools, and fight their attempts to force ministers to perform gay weddings and fight to free people from prison after daring to read the Bible in public and gays have had them arrested for hate speech.

Vanceone on January 16, 2014 at 11:33 PM

Therefore, why should these incompetent children have marriage?

northdallasthirty on January 16, 2014 at 9:51 PM

Yeah, but be fair-that applies to a heck of a lot of the heterosexual idiots out there marrying and procreating.

————————

What will Focus on the Family do with themselves if gay marriage is legalized nation wide. They won’t have a reason to exist anymore.

libfreeordie on January 16, 2014 at 11:25 PM

I don’t see your “logic” there. On the other hand, can we look forward to the Gay activist groups going away if that were to happen? I mean, if they get what they want, what’s the point of all that, the “gay pride” parades, “gay day” at Disney, etc,?

Obviously they won’t go away because they will always have some other axe to grind. These are really messed up, sad people most of whom have suffered serious emotional trauma in their lives, mostly in childhood. But there again, pedophilia is a psychologically recognized condition and child molesters just need to be helped through government programs, right?

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 16, 2014 at 11:34 PM

What will Focus on the Family do with themselves if gay marriage is legalized nation wide. They won’t have a reason to exist anymore.

libfreeordie on January 16, 2014 at 11:25 PM

You faggots won’t allow them to exist.

Murphy9 on January 17, 2014 at 12:05 AM

If JetBoy comes back–I replied to you in the other thread

Vanceone on January 17, 2014 at 12:22 AM

You faggots won’t allow them to exist.
Murphy9 on January 17, 2014 at 12:05 AM

Cute.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 12:32 AM

The more Salem Communications, the corporation that runs Hot Air, is giving in to Allahpundit’s leftist philosophy, immature & foolish posts, & pathetic perversions, the less & less I’m visiting here.

Actually… I’m out of here. Today. After I post this comment.

For 1 thing, Salem, as a corporation, is really low class, unethical, & unprofessional for permitting some things to go on, here: For 1 example, this anonymous identity of Allahpundit, especially given his/her major position, high profile role, & executive rank. It is really remarkable that he/she is given all this, especially given his/her multitude of twisted, leftist posts, driven to subvert a multitude of basic good things about life & people & politics, the United States of America, & the world. His/her presence here is like a disease or a cancer. Salem’s persistence in maintaining this kind of relationship with Allahpundit & promoting Allahpundit, by the site being up & running as a part of it’s business model, is a major factor in my going away. This Hot Air site is really getting to be a joke, & a dark 1 at that. How the rest of you keep coming back for more is really remarkable, too. Why am I here, now? I’ve been open to things getting better, but seeing this post shows it’s getting worse.

So, this is the end of the line. I’m outta here. I’m 1 man of 1 mind & it’s on the right. I love life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness, I believe strongly in a higher power, I believe strongly in the US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, & the US Bill of Rights, &, as it relates to this post, I believe strongly that marriage was, is, & will always be the union of only 1 man & 1 woman.

Hot Air is all over the place, it’s range of attitudes crossing 1 line after the other, mostly in Allahpundit’s posts. n the overall, it’s really a schizophrenic blog, for people who may be into that kind of thing, on both sides, & for people who may be into circular rhetorical arguments with people who fail to get the point in the 1st place so they’re likely never going to get it, as it’s a part of their personality, which, in some cases, may sadly be a mental disorder.

I like lots of the other posts by the other bloggers & others making comments, here, so I’ll be missing you & I hope to see you around, somewhere else.

By the way: Here’s a tip to you other bloggers, here: Idea: Really give it some ongoing & careful thought about going somewhere else. It’s likely that you’re too good to stay here & be associated with some of the bizarre things going on at this blog. You stand on your own & will likely make a far better go of things if you move on to a site that is more in line with you & more up to you, as you deserve. For 1, I’ll follow you over there. Just imagine all the people who think like what I’m thinking here & how we’d follow you over there. A lot of us are just holding out for someone to get something else going because this Hot Air thing is really going down, lower & lower, day by day. Now or soon’s the time to get going, before someone else gets something good going. Or, if you see that someone else is already getting something good going, there’s the opportunity to get in on it, 1 way or another. However it plays out, I wish you all the best.

Anyway…

I’m out & I’m moving onward & upward.

Who’s with me? Why would you be staying to see these posts, over & over again, on into the future. You’re too good for it. Go.

Let’s go.

. . .

Wikipedia:

‘In February 2010,Salem Communications purchased Hot Air from Michelle Malkin and it was said Allahpundit and his co-blogger, Ed Morrissey, were a central part of the deal. Salem is known for its hard-right social conservatism, but Hot Air has maintained its more social libertarian tone.’

