Blake Bailey

Project 1
Period 7
Our topic was about how being gay would affect voting for a US senator. The policies for
both of the fake candidates were the same. Even their names were the same, but half of the
surveys were involving a gay and partnered candidate, and the other half was straight and
married. The research question was how would being gay affect voting for a US Senator?
LGBT, also known as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, has been used since the 1990s. It
is a group that originally was against the term gay and wanted it to be replaced with the term
LGBT. They organize many parades and other gatherings for gay people and people that
support the group. It is the hot topic of recent controversy regarding the recent legalization of
LGBT marriage forcing everybody, in particularly religions, to take a stand on LGBT. Many
religions have changed their doctrine or the way the treat these individuals. Other groups such as
the LDS church have said they will not change their ways. Many individuals have been involved
with this topic as well. In Kentucky a marriage license clerk was sued for not selling marriage
licenses for same-sex couples. Kim Davis refused to sell licenses to two couples. She stated that
her religious beliefs prevented her from selling the licenses, even though the Supreme Court
made it legal. She started going to church after her mother in law died, fulfilling her dying
wish. She said in a statement that she never imagined a day that she would be asked to violate
a central teaching of Jesus Christ. Many other marital clerks have refused selling in the south. In
Tennessee a whole county clerks office resigned because they opposed same-sex marriage.
There have been many other cases involving marriage licenses and people refusing to sell them,
some people even vowing to not sell them to same sex couples. It makes you wonder if religion
should be involved in the state. I dont think if you feel that strongly and the state contradicts
your religious view if you should want to be in a state job. If you feel so strongly about it, do as
the clerks office in Tennessee did and resign. LGBT is a big topic currently in America and this
survey will display what people think.
Our hypothesis was that being gay would definitely affect the voting, especially in South
Jordan, Utah. In Utah I would definitely expect your sexuality to affect the voting because the
dominant religion in Utah is LDS, and I wouldnt expect the LDS people to be accepting of a gay
senator. Im sure we will see this issue come up in the future, and we have had many openly gay
US politicians such as: Tammy Baldwin, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and Steve Gunderson just
to name a few. It makes you wonder if there are other positions who have a different sexuality
that just havent come out due to the fear of being discriminated against. I would tend to believe
that voting as a whole would be affected if a politician had a different sexuality, even if the
difference was minor. That alone would make me hesitant to be open about it. I would not want
to risk the election and come out about it, but at the same time people might appreciate your
honesty and you could possibly even gain votes from other LGBT people. Harvey Milk was the
first politician to be openly gay. He served in the San Francisco Board of Supervisors from
January 8, 1978 to November 27, 1978. His reign was cut short as he was assassinated. He didnt
serve long, but he paved the way for more openly gay politicians as we have had many over the
years. He was also responsible for the gay rights ordinance for the city of San Francisco. He
encouraged for every gay person to come out. He inspired a lot of people and his legacy will be
felt forever.

The Method we used was just to give our share of the fifty surveys out to anyone. My
sub-group consisted of four people. Two people did twelve surveys each and the other two did
thirteen each. I personally went to my church activity which was combined with men and women
of all ages so it would be a diverse group. The additional question I chose was Do you believe
this person has strong moral character? I felt this question was very strong and would truly
identify if the person filling out the survey was affected by the senators sexuality. This question
is totally one persons opinion. I would tend to believe the majority of people would say no he
does not have strong moral character if he is partnered because it differs from most peoples
views. A person in a religion that disagrees with the LGBT I would tend to believe would
strongly disagree. A moral person in most religions is your typical straight person with a wife
and kids who loves God. Most of the people interviewed were LDS, which in Utah, is a
reflection of the community in a city surrounded by churches and temples and is over 90%
Caucasian.
The results we gathered were not the same as out hypothesis. The results for my surveys were:
1. He has sufficient education to be a US senator?
Strongly
Strongly agree: Agree:
Neutral:
Disagree:
disagree:
16.67%
75.00%
8.33%
0.00%
0.00%
2. He has sufficient work experience to be a US senator from Utah?
Strongly agree: Agree:
Neutral:
Disagree:
0.00%
91.67%
8.33%
0.00%

Strongly
disagree:
0.00%

3. He demonstrates strong leadership skills?

Strongly
Strongly agree: Agree:
Neutral:
Disagree:
disagree:
0.00%
66.67%
33.33%
0.00%
0.00%
4. He has the kinds of life experience that will help him understand average Utahns?
Strongly agree: Agree:
Neutral:
Disagree:
0.00%
75.00%
16.67%
8.33%

Strongly
disagree:
0.00%

5. I support more of his policy positions that I oppose?

Strongly
Strongly agree: Agree:
Neutral:
Disagree:
disagree:
0.00%
58.33%
16.67%
25.00%
0.00%

