If you care mainly about symbolism — about showing the world that many Utah Mormon conservatives share neither Clinton’s politics nor Trump’s values — a McMullin vote is also a great way to convey that.

But either way, his marital status is about as relevant as the color of the seats on the Titanic’s lifeboats. Let’s not be distracted by nonsense. This is a real election and it actually matters.

I do not ever remember marriage being something that was specific to religion or the LDS church as I grew up, but rather as a societal and legal construct, something that assured two people could share things as well as life experience with each other. It is in this context that I support the extension of marriage to same-gender couples. I’m not sure I would really oppose polyandry by the same token. I consider marriage to be a kind of “free exercise” of personal feeling, not to be determined by the state or any particular religion except as a matter of property and child custody, as well as medical treatment and similar situations.

In other words, two or more people should be able to engage in sharing a life without the state attempting to know things that happen in private, without even an assumption by the state of sexual behavior.

Churches, on the other hand, can talk to their members about sexual behavior, can sanction some behaviors over others, and enforce, within church bounds respected by the state, such policy. In other words, churches like the LDS church can allow certain people who pass worthiness criteria to enter an LDS temple, engaged in the activities of the temple both for themselves and, by proxy, for others, and prohibit people who cannot pass the worthiness criteria from participating in the temple. At some point, a temple sealing was agreed upon by the state to be considered a legal marriage, even if it took place in the temple as opposed to a state facility, just as any other church had been granted similar authority in terms of conducting actual wedding services.

Now, being single is a personal choice, but it is not as simple as that makes it sound. Getting another person to share life experience and property with you in such a binding manner as marriage is not easy, and certainly must be mutually agreed upon. Stemming from this then, if you are single, I have no business speculating what you are about being single. Your singleness is not an invitation to judge, nor to “set you up,” nor to think that you’re homosexual, etc. And if you are married, while personally having homosexual motivations, it is still none of my business, and any public speculation of anyone’s personal life in this manner is not merely gossip, but false witness.

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels is unfortunately what a lot of LDS members seem to be doing, worrying excessively about other’s moats while ignoring their own beams. I would hate to think that LDS members would defend this behavior as some kind of “free exercise” of religion, or even as “free speech,” though I acknowledge that such speech is protected. People can and will state their opinions, hateful or note, valid or not, and to suppress this actively would present its own evil.

I would hope that Trump would be seen for the threat that he is, ultimately pointing the US to a fascist point of view that has shown itself to be a horror. This election, as with any election, should not be about personal choices or lives. It should be about respect for others, respect for the civil liberties of others, and about a method of compromise that allows America to solve its problems in peaceful terms.

Jason Chaffetz would eat him alive. And Mia Love might be able to beat both of them.

Now people can disagree with elements of those. People might think Clinton is worse. But the reasons why many are turned off in the Mormon community seem pretty straightforward.

As to leadership, while I think it’s completely valid to criticize McMullin’s lack of experience in politics, that’s doubly true of Trump. (At least McMullin’s demonstrated a knowledge of foreign policy) However McMullin’s hasn’t lacked leadership. Most media accounts of his time in the CIA strongly suggest leadership skills and experience. It is frequently interesting to me that those defending Trump don’t acknowledge that most of the weaknesses of the Clintons (or McMullin) are also held by Trump. He’s unarguably the least qualified candidate Republicans have ever nominated in the last century in terms of experience and knowledge.

I’ve still not sure who I’ll vote for. To me this is as much about helping conservatism survive. I think that requires a repudiation of how the GOP has been taken over. I’m voting today so I’ll have to finally make up my mind after vacillating between several choices the past weeks.

To Hatch, I thought Hatch was running for reelection. Is that not true? I’ve not heard any stories about McMullin planning on trying to beat Hatch in the caucuses. That’d be quite hard, although it is interesting Hatch was one of the few in Utah who didn’t break with Trump when that video tape of him bragging about assault came out.

As for what his singleness means. Any who’s a father or husband, or even just a guy, knows it means something. It could mean he’s a weirdo. It could mean he’s not the squeaky clean PP he portrays himself to be. Who knows. I don’t think it’s a huge thing. But it is a data point.

The bottom line for me is McMullen is a guy that’s never been a leader of any sort. He’s never created a single job. Never managed people or organizations. Never had responsibilities worth noting. Never even held a real job frankly.

He’s a joke that’s just staging a marketing campaign so he can run for Senate. Under normal circumstances nobody would take him seriously for Senate, but he has a good shot at Hatch’s seat now. He’ll probably get married in 2017. You watch. He’ll get press in UT for it too. Then he’ll take Hatch’s seat with ease.

The Deseret News actually broke the story about McMullin’s mother being gay. They buried it near the bottom of a long article about McMullin.