‘Morrissey, a Roman Catholic, is the more socially conservative (though gay-friendly) of the two current bloggers, whereas Allahpundit is more libertarian and an atheist.’

‘When founding Hot Air, Malkin stated an intention to provide “content and analysis you can’t get anywhere else on a daily basis.’

ABLOGMAN on January 17, 2014 at 2:13 AM

ABLOGMAN on January 17, 2014 at 2:13 AM

.
Bye … I guess.

listens2glenn on January 17, 2014 at 3:42 AM

You faggots won’t allow them to exist.

Murphy9 on January 17, 2014 at 12:05 AM

.
Cute.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 12:32 AM

.
“Maggot” starts with an “M”, Murphy’ … just like your username.

listens2glenn on January 17, 2014 at 3:46 AM

Not a good poll.

1: 600 Adults, this is not a good sample size for a survey of the adult population.

2: The poll was taken over only a few days.

3: Those few days included a Sunday. In a state like Utah, that’s going to skew your results dramatically. Active Mormons are largely unavailable for much of Sunday, so any Mormon’s you’d contact on that day are going to be far less active.

So, between the small sample size, and the structural problems with the poll, I wouldn’t say it’s worth much.

WolvenOne on January 17, 2014 at 4:54 AM

You have yet to provide a victim in allowing gay marriage.

Children who are denied both a mother and a father, and those forced under “equal protection” to provide services to gay weddings or lose their business.

jusstjones on January 17, 2014 at 5:36 AM

Can I marry my Mommy?

Why not? We both love each other, and we are both over 18…..we’re consenting adults….why do you hate?

https://www.vocativ.com/01-2014/americas-incest-obsession-flowers-attic-back-memories/

PappyD61 on January 17, 2014 at 7:25 AM

With all the propaganda being put out by the “socially Liberal” posters around here, one might forget that homosexuals only number 3% of our population, and the overwhelming majority of states, including Utah, voted against allowing “gay marriage”.

kingsjester on January 17, 2014 at 7:30 AM

I want to have sex in public…..it’s a beautiful thing…..it’s educational….it’s natural…..

Why can’t i?

Who are you to say it’s wrong? Why do you hate “love” so much?

What’s coming some have said?

Sex acts in public, sex on parade floats, ads for sex aids on TV, full sex acts, and possibly bondage /torture in PG movies at the big screen. Disney animated characters that are transvestites, grade schoolers forced to watch “biology” films involving homosexual sex acts. State confiscation……by court order…of home schoolers property and at some point the children themselves if they don’t have a pro-homosexual curriculum and testing. Closing of churches that refuse to marry those same sex couples.

They won’t give up until the last person is on board their way of life.

PappyD61 on January 17, 2014 at 7:40 AM

I read more gay news on this site than any other conservative site. What is your fascination with this crap?
The left won this battle. They’ve perverted another institution. Not much we can do about it at this point. Let the gheys have their little fake “marriages” and let’s just admit Rome is ready to fall again.

tyketto on January 17, 2014 at 8:25 AM

Marriage is not a “right”.

JetBoy on January 16, 2014 at 7:25 PM

So then will you admit that marriage is not a “gay rights” issue?

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 17, 2014 at 8:27 AM

The hilarious part is that these bigots like JetBoy, thuja, Panther, Genuine, and the like expect us to believe that they actually WOULD stop or exercise some type of moral restraint, after their constant blathering about how you have to support having sex with whatever anyone wants to have sex with and the necessity of forcing people to accept gay-sex marriage.

If that were the case, they wouldn’t be here screaming at us; they would be trying to make an intelligent case as for why gay-sex marriage was a good thing. But they can’t, which is why they run to the courts and try to exploit antireligious hate, bigotry, and Lena Dunham-esque promiscuity.

northdallasthirty on January 16, 2014 at 9:58 PM

Nah, the hilarious part is someone who posts nekkid pics of themselves online and then yaps about the supposed “moral restraint” and “promiscuity” of others.

So then will you admit that marriage is not a “gay rights” issue?

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 17, 2014 at 8:27 AM

I don’t believe I ever said it was…but if I did, let me correct it here. I don’t like the term “gay rights”. This isn’t about “gay rights”, it’s about constitutional rights and equal treatment under law.

JetBoy on January 17, 2014 at 8:40 AM

JetBoy on January 17, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Please cite where “the right to marry” is witten in he USConstitution.

kingsjester on January 17, 2014 at 8:49 AM

“The US Constitution:

kingsjester on January 17, 2014 at 8:50 AM

The overwhelming majority of the world rejects homosexuality as an unhealthy perversion. The current fad of glorification in a few Western societies is unlikely to be sustained as it contradicts empirical human experience.

