2004 SSM ban, Utah

[TDAS04]

This has puzzled me a bit.  The ban passed with only 66%.  How did Utah, where Bush obtained 72% of the vote, ban gay marriage with only 66%?  Was the ban perceived as going too far? (That may also explain the results in Arizona and South Dakota in 2006).

As for the county map, it's not surprising that Summit and Grand would be the the counties (if any) to reject the ban.  However, in 2004, the gay marriage bans in the rest of the states outperformed Bush, and it's just a tiny bit surprising that Mormon Utah would be the exception.

[RedSLC]

I think that it was at least partly because it was perceived as going too far (i.e. people supported restricting marriage to a man and a woman, but felt that banning civil unions for gay couples as well was too extreme).

As for the two counties, Summit County is the most "liberal" (relatively speaking) county in Utah, with some pretty liberal areas (like Park City and Summit Park). It also has some fairly affluent areas, meaning that people there would be more likely to support Bush due to economic issues than social ones.

As for Grand County, it has a fairly strong environmentalist liberal contingent, due to the nearby presence of two national parks (Arches and Canyonlands), as evidenced by the 2000 election, where Ralph Nader won 14% of the county's vote. Combined with the "moderate hero" voters, this could have tipped the county's vote to against.

Also there were a couple counties where the SSM ban ran ahead of Bush: Carbon County, an ancesterally democratic coal-mining county which gave Bush 58% of the vote, but gave the referendum 61%, and San Juan County, which contains part of the Navajo Indian Reservation, gave Bush 60% of the vote, but gave the referendum 78%. In every other county, though, the referendum ran behind Bush by around 5 to 10 points.

[ElectionsGuy]

No surprise for Summit and Grant counties (those are ski/mountain counties that are naturally socially liberal). But Mormons might surprise you, they are not as anti-gay as people think. Most of them are against it, but in a more peaceful way. And for the time, that was pretty good. Most people were anti-ssm in 2004 and the issue has evolved very fast over the past few years.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think that it was at least partly because it was perceived as going too far (i.e. people supported restricting marriage to a man and a woman, but felt that banning civil unions for gay couples as well was too extreme).

Similar bans got 62% in Ohio and 59% in Michigan, though.

[Wolverines34]

dang!. this is pretty close, seeing as how NC voted 63-66% to ban SSM in 2012 and in 2004 utah voted only 66%. that was 8years ago, and the pro-gay marriage vote did better then kerry himself did. this is really suprising seeing the religious backround of utah.

[TDAS04]

dang!. this is pretty close, seeing as how NC voted 63-66% to ban SSM in 2012 and in 2004 utah voted only 66%. that was 8years ago, and the pro-gay marriage vote did better then kerry himself did. this is really suprising seeing the religious backround of utah.

Maybe some Mormons didn't like marriage being restricted to one man and ONE woman?

[tmthforu94]

dang!. this is pretty close, seeing as how NC voted 63-66% to ban SSM in 2012 and in 2004 utah voted only 66%. that was 8years ago, and the pro-gay marriage vote did better then kerry himself did. this is really suprising seeing the religious backround of utah.

Maybe some Mormons didn't like marriage being restricted to one man and ONE woman"?

Only FLDS members support polygamous marriages, which is a very small faction.

[TDAS04]

dang!. this is pretty close, seeing as how NC voted 63-66% to ban SSM in 2012 and in 2004 utah voted only 66%. that was 8years ago, and the pro-gay marriage vote did better then kerry himself did. this is really suprising seeing the religious backround of utah.

Maybe some Mormons didn't like marriage being restricted to one man and ONE woman"?

Only FLDS members support polygamous marriages, which is a very small faction.

I was being sarcastic.  It probably wasn't much of a factor.

[TDAS04]

Of course, Idaho passed a ban on SSM and civil unions in 2006 with only 63%, while a similar ban passed with 59% in Wisconsin that same year, which is interesting.