Context is Everything

Like Jacob S. I'm not a huge fan of politics during election time. Most of all I don't like the misrepresentation of candidates and policies through "news" and paid advertisements. Although some of them kind be pretty funny, like this one from our friends to the north.



I've never heard of this guy before. I don't really know if he goes around kicking the random 14 year old in the face, but my gut says that the video of him in full soccer drag, swinging at a ball, is a bit out of context in terms of representing his political ideology. Sure, his attempt at trapping the ball looked more like something from MMA, but it would be nice to see the before and after to know this politicians intention and response.

Likewise, the media is adept at spinning benign comments into dangerous political fodder. In a recent interview with RollingStone magazine, President Obama was asked about his current taste in music. Fox picked up his response in full, but spun the headlines just so to make it, em, intriguing.

"President of the United States Loves Gangsta Rap"

Fox has since taken down the heading, and brushed it away as editorial privilege under the claim that Fox Nation is not the same as Fox News, and is therefore not responsible to the same level of truth in reporting. Obama's full answer:

My iPod now has about 2,000 songs, and it is a source of great pleasure to me. I am probably still more heavily weighted toward the music of my childhood than I am the new stuff. There's still a lot of Stevie Wonder, a lot of Bob Dylan, a lot of Rolling Stones, a lot of R&B, a lot of Miles Davis and John Coltrane. Those are the old standards.
A lot of classical music. I'm not a big opera buff in terms of going to opera, but there are days where Maria Callas is exactly what I need.
Thanks to Reggie [Love, the president's personal aide], my rap palate has greatly improved. Jay-Z used to be sort of what predominated, but now I've got a little Nas and a little Lil Wayne and some other stuff, but I would not claim to be an expert. Malia and Sasha are now getting old enough to where they start hipping me to things. Music is still a great source of joy and occasional solace in the midst of what can be some difficult days.
So, while we can indeed see that Obama admits to having some Rap in his collection (Lil Wayne and Nas), I don't know that I would go so far as to say that he LOVES rap. It would be like saying that likes a California roll every now and then LOVES sushi. The point is, a half truth can be as misleading and detrimental as a full lie.
I haven't visited Utah for a while now. I wasn't present at the recent protests regarding President Boyd K Packer's remarks on homosexuality. I did hear the remarks, in context, and definitely didn't take them as anti-gay. The LDS Church's stance on homosexuality is clear, and we have hashed through it many times before. I feel that one of the fundamental reasons that so many people were so distraught by the speech is because of the way the statements were taken out of context. Read the entire speech for yourself and make your own decision. More of that talk is on the importance of strengthening families than anything else.

Score another one for the misrepresentation of taking things out of context. Check the primary source, especially when it comes to important issues, be it political or otherwise.

Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances

The Salt Lake City Council passed two nondiscrimination ordinances which make it illegal for landlords and employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The Church sent Michael Otterson, the director of its public affairs office, to make a statement supporting the ordinances.

This will no doubt come as a shock to many members of the Church who have taken a hard-line stand against homosexuals, especially after Prop 8. Perusing the internets and the comment sections on the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune, I found three reactions to this news:

1) Good for the Church. This shows that they are not bigots or anti-homosexual, only that they are trying to protect marriage between a man and a woman.

No surprise, this is where I fit in. I am happy that the Church made this effort to affirm the basic dignity and rights of all people, no matter their sexual orientation. I may not have thought Prop 8 was a great idea, but I absolutely understand the desire to protect the institution of marriage. God purposely created the traditional family as the means to best prepare us for eternal life. Protecting the LGBT community against bigotry and discrimination in no way harms or undercuts this belief.

2) This is just a public relations stunt. Where was the Church during the Common Ground Initiative debates? Why should we believe the Church is committed to gay rights after the bigotry that was the Prop 8 campaign? This is merely a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done to secure equal rights for gays.

I don't think it is dissonant for the Church to have supported Prop 8 while at the same time support these nondiscrimination ordinances. The one was a direct change of the definition of marriage, the other is a basic affirmation of human dignity and human rights. The Church, doctrinally, will never change its belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexual acts are a sin, but that does not mean that they will not support rights for gay people that fall short of marriage. It is of no use for the LGBT community to get upset over it.