DaMav on January 17, 2014 at 8:54 AM

What will Focus on the Family do with themselves if gay marriage is legalized nation wide. They won’t have a reason to exist anymore.

libfreeordie on January 16, 2014 at 11:25 PM

You faggots won’t allow them to exist.

Murphy9 on January 17, 2014 at 12:05 AM

That’s really nice. But not unexpected, coming from the likes of you.

I have you beat in not accepting the terms of LGBT community, because I reject B and T. I say the only bisexuals are bisexual unicorns. Idiots then reply that there are people who have sex with men and women, but the point of B “bisexuality” is not that some people will f*** anything, but that they desire both genders, and it’s not true

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 9:25 PM

On that, I have to disagree…if I understand you correctly. I do think the Transgendered don’t belong grouped in with Gays, L’s (is that word still moderated?) and Bi’s, as they are completely different. But I do accept…and am convinced…that some people are bisexual.

JetBoy on January 17, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Please cite where “the right to marry” is witten in he USConstitution.

kingsjester on January 17, 2014 at 8:49 AM

It isn’t. I never said it was. Matter of fact, if you read through the thread, I plainly state that marriage is not a “right”.

JetBoy on January 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM

JetBoy on January 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM

it’s about constitutional rights and equal treatment under law.

JetBoy on January 17, 2014 at 8:40 AM

It is, but it isn’t?

Sure.

kingsjester on January 17, 2014 at 9:05 AM

As an ex government accountant I say beware of numbers. Do not believe everything you see because they can be made to look as bad or as good as the person doing them wants.

crosshugger on January 17, 2014 at 9:30 AM

crosshugger on January 17, 2014 at 9:30 AM

Exactly.

kingsjester on January 17, 2014 at 9:45 AM

The overwhelming majority of the world rejects homosexuality as an unhealthy perversion. The current fad of glorification in a few Western societies is unlikely to be sustained as it contradicts empirical human experience. – DaMav on January 17, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Perhaps the current fads of condemning human slavery and democracies will pass too. It is really nice that to see that us anti-big government conservatives who are also anti-Obama can all discuss this issue without any name calling. As for homosexualtiy being unhealthly, anal sex is practiced far more by heterosexual couples than gay couples.

SC.Charlie on January 17, 2014 at 9:49 AM

There was absolutely no demographic data I could find on this (No GOP/Ind/Dem split). It only said what % of GOP opposed and Dems favored, etc. No age or racial demographics. Looked at SurveyUSA’s website (which did the poll) and not found there. Take with a grain of salt.

ConservativePartyNow on January 17, 2014 at 9:49 AM

There are many activities that are denied “equal protection” under the law. The class deserving of the protection must be a protected class within the framework of the Constitution. So are we now saying that classifications under the Constitution based on sexual preference is a “protected class”?

Somehow, I see the forefathers rolling over in their graves at the thought of sexual preference being a constitutionally protected class, such as man/boy; man/man and woman/woman.

BigAlSouth on January 17, 2014 at 10:04 AM

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

THIS. THIS a thousand times over. The classic Stage One Thinker.

Homosexuality was legalized as an ACT, meaning, it’s no longer criminalized to do it. The motive was irrelevant, so long as its between consenting adults. “Private act, none of your business”.

Now, homosexuals want the act changed to an “orientation” they can’t change, are all born with (evidence lacking there), and is not a mental disorder (and, in turn, here come the proponents of bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. to say “us too, us too!”).

And now, it’s “all up and in yo face”, you HAVE to know about it and approve of it – to borrow a quote, “the love that dare not speak it’s name now won’t shut up about it”.

Then they want to redefine a two thousand year old social/legal/moral/religious relationship specifically designed for a man and a woman for purposes of child-rearing(all because of desperation for social approval), and in the process, hasten it’s destruction through subjectification(which was started earlier via approving single mothers as “as good as or better than” two parents”, no-fault divorce, “starter marriages”, approval of child birth out of wedlock, disproportionate benefits to women in divorce and custody cases, etc.).

So, if “we can’t tell you who to love”, and thus two of the same sex can marry (actual homosexuality not required), and if “marriage is up to the individual”, that its a “regular contract” that doesn’t have to involve sex, and if sex is between the same gender so no pregnancy can result, then why can’t you change the number of participants in the marriage, or permit incest, or permit marriages in-name-only for benefits, or lower age requirements, etc.?

It’s subjectified - all up to each person. And society has no traditional basis to legislate it.

