In Tuesday’s election, Obama received about 35% of the votes in Utah, but these were not spread evenly. If you subtract Salt Lake County votes, Romney garnered 81 percent to Barack Obama’s 16 percent. In Salt Lake County, Barack Obama got 39 percent compared to Mitt Romney’s 58 percent. But in the precincts comprising Salt Lake City (which has been gerrymandered and reduced to only about 10% of the County), Obama won.

Not only did Obama win in Salt Lake City, voters in the valley elected a Democrat to represent them in the House. Scott Matheson will represent the citizens of a district that had been recently gerrymandered into what the LDS commission in charge of redistricting believed would be a Republican stronghold. They ran Mia Love, whose star power earned her a spot on the floor of the RNC in Tampa. It wasn’t enough.

They were wrong about the district and it cost them a member of their DC delegation. The odds of making similar errors in the future increase substantially as the state becomes less and less LDS and as Salt Lake County becomes increasingly Democratic. It’s only a matter of time before they lose their iron grip on the state Capitol.

Oh, and Salt Lake City already recognizes same sex partnerships (in a manner similar to Colorado), as do a handful of communities along the Wasatch front, in Summit County and in places like Moab.

I’d also like to offer a correction: there isn’t a “legal argument” that out of state marriages might be recognized in Wyoming, there is a clear legal precedent, specifically in the form of a Supreme Court decision instructing a local court to grant access to a same sex couple seeking a divorce. Wyoming’s statute is quite clear: all marriages legal in the jurisdictions in which granted are legal and recognized in Wyoming.

We’ve received reports that the religious right will once again attempt to change the wording of the Wyoming statute once the Legislature convenes in January. We’ve seen the draft of the bill and it makes clear that we’re all on the same page about what the law says and means, and cites the recent Wyoming Supreme Court decision. If the law were unclear or the recognition granted to married couples from out of state merely theoretical, I don’t believe we’d be facing this battle.

As an aside, I think that is another milestone of this election: Colorado will be the first state to have gay men leading both legislative chambers.

I have to say that I did approach the ACLU, the HRC and others several years back–just after my husband I got married–but was told, ‘not yet’. I’m getting older, though, and my patience is waning…

That being said, we did make great progress in the past days! And I am so happy for the families in those states who can now be officially recognized.

No one here ever thought civil unions were the final step.

(Oh, and ballot referendums in Illinois are strictly advisory.)

This is my belief why the Supreme Court decided to wait on the prop.8 case. They really wanted to see what would happen in the election. My guess, if they decide to hear it at all, will be 6-3, with the usual/ suspects dissenting.

I have yet to have a Mormon sufficiently explain what would be the difference(s) between a gay civil marriage and a ceremony they perform in a standard LDS Wardhouse/Chapel or a Mormon Bishop performs in a outdoor wedding reception hall. It has never been made clear except (if I can paraphrase from South Pacific): We ain’t got dames.

It’s not like I am chaining myself to the East door of some Temple of theirs and demanding a ‘sealing’ in their precious Celestial Room. The Temple is a whole other ball game.

So, we can work on defining and determining what specifics we might need to wrestle (sternly-forcibly negotiate) with the upcoming 2013 Utah Legislature and maybe chip away at the hard-and-fast anti-gay marriage statute in the Utah Constitution…with LDS blessings.

Speaking of South Pacific: I think some Mormons need to listen to the lyrics to You Have Got to Be Carefully Taught. Though, I think, it goes right over their heads.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/the-future-of-same-sex-marriage-ballot-measures/

Among the states that do not already have marriage equality, he predicted that Rhode Island, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware would be the states least opposed to marriage equality, in that order.

Of these states, the only ones that do not have constitutional bans are Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Jersey and Delaware.

Utah is quite low on the list, and has a constitutional ban. There is quite a bit of popular opposition to marriage inequality. However, I agree that opinion there could change quickly based on direction from the Mormon Church. Mormons generally follow the directions of their church, unlike Catholics, who tend to do the opposite.