3) The people running to the right of the Church. They see this as just another assault on traditional marriage and will not accept any rights for homosexuals. The epitome of this is the Sutherland Institute which vigorously opposed the ordinances and put out this message yesterday:

The LDS Church, like all religions in Utah, has a vital role to play in making Utah a better place to live, work, and raise a family. Sutherland’s important role is to help elected officials craft sound, principle-based public policy toward that same end. We recognize the growing differences between religious and secular cultures within Salt Lake City and commend the LDS Church for its earnest desire to keep cultural and political tensions to a minimum.

As a public relations opportunity, the LDS Church’s statement before the Salt Lake City Council may assuage the minds and soften the hearts of advocates of “gay rights” in Utah. As a policy statement, it is problematic. The approved ordinances before the Salt Lake City Council are unsound in principle, clarity, and effect.

We have learned from California and other states that the meaning of marriage will die by a thousand cuts. Each new inclusion in the law of such vague terms as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” represents a mounting threat to the meaning of marriage. Of course, each one, singly and in isolation, does no violence to the meaning of marriage. However, the legal debate is far ahead of such parochial analysis. Unfortunately, homosexual activists seeking to redefine the meaning of marriage – as well as activist courts seeking to do the same – do not view these types of ordinances singly or in isolation but as a pattern of public opinion to justify radical changes to law as we saw in California.

As we have stated previously, we hold that the approved ordinances are vague, dangerously broad, and unjust to the parties they seek to regulate.

We, once again, call on the Utah State Legislature to overturn these local ordinances on the basis of sound public policy.

The Sutherland Institute is a Utah-based conservative think tank, made up mostly of LDS members, whose agenda is primarily to stop any progress to humanize immigrants and homosexuals, and to support the radical de-governmentization of society. I imagine it is very uncomfortable for its many LDS members to realize that the Church is taking a decidely more centrist view on its core issues of immigration and gay rights. I don't think it is wrong to disagree with the Church's stance on these ordinances, it's just that so many people try to pin their politics to what they perceive are the Church's politics of the Republican Party that it must be astonishing when they don't line up completely.

I am not suggesting that I think the Church, as an institution, practices liberal politics. Just like don't think it practices conservative politics. My feeling is that the guiding principles the Church espouses when it comes to involvement in political debates are to: 1) defend our beliefs and 2) show Christlike love to all. If that means opposing gay marriage but supporting gay rights, then so be it. If that means requiring all members to obey the law but turning the other way when it comes to illegal immigrants, so be it.

We get so caught up in our understanding of American politics that we, and I'm absolutely including myself here, try to pigeon-hole the Church into one American political ideology or the other. It should be clear by now that this is a mistake, and that God works so far above these human-created distinctions that it is embarrassing to even put them in the same sentence.

Chris Buttars Needs A Nap

It has been too long since we have talked about Chris Buttars. That is an oversight on my part, which I am going to rectify now. Buttars is our most outspoken and prominent Utah legislator. He has a lot of anger in him and, what's more, a lot of confusion. We spent some time in the bizzare world of Chris Buttars here, here, and here.

Apparently, he doesn't like gays. So when Salt Lake City decides that it wants to pass an anti-discrimination law aimed at protecting the LGBT community, this makes Buttars angry. He wants to shut this down, even though he does not even live in Salt Lake City. Here is the oh-so predictable Buttars comment on this:

They want to say they're being hurt more than someone else, I guess. If anybody had a right to special protection it would be Mormons; they've been persecuted but not as bad as the American Indian. But they're not pounding on the newspaper's door. Or the Jewish people; the Jewish people have lots of people hate them. I love them. But you know that's true.

Let's break this down and see if we can make any sense of it. "They want to say they're being hurt more than someone else, I guess." This whole deal was started by factual reports of incidences of discrimination in the city. I'm not saying the LGBT community is like blacks facing down fire hoses in Alabama in the 1960's, but they actually are being hurt more than the general population for just being gay.