It’s become glorified roommates “for life, maybe”.

Saltyron on January 17, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Mary Katherine Ham, I believe, is also a supporter of gay marriage. I guess that a number of people on this board would consider her a RINO too. I found it amusing that O’Reilly really lost it when she came out in support of the legalization of marijuana earlier this week.

SC.Charlie on January 17, 2014 at 10:09 AM

There’s almost no question that SCOTUS will, eventually, legalize gay marriage

Not in a Constitutional Republic there’s not. SCOTUS has no power to “legalize” anything.

Now if you’re talking about the banana republic known as the Socialist Sates of America…

Nutstuyu on January 17, 2014 at 10:14 AM

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

What can one pairing create that the other can’t?

Hint – It’s cries when it’s hungry. That’s the difference.

“Hetero” marriage didn’t lead to same-sex marriage – it was dragged there, kicking and screaming until it gave up the fight.

Saltyron on January 17, 2014 at 10:15 AM

SC.Charlie on January 17, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Yes. Or just all over the map with whatever will get her in with the “cool” kids.

Nutstuyu on January 17, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Hint – It’s cries when it’s hungry. That’s the difference.

“Hetero” marriage didn’t lead to same-sex marriage – it was dragged there, kicking and screaming until it gave up the fight.

Saltyron on January 17, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Marriage creates JetBoys??? I knew I should have just stayed single.

Nutstuyu on January 17, 2014 at 10:16 AM

thuja on January 16, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Camille Paglia recently agreed – she says “men are no longer ‘men’”. And she finds that a bad thing.

Saltyron on January 17, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Nutstuyu on January 17, 2014 at 10:14 AM

So you’re problem is Marbury v Madison.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 10:25 AM

The hole is actually getting deeper for you.

Genuine on January 16, 2014 at 6:12 PM

That’ts what happens when you keep ramming something into an orifice it wasn’t designed for.

Nutstuyu on January 17, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Marriage creates JetBoys??? I knew I should have just stayed single.

Nutstuyu on January 17, 2014 at 10:16 AM

LOL!!

See, the hetero’s keep having all these teh ghey kids…can’t blame us for that :P

;)

JetBoy on January 17, 2014 at 10:29 AM

ABLOGMAN on January 17, 2014 at 2:13 AM

Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM

ABLOGMAN on January 17, 2014 at 2:13 AM

HAve fun! Come back any time.

Good Lt on January 17, 2014 at 10:35 AM

What can one pairing create that the other can’t?

Hint – It’s cries when it’s hungry. That’s the difference.

“Hetero” marriage didn’t lead to same-sex marriage – it was dragged there, kicking and screaming until it gave up the fight.

Saltyron on January 17, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Well, unless I’m totally mistaken, a marriage license isn’t a prerequisite for having kids…children are born out of wedlock all the time. And I’ve never seen a marriage contract that requires the couple to have children. And…although this might be a stretch for your brain to compute, the gays “equipment” and “ammo” still works, and gay men and women do create children…either in the biblical way, or through modern methods. And gays even *gasp* adopt.

JetBoy on January 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM

That’ts what happens when you keep ramming something into an orifice it wasn’t designed for.

Nutstuyu on January 17, 2014 at 10:27 AM

You realize that homosexuality is not limited to males, right?

Good Lt on January 17, 2014 at 10:38 AM

I’m sure that the angel Moroni will soon send down a revelation on this subject so the LDS can go with the flow. The good thing for them is that the next domino to fall will be the official barriers to polygamy and even polyamory. This will lead to another revelation so that finally they can eliminate the scourge imposed upon them when Utah entered the Union.

A long time ago the government should have gotten out of the marriage business. Too late now I guess.

Annar on January 17, 2014 at 10:39 AM

You realize that homosexuality is not limited to males, right?

Good Lt on January 17, 2014 at 10:38 AM

A better name for the idea would have been monosexuality.

Annar on January 17, 2014 at 10:42 AM

A long time ago the government should have gotten out of the marriage business. Too late now I guess.

Annar on January 17, 2014 at 10:39 AM

So now many conservatives are arguing for the real libertarian position that government should be taken out of marriage (or expanded to include anyone and everyone who wants to claim it, thereby removing government’s ability to use it to discriminate between groups it favors and those it does not), while the self-proclaimed Libertarians are arguing for the statist position of the Left that government involvement should be expanded to include preferred groups and still exclude others.

It is so bizarre, it’s funny.

fadetogray on January 17, 2014 at 11:00 AM

You realize that homosexuality is not limited to males, right? – Good Lt on January 17, 2014 at 10:38 AM

On this board it is apparently limited to males, lipstick lesbians are hot.

