To Millie Watts, mother of a gay son and a lesbian daughter, a proposal to write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state constitution would forever deny her children basic rights in their relationships.

"Wouldn't it be nice if just once this state were to hand out an olive branch . . . and vote 'no,' " said Watts, co-chairwoman of Family Fellowship, a support group for LDS families of gays and lesbians.

Watts and representatives of the Don't Amend Alliance told the Deseret Morning News editorial board this week that their opposition to the amendment — which will be on the ballot this November — stems from its far-reaching effects on basics rights of same-sex couples or others not legally married.

In addition to declaring the only legal marriage can be between a man and woman, the proposed amendment would prevent granting the "substantially equivalent legal effect" as a marriage to any other relationship.

Supporters have said the proposed amendment is necessary to protect the state's traditional definition of marriage from court challenges. The second part, they say, is essential to prevent the recognition of marriage by another name — such as domestic partnership or civil union.

Josh Ewing, spokesman for Don't Amend, said the amendment would have "punitive implications" for the state's estimated 27,364 households headed by unmarried couples, based on the latest American Community Survey.

Ewing said the amendment would prohibit the Legislature from extending even basic rights, such as hospital visitation or insurance benefits, being granted to unmarried partners in Utah, and could go so far as to invalidate the state's domestic violence statute, which allows a protective order to be issued against an unmarried partner.

Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who is up for re-election in November, issued a joint statement with his two challengers expressing similar concerns about the amendment, though Shurtleff has said he would support a constitutional amendment that would simply define marriage.

But supporters of the proposed amendment, including Republican gubernatorial candidate Jon Huntsman Jr., have said the amendment's second part would not impact any existing rights for unmarried couples.

Huntsman said in a statement last week that, if elected, he would work with the Legislature to create "reciprocal beneficiary legislation giving two people with mutual economic interests rights and privileges, such as visitation rights, medical decisionmaking, etc."

Huntsman's campaign manager, Jason Chaffetz, said Monday that Huntsman was unavailable for comment. Chaffetz said Huntsman's proposal would be constitutional if the amendment passes, because the rights wouldn't be granted on the basis of "sexual orientation or lifestyle choices." He noted other states that also have the amendment also have similar laws.

Bill Duncan, an attorney at the conservative policy group Sutherland Institute, said the amendment likely would be interpreted much more narrowly than its opponents suggest.

"The key thing in that second sentence question is being treated as a 'marriage' or the legal equivalent," he said. "