"If anybody had a right to special protection it would be Mormons." This is coming from a Utah legislator. I'm pretty sure that Mormons are doing just fine in Utah. For that matter, in the country as a whole. As a Mormon I am comfortable stating that I don't need any special protection. Now, if I was in Missouri or Illinois in the 1830's and 1840's, over 150 years ago, I might be asking for some protection. But Utah in the 2000's? I'm good, thanks.

"They've been persecuted but not as bad as the American Indian." The American Indian? What is even going on here? Where did that come from? I'm a little rattled.

"But they're not pounding on the newspaper's door." It's because the Mormons own the newspaper. If they pounded on the door it would be from the inside. Mormons went through their persecution decades and decades ago. Just because people don't trust our religion doesn't mean we are being persecuted. No one is denying us housing or hospital visitation or end-of-life decisionmaking. And I still don't know what American Indians have to do with anything.

"Or the Jewish people; the Jewish people have lots of people hate them." Now he's just rambling. Does he honestly not understand the difference between hate and discrimination? Is he just throwing out any group that might raise some emotion to distract from the fact that he is completely ill-equipped for the task of being a legislator? My money is on yes.

"I love them." Thanks for clearing that one up for us. We were all looking around trying to figure out why you hate Jews. Why does he need to let us know explicitly that he loves them? Is he self-conscious about his relationship with Jewish people? And I hope he realizes he's talking about a group of actual human beings, not just some amorphous philosophical idea that I kind of feel like it is trendy for some far-right conservatives to adopt now that Pres. Obama is taking a hard stand against Jewish settlements in the West Bank. But again, why even bring Jews into the conversation?

"But you know that's true." What? That you love Jewish people? That a lot of people hate Jews? That people persecute Mormons, but not as much as American Indians? That Mormons need protection more than gays? What is going here? How did this man get even a modicum of power and authority in this state?

You know who really needs protection, though? Belgians.

A New Effort to Reconcile the Church and Gays

There is a new effort gaining some notoriety on the interwebs to soften the church's stance on gays and reconcile the two groups. The website is called ldsapology.org. People are asked to read and sign their name to a petition which will be delivered to church leaders on November 4, the anniversary of the Prop 8 vote.

As always, I went to the comment section of the story by the Salt Lake Tribune to get an idea of what people are thinking, as there is really no better representative group of the general population than the comment section of an online paper (picking up the sarcasm?).

The gist of the comments from members of the church opposed to this effort is that the prophet has spoken through revelation, the doctrine of families and sexuality is set and eternal, and no amount of public protest can change that fact. The gist of the comments who support the site is who are Mormons to decide morality for everyone else and deny rights to citizens born homosexual? As is often the case, both sides are partly right and both sides are partly wrong.

The petition and website are inaccurate in several ways, and the reactions to them are also inaccurate. The petition reads, in part:

This means scrupulously acknowledging such practices as “reorientation”-- reparative, revulsion, and shock-therapies; such teachings as homosexuality being an evil perversion, a condition that is chosen and changeable and one that can be overcome through fasting, prayer, sacrifice and heterosexual marriage; and using scriptures that are taken out of context, mistranslated or that are highly selective to condemn homosexuality.

As far as I can tell, the church did away with most of this years ago and now, even before Prop 8, emphasizes that it is not safe or effective to try to change the person. The current teaching, as far as I understand it, is that if a person is gay they can still be temple worthy by simply living the law of chastity. I say simply, but, of course, it must be agonizingly difficult. This is why Elder Marvin Jensen of the Seventy and Church Historian has said on several occasions that the church weeps with those good members going through this supremely difficult trial.

I am not aware of the church using scriptures "taken out of context, mistranslated or that are highly selective to condemn homosexuality." There are scriptures in the Bible that condemn homosexuality and take a very harsh view of it, but I don't believe I've seen the church cite these scriptures, as is the practice of many born-agains, to bolster its argument. Instead, the church relies on modern revelation, specifically The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

So far, I think we're good. This is where the common ground can be found. I do not think it would be a repudiation of our teachings on morality and the family to recognize that homosexuality is not a choice, that gays should be afforded basic rights, and even that gays should be allowed to be married under our civil laws. As a church we do not oppose many marriages that would run contrary to our views of it, such as shotgun Vegas weddings, for instance. We can stand by our belief that marriage is sacred and that eternal life is available only to those who are sealed in the temple under priesthood authority while at the same time allowing civil marriages that fall outside of our beliefs. The two are not mutually exclusive. This may not be ideal, but we live in a big, complex world and we can't control every variable or person or practice that runs contrary to our beliefs.