SC.Charlie on January 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Quick note, Annar: it’s pretty safe to say that in fact the LDS church is done with polygamy for the foreseeable future. The scriptures are full of times when God said yes, do it–but also no, do not. Polygamy was not legal for the people in the Book of Mormon. There’s been nothing to suggest that it will come back; one of the reasons to have it was to be different from the world.

I’m pretty sure that not approving SSM will fulfill that role quite nicely, thank you.

Vanceone on January 17, 2014 at 11:04 AM

On this board it is apparently limited to males, lipstick lesbians are hot.

SC.Charlie on January 17, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Yeah, where are all the dudes denouncing the disgusting perversion that is Gizelle Bundchen and Kathy Ireland scissoring.

Maybe they dont have a HotGayGas account. :[

Jeddite on January 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM

You realize that homosexuality is not limited to males, right? – Good Lt on January 17, 2014 at 10:38 AM

Yes, and female homosexuality is exactly the same thing as male homosexuality since, as everyone knows, men and women are exactly the same. GIGO.

fadetogray on January 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Yes, and female homosexuality is exactly the same thing as male homosexuality since, as everyone knows, men and women are exactly the same. GIGO. – fadetogray on January 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Thanks for the laugh. We need more humor in this thread.

SC.Charlie on January 17, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Well, unless I’m totally mistaken, a marriage license isn’t a prerequisite for having kids…children are born out of wedlock all the time. And I’ve never seen a marriage contract that requires the couple to have children. And…although this might be a stretch for your brain to compute, the gays “equipment” and “ammo” still works, and gay men and women do create children…either in the biblical way, or through modern methods. And gays even *gasp* adopt.

JetBoy on January 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM

So gays can create kids through hetereosexual sex? But how – gay is gay! Were they forced? If not, then, their orientation is NOT immutable, and thus can be changed?! So not all are born that way forever and ever? Wow, a breakthrough!

So, then gays can be “reconditioned” to be “straight” after all, and their “orientation” can’t be legally protected like race or gender, because unlike race or birth gender, it CAN be changed!

And if it can be changed, then it can be taught, or coerced. Since it’s defined by an ACT. Then perhaps we should reevaluate gays’ adoption of kids, to make it sure it’s in the best interest of the child and not because gays want to “play house”. So gays aren’t trying to steer straight kids toward that lifestyle. Right?

Sounds like the gays have a lot on their end to get “straight”.

Way to unravel a lot of legal support for your cause just to be a snarky ass. Though this might be a stretch for your brain to compute.

And no, a marriage license is a govt. recognition of the relationship for legal purposes. To enforce, based on domestic law, NOT just contract law. Inability to conceive could serve as a ground for divorce. Historically, marriage was seen as the best foundation in which to create and raise a productive, tax-paying member of society, thus, the legal/$ benefits directed toward it (for social reasons, and because raising kids takes big $). But hey, a single welfare momma is just as good as two (male and female) parents, so what’s the big deal – Uncle Sugar will replace the father and pick up the check for her f*ck ups.

So when marriage became just a normal contract, then why do we need to put fed/state benefits to it? You already get a benefit by two people pulling resources. Why the push for it from gays?

Ta- da! Marriage is unraveled.

The “definitions” are “walls” that show where it begins and ends. What it is and what it isn’t. But you prove my point – if marriage isn’t about kids, and not about fidelity, and not about gender, then it’s SUBJECTIVE, and thus, you could argue that you can marry whoever and whatever you want, because if all of it can be changed, so can foundational aspects like consent, age, number, etc. It becomes re-defined out of existence. After all, it’s all up to the individual, right? Who are ‘we” to tell them who to love, just cause they want our approval and money.

Saltyron on January 17, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Correction:

Yes, and female homosexuality is exactly the same thing as male homosexuality since, as everyone knows, men and women are exactly the same. GIGO. – fadetogray on January 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Thanks for the laugh. We need more humor in this thread.

SC.Charlie on January 17, 2014 at 11:28 AM

LOL!!

See, the hetero’s keep having all these teh ghey kids…can’t blame us for that :P

;)

JetBoy on January 17, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Assuming, of course, that all gays/lesbos are born as such. Which you seem not to believe yourself.

If they are, then it proves “YOU” need “US”, not the other way around. Unless the behavior can be taught.

Saltyron on January 17, 2014 at 11:31 AM

What will Focus on the Family do with themselves if gay marriage is legalized nation wide. They won’t have a reason to exist anymore.
libfreeordie on January 16, 2014 at 11:25 PM

The more interesting question is what will the HRC and GLADD and other such fascist gay orgs do.

gwelf on January 17, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4