Note: if you can't handle back-door wisecracks salted throughout a post, quit reading. Or, better yet, get off the Intarweb-thing entirely, the tubes are getting full and your traffic is interfering with law enforcement.
The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control was shoved in through the "back door" (without lube, I'll wager) as punishment for Utah's rejection of Prohibition. From their own web site:
Check that year. 1935 was the year this asshat-riddled organization was created. Until less than a decade ago, this organization never appointed a drinker to the Board of Directors. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense: have the anti-drinking lobby control the distribution of alcohol in the state. Maybe we should appoint anti-abortion activists to the state medical boards, and anti-gun people to the Wildlife Commission.
Anyway, in 1932, newly-elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt held true to his campaign promise to reform the smelly mess of national mental diarrhea called "Prohibition". Contrary to the stated wishes of the LDS church president, in 1933 Utah cast the first deciding vote and thus sealed the Prohibition amendment into the dustbin of history*.
However, the state government was composed mostly of faithful LDS men who, when the LDS church presents a unified message, toe the line closely**. The state is no longer a "theocracy", but when the LDS church speaks, majority senators and representatives are sock-puppets in their voting habits.
From 1933 through 1941, LDS General Conference talks resounded with disappointment in the LDS membership in Utah for ratifying the repeal of Prohibition. The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control was created expressly as a replacement for Prohibition, and exists today as a throwback, schizophrenic organization.
On a separate topic, the only reason churches don't endorse candidates is because they are prohibited from doing so. They are allowed to lobby based on issues, but stand to lose their tax-exempt status if they endorse a particular candidate. However, this allows more "back-door" endorsement based on individual issues. For instance, assume only only one pro-gay candidate is running for office. A church can issue a statement like "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman; we expect our members to vote their consciences on these types of issues." Even the most proctologically-challenged will get that message.
*Contrary to popular belief, Utah did not cast the "deciding vote". Two other states cast additional votes within the 2/3 majority, so the repeal would have passed without Utah's help. However, it was the first of the three deciding votes. A subtle distinction, but perhaps important if you are a self-aggrandizing blowhard with too much time on his hands like me.
**Apologist readers with their heads up their collective asses may point out that I am both saying that Utah voters feel free to vote against their church's position, while their elected representatives vote as a bloc. This may appear, according to the above die-hard colorectal self-examiners, like I'm talking out both sides of my mouth. Read the research and decide for yourself if it's possible for a group to vote as a bloc when certain conditions are present, and vote their conscience at other times:
http://americandemocracy.nd.edu/working_papers/files/following_the_leade...
Senator Butthole was my bishop for a couple years. Giving this man any authority is about as intelligent as giving a broken glass and razor collection to a toddler.