Where the problem comes is where the church is asked to repudiate "such teachings as homosexuality being an evil perversion." "Evil perversion" seems harsh, lets just call it sin. No matter the semantics, though, this will not change. First, it is not the homosexuality that is a sin, but homosexual actions, which is not a small difference. In any case, changing the church's teachings here would be reversing a prophetic pronouncement and one of the most basic doctrinal tenets of the church: the sanctity of the heterosexual marriage.

Not only is it theologically untenable, it is not necessary. As I stated above, there is no reason why we can't hold on dearly to our beliefs but still allow gay marriage amendments and votes to go forward without our opposition. Allowing gays to marry will not cheapen my marriage, or any other temple marriage that has ever been performed, nor will it negate or lessen the prophetic and doctrinal truth that we espouse. We can still use our influence through our missionary program and our examples and discussions with our neighbors, but going the political route is more harmful than beneficial. The church won't, and shouldn't, reverse its teachings about marriage, but it can, and should, take a different approach in public statements and treatment of non-Mormon gays. These are very different things that should not be confused and completely intertwined.

Finally, the site makes a big deal about suicide rates among gays, especially young gays. This is, of course, tragic and we should be doing everything we can to avoid this substantial problem. But to lay the blame at the feet of the church is wrong. I will admit that there has been some pretty harsh rhetoric coming out of the members of the church, and I can only guess how painful and disorienting that must be for young people who are struggling to understand their sexuality and trying to reconcile the fact that they are otherwise good kids who feel like they are being demonized for feelings they can't control. Bottle all of this up internally with no outlet, and you have a recipe for disaster.

But the church has always stressed love and sympathy and tolerance of the person. Many members can't separate the condemnation of the sin and the person, and I admit that it is very hard. When church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but that the person is to be loved and respected, many members use this as a basis for over-the-top rhetoric against the sin and the person. The fault is not with the church, but with the individual that misinterprets. The church, I believe, can and should stress this point more clearly and often for those that don't understand.

It looks to me like this is a good faith effort to bring the two sides together, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between doctrine and public policy. For the church and its faithful members, requiring that it reverse its prophetic pronouncement and no longer consider homosexual acts sins is a non-starter. But members of the church can begin separate the politics from the doctrine and reach out with more understanding and tolerance.

Can Lightning Strike Twice?

Jacob S. has already elucidated the behavior of our beloved legislature Chris Buttars. I want to expand on a couple of his thoughts, and reply to the comments of several of our readers.

First, if you are not aware, Chris Buttars was removed from his positions of chairman and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as the chairman of the Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee. According to Sen. Howard Stephenson (R-Draper), Buttars was not removed for the content of his comments on homosexuality, but rather for violating an agreement with the Senate to not to speak publicly on the issue. Apparently Buttars has been marked as a "lightning rod" on this issue.

In my mind, this leaves two questions open for debate. One, is the content of Buttars benign, or is the content itself the source of the reaction. Two, should Buttars comments "in private" be considered as speaking publicly (i.e. where does free speech leave us exactly).

There is no question that the LDS church considers homosexuality a sin. There is no question that all sin is considered by the LDS church to have a negative impact on society. However, Chris Buttars stated that "the greatest threat to America going down," and went as far as to compare homosexuals to "radical Muslims." It isn't enough that Buttars is ignorant and intolerant of Muslims, when he probably means Islamic radicals (the ideology that Islam is both a religion and a political system), but also that he normalizes the violent murders of these radicals with the behavior of homosexuals. Murder is worse than sexual deviance, as stated by President Kimball in 1978 (Spencer W. Kimball, A Letter to a Friend, pamphlet). Instead, homosexuality is in line with all other forms of sexual immorality including adultery, fornication, etc. Buttars is mistaken in equalizing homosexuals to murderers.