6. Does this person have strong moral character?

Strongly agree: Agree:
Neutral:
Disagree:
0.00%
58.33%
41.67%
0.00%

Strongly
disagree:
0.00%

The results stated that most people agreed or were neutral. The only questions that had any
disagreement were dealing strictly with politics, and there was one disagreement on the question
dealing with average Utahans. The disagreement on the question dealing with understanding
Utahans would be understandable considering a person may think he doesnt understand the
average Utahan because he is partnered which goes against the popular belief. The one that stood
out to me the most was the 6th question. I would have expected people to disagree with his moral
character, especially considering that the majority of people surveyed were LDS, but I was very
shocked to see that most people agreed that he has strong moral character. I would have never
expected them to say neutral, let alone say they agree with the statement. In comparison to the
other group who did straight the results were very similar, almost identical. Two of the people
who did the straight survey, had five total disagrees which surprisingly is one more than mine
was. One of the straight surveys was very interesting however.
1. 27% strongly agreed, 63% agreed, and 10% were neutral
2.18% strongly agreed, 72% agreed, and 10% disagreed
3. 36% strongly agreed, 45% agreed, and 19% were neutral
4. 36% strongly agreed, 54% agreed, and 10% were neutral
5. 9% strongly agreed, 45% agreed, 36% were neutral, and 9% disagreed
I wasnt able to collect any strongly agreed as she got many. I thought to myself maybe the
people werent able to get fully on board with a gay person. Maybe the sexuality of the senator
was the difference maker between agrees and strongly agrees. She also had a very similar
population, she had 73% LDS and I had 83% LDS. It was a very interesting correlation. Also
another interesting correlation was it seemed like everybody had a close percentage of LDS
people they interviewed ranging from 70% to 90%. I would guess that the percentage of LDS
people in South Jordan is in that range as well. With so many answers being neutral, It seems as
if people dont really seem to mind Homosexual people. If it doesnt affect them, why should
they worry? With the new laws being passed it still wont change peoples beliefs even if the
world around them is changing, as shown by the marriage license clerks. Some People just feel
like its their right to believe what they want as the first amendment should grant. Kim Davis said
To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name
affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a
Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward
anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about
marriage and God's Word. It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First
Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration

Act. Our history is filled with accommodations for people's religious freedom and conscience. I
want to continue to perform my duties, but I also am requesting what our Founders envisioned that conscience and religious freedom would be protected. That is all I am asking. I never sought
to be in this position, and I would much rather not have been placed in this position. I have
received death threats from people who do not know me. I harbor nothing against them. I was
elected by the people to serve as the County Clerk. I intend to continue to serve the people of
Rowan County, but I cannot violate my conscience." I can definitely see her point, but doesnt
the law contradict each other in this situation? If we grant marriage to same sex couples,
shouldnt marriage license clerks have to sell them to the couples? But the same thing can be said
for the first amendment, if your religion doesnt follow that principal you shouldnt have to go
with it right? But then couldnt you just say its against my religion for anything in life? This
subject makes you really question the constitution. There are definitely some flaws. Kims story
is just one of many. This then raises the question should church and state be totally separate? If
you cant perform state jobs without your religion disagreeing with it should you not be working
in that position? Im not saying that only atheists should work in state jobs, but if there is an
issue conflicting with your religion, should you have the job? Not all religious people will have a
problem in state positions. Thomas Jefferson said religion should only be between a single man
and god, nothing to do with the state. If religion is included in government it causes a lot of
problems. Many empires in past times were solely based on religion and that led to corruption
and breakdowns. We do not want to follow this model, and we arent currently. However, the
United States was formed on Religious principals and the founding fathers believed the existence
of a god was so evident that it was not necessary to qualify that statement. Most people thing that
religion should be involved in the state, but the state should not be involved in religion.
I think our project was successful because we found what we wanted. We discovered that
being Homosexual did not affect the feelings of the people toward the candidate. The only thing I
found that was that the non-gay candidate had more strongly agreed feedback than the gay
person did, but that was just one persons surveys. I do believe that did effect happened due to
the one candidate being gay. I think it would be hard for people voting to really get on board with
a gay candidate, but they might agree and vote for them. I just dont expect the average Utahan
to be flying the candidates flag and putting out signs, and thats understandable for Utah. If I had
to make a suggestion to a future group I would recommend the stay more connected to their
group. We worked fairly independent, and it might have something to do with that I didnt know
anyone in my group very well, but I thought we did a solid job and got good results from a good
group of people. In conclusion I was surprised at the results and think maybe the world is just
accepting LGBT, after all our country made it legal. Gay marriage is in favor for equality, love,
longevity, acceptance, and legal rights, and whether or not we agree with or not it happened, so
we have to deal with it. Personally it doesnt affect me as a person, so Im not going to lose sleep
over it. It will not change the way I think or anything. Just because the world is changing doesnt
mean you have to. Accept those that take that path, but just live your life as you would have
before. Part of the LDS statement they released said The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to
love and treat all people with kindness and civilityeven when we disagree. We affirm that
those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing samesex marriage should not be
treated disrespectfully. Indeed, the Church has advocated for rights of samesex couples in
matters of hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment, and probate, so long
as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of
churches. I think this statement is how you should go about if you disagree with the gay

marriage legalization, LDS or not. It happened, and the best solution is to just be kind and treat
others with respect. The state should not force gay marriage upon religions. If they cannot be
married in the religion it shouldnt happen. The first amendment should give religions the right
to say no to marry same sex couples. This is a situation where states should stay out of religions.
If it doesnt meet their doctrine they shouldnt be forced to comply by the government. I think in
a couple years this wont be as big of a deal, and I think thats what we all hope for. I dont think
gay people will want all this attention now that they got the law passed. They are free to live as
they please, and thats all they could ever want. We might see an increase in LGBT but I think it
will be okay. Just live your life. As it applies to government I think it shouldnt affect voting if a
politician is fit for the job. If a great politician is gay, it should not affect his votes in a positive or
a negative way, and our surveys showed that this is the case. It didnt affect most people as the
results for both surveys were very similar in most cases. With the non-gay senator there was an
increase in strongly agree as opposed to agree, and that may have just been a coincidence. To
wrap it up, the gay candidate appeared to have similar results to the straight candidate.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/top-church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supremecourt-same-sex-marriage-decision
"Davis Releases Statement, Lawyer Acknowledges Divorces." - LEX18.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 26
Sept. 2015