Poll: Should same-sex marriages continue in Utah?

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Utah’s Amendment Three, which defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge Friday. Several same-sex couples were granted marriage licenses.

What do you think ought to be done regarding the issue? Answer in our poll below:


  • Kat

    Did anyone stop to think that an online poll can’t possibly reflect the real opinion of Utah residents? Fox can’t control who votes nor how many times they vote. This poll is absolute rubbish!!!!

    • Kent D. Madsen

      Once again, your closed mindedness is showing. polls are just that polls but if you look into it, all recent polls show a change in opinion since 2004 we we voted of this issue. Social evolution is vital to the well being of a society, equality for all!! Remember when inter-racial marriage was against the law, you have a right to your opinion, just like I have a right to be treated equal under the law. I served this country to support this.

    • roald


      Why should a secular government follow the rules of one religion, especially when the early settlers came to avoid exactly that. The people who wrote the Constitution enshrined that in the first amendment.

    • katie

      There is a separation of church and state for this very reason. So that laws can’t be mandated by religion. Why do people have to keep listening to this tired old sentiment, especially if they don’t believe in the Adam and Eve myth? Pursuit of Happiness is a right that all people deserve. Why is their love wrong and your bigotry right?

    • Christopher

      “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” ….yeah, he made one of the out of the rib of the other. Next came a talking snake, a flood that covered the entire earth, a man that lived in a whale……Tell me some more fairy tales please.

    • You don't even know

      This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed, for whatever reason. Culturally, a woman’s bed was her own. Other than the woman herself, only her husband was permitted in her bed, and there were even restrictions on when he was allowed in there. Any other use of her bed would have been considered defilement. Other verses in the Law will help clarify the acceptable use of the woman’s bed (Lev. 15).

      • Eric Anderson

        That’s a bit of a stretch.

        Leviticus forbids homosexuality. To argue otherwise is absurd. But Leviticus also requires animal sacrifice, stoning sinners to death, etc. The best argument against the “Old Testament” folks is to say, “Have you sacrificed a goat today?” They want to pick and choose which bits they like, and which ones they don’t like. I’m not sure it’s supposed to work that way.

        Jesus taught to live and let live, and mind your own business. I like that idea best.


    its about rights
    LGBT deserve rights too,regardless

    Very Sad because of religion and prejudices,Many still hate because of difference!

  • One of the Real Breadwinners of South Jordan

    I used to disagree with the idea of same-gender relationships being acceptable. But I got older and wiser and educated in our great state’s public system of higher education and I realized that the gays I had been brought up fearing were nothing like what I was told.

    My family, my lovely wife and my gorgeous children, aren’t threatened at all by equal marriage rights. My marriage is no less perfect, my heterosexuality isn’t threatened, my religious freedom isn’t threatened by state action.

    See, there’s this great thing about the United States. Our laws are designed to protect equality of all. We’re not perfect, but we try in our intent and in our actions. Laws with a specific animus against a group of people will be struck down in this system, and that’s what happened here.

    If you’re concerned about the moral compass of the State of Utah, go share your blessings in your community and to strengthen the downtrodden. Our Housing First law is a great example of Utah doing something right, and our willingness to help each other is a fine example that no law can promulgate. But does extending the civil benefit under law of marriage to all loving couples really hurt your marriage?

    I mean, I love my wife and kids as much today as I did last week. This ruling seems to have changed nothing for me…

  • wayne

    I have lived in Utah much of my life and if i could afford to get out i would as soon as I could. It is a state that is all church. For the life of me i cant understand why the church thinks that they have the (POWER) to tell people how to live and what to do with there lives. the whole problem is that if the church don’t”want it it wont happen they have so much money that they can buy anyone and anything they want.Why people want to live here is way beyond me people should have the choice not the church GOD will decide on judgment day.

  • RB

    What a lot of selfish sour-pusses. I have never seen or heard such revelry in vitriol. The only question I have is how laws are based in morality and precedent, and then how a new law can be made thus making what was once universally considered immoral. So if it is legal is it no longer immoral? Is it possible for the Law to also be a moral legislator and the determiner in social norms? Or is it that the screaming minority really has become so organized that the sleepy majority just missed the martial art of re-direction? Oh, one more question: What happened to Bill of Rights 9 and 10?

  • RB

    Oh , let’s all beat up on the “Church” when it is the best cause for good in this state and the world. Did you see who helped more than almost any other group in Hayyan, Haiti, etc. etc.? The ad hominem arguments fail every time. There is no reasoning with hedonists because they will get what they want no matter who is insulted or hurt even society in the long-run.

  • Dave

    How fitting that the LGBT community launches this poll in the middle of the Christmas season when most are occupied with their families and have not yet had the opportunity to vote. Skewed poll results? Absolutely.

  • Eric Anderson

    “Civil unions” are financial contracts, and need having nothing to do with s e x.

    As for “marriage”: Society decides who is “married” and who is not. No matter what the courts say, that will never change. “Marriage” is an institution that will forever remain beyond the grasp of government. They are not the Thought Police, as much as they’d like to think they are.

    These “marriages” are Civil Union contracts no matter what they say. Anyone who believes the couples are “married” can do so. Those who don’t, won’t. That has always been true. So nothing has changed except that all citizens will have the same access to workplace benefits, etc. That’s FAIR, and should have been the case all along.

    Bottom line: Less burden on the taxpayers. Other than that, much ado about nothing.

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.