A second, decisively inflammatory comment from Buttars on the Common Ground initiative (SB 32) was, "It lost 4-2, and I killed it. I've killed every one they've brought for eight years." The bill is designed to give certain rights to homosexuals, among which are: expanding healthcare, fair housing and employment, wrongful death rights, etc. Notice that neither marriage, nor civil unions are listed among the changes sought by this, and similar bills. In addition, Elder L. Whitney Clayton, a member of the church's Presidency of the Seventy stated that "...in general, the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. So where does the justification for Buttars delight in killing these bills come from? Certainly not from LDS doctrine.

Homosexuality is a moral issue, that is now being debated as a civil issue. From the LDS church's point of view it is a sin, but the sinner is still a child of God, and a member of society with all the rights to worshipping "how where and what they may" (Articles of Faith #11). Chris Buttars does not speak for the church, nor do his comments represent the teachings of the church. It is the very content of his comments that deserve explanation and consequence, as they are not in line with civil liberties.

The second question is in regard to Chris Buttars' right to free speech. We can not, and must not, interpret Freedom of Speech with the right to say or do anything we want. It is not absolute and there are (thankfully) limitations against things such as "hate speech," pornography, and the "offense principal." Obviously, the response to the various form or context of speech is individual and subjective, and therefore must be decided upon by the each respective society. Kissing in public for example is acceptable, while public sex (although it technically is protected under "free speech") is not condoned in the United States or any other society I am aware of. So, while Buttars does have the right to say whatever he wants, he must accept and be aware of the association and implication of his statements. Such responsibility is true of everybody in all situations, but is exceptionally true of a public figure in a society where "private" statements are rapidly disseminated. Buttars must take responsibility for his words, his actions, and his flawed ideology. If he is not self-sufficient or self-motivated to do so, then his constituency, the Republican Party, and the government must take action.

Chris Buttars: Hater

Chris Buttars is a Republican state senator representing some wonderful people in West Jordan, South Jordan, and Herriman. He is, potentially, the worst person in Utah.

His most recent comments are embarrassing to Utah, hopefully to Republicans, and to Mormons. He was interviewed for a documentary film and had some nasty things to say about gays. He called them, "the greatest threat to America." He compares them to radical Muslim terrorists. He opined that "it's the beginning of the end. … Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide." And many other things. Here is the clip on youtube.

Never mind that Sodom and Gomorrah was about a lot more than homosexuality (perhaps it would be helpful for Mr. Buttars to crack open the big book), this is just hate-mongering. Comparing gays to radical Muslims is insulting to our intelligence. I would hope that our elected leaders understand that threats such as actual terrorism, a crumbling economy, unaccounted for nuclear weapons and technology, and poor education are perhaps, perhaps, more serious than gay rights.

But why stop with gays? We believe that smokers and coffee drinkers are breaking the Word of Wisdom, why aren't those sinners singled out by Buttars? What about real threats to the family like adultery and pornography? Why isn't Buttars spending any of his time on these problems? Because Buttars has found a nice scapegoat that he feels are icky.

So Buttars, lets not worry about other parts of our moral code, such as love thine enemy, pray for them, turn not any away, the whole have no need for a physician, etc. Lets forget that our religious leaders plead with us to be tolerant and open-minded, to love the sinner but hate the sin and all that. All of those are apparently just inconvient side notes for some. It is easier to hate and be inflamatory and, what's this?, get a bunch of media attention. That can't be a motivation of his, can it?

But it's certainly not the first time Buttars has spewed his bigotry. Last year, during a debate over a bill, he slurred, "This baby is black…this is a dark, ugly thing." This comment caught on nationally with the NAACP demanding an apology for this blatantly racist slur. He kind of apologized and then got defensive and, once again, hateful. Chris Buttars continues his fight against the mythical War on Christmas, by supposedly anti-Christian heathens who want Christmas to be a time of unity and inclusion, even when its not Christmas season.

He has said and done many more offensive things that I won't document, but a simple Google search will bring them up.

Chris Buttars is the the face of the Utah Republican party. He gets the most press, he is the most outspoken, he says the things that the legislature wants to say but is too afraid to. He is also never disciplined or censured by the state senate for any of the racist, bigoted, offensive things he says.

Even after his long history of being shamed in the the local and national media for his offensive and hateful diatribes, he keeps getting elected. And this is the perfect example of the problem with Utah politics. For so many people, as long as there is an "R" next to the candidate's name, he or she is acceptable. Certainly there are other states similar to Utah on both the conservative and liberal side of the spectrum, Maryland comes to mind, but Utah has a unique factor: religion. There is the underlying presumption that Republicans=Mormons, that the party=the church, that precincts=wards. So when it comes time to pull the proverbial lever, the motivating urge goes beyond political to religious. This leads to a special kind of one-party domination of state politics that is particularly damaging and dangerous. Not only do you get more and more extreme politically without opposition, but you begin to think that divine intervention itself is on your side.

Common Ground Initiative

Equality Utah is an organization whose stated mission is to "secure equal rights and protections for LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] Utahns and their families." In response to certain comments made by Church officials in the wake of Prop 8, Equality Utah proposed five bills, collectively called the Common Ground Initiative (CGI), that were introduced to the 2009 Utah legislature. The five bills are aimed at extending certain rights to LGBT couples.

1. Health Care - extending benefits for state employees to their adult designees.
2. Housing and Employment - making it illegal to fire or evict a person based on sexual orientation.
3. Wrongful Deaths - allowing insurance and inheritance in deaths involving negligence or malpractice to LGBT partners.
4. Adult Joint Support Declaration - allowing rights of inheritence, insurance, and housing upon signing of a declaration.
5. Repealing the part of Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution (which defines marriage as between one man and one woman) which states "no other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as marriage or be given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

The legislature defeated the Wrongful Deaths bill in committee, meaning it did not have the chance to be voted on by the full legislature. The bills' sponsors pulled the Amendment 3 bill because it was apparent that it would never pass and was seen as maybe too much for the Utah legislature to swallow right now.

It is time to support these bills, not to somehow "make up" for the Proposition 8 unpleasantness, or to try to repair the Church's public image, but because supporting equality for all people is the right thing to do.

The Church's position is that it "does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches." The Church has not commented on the CGI, but on November 5th, Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose “civil unions or domestic partnerships.” This statement was qualified by Church spokesman Michael Otterson:

But spokesman Michael Otterson suggested a few days ago to a Washington Post reporter that the church's post-election remarks were "based on civil unions in California and that no decision has been made regarding similar rights in Utah," the paper said. "'I don't want to give the impression that the church is saying civil unions in all cases are OK,'" Otterson was quoted as saying, according to the Tribune.

Polls show that a strong majority of Utahns, including an even split of Mormons, support additional rights and protections for gay couples. One poll showed 63% support the rights found in the Common Ground Initiative, another showed 56% support. Both polls showed an opposition to same-sex couple adoption, which is not part of the CGI. Seventy percent of Utahns, however, oppose civil unions. That is at odds with Governor Huntsman, who has come out in support of civil unions.

There is a continuum that looks something like this: no rights for same-sex couples --> rights such as inheritance, housing, insurance, hospital visitations --> civil unions --> same-sex marriage. The Church has come out unequivocally in favor of rights for gays and gay couples, and qualifiedly for civil unions, and is opposed to same-sex marriage. I would think the reasoning goes something like this: Marriage is covenant between a man, a woman, and God. It is sacred in nature and cannot be expanded to include same-sex couples. While we find the practice of homosexuality immoral, we support basic equality for homosexuals because it is both the Christian thing to do and because we need to be good members of a community and accept them for who they are, even if we disagree with their lifestyle.

While marriage is a religious institution, rights such as those found in the CGI are government and community based. We should absolutely make sure that every citizen is given the same basic rights by the government, while protecting our beliefs as a religion. I do not see a conflict in these views.

So if a majority of Utahns support the rights found in the CGI, the Church supports those rights, and the governor supports them, why is the state legislature opposed? The Utah state legislature is beholden to ultra-right wing groups, the Eagle Forum and the Sutherland Institute, that have a history of hatred and discrimination. I am not going to outline the history and views of these groups here and now, but they are the groups that influence the Utah Republican legislators and they are the groups that block progress in Utah.

You can find contact information for your state Senate and House representatives here and here. If you are so inclined, I would encourage you to email or call them and show support for social justice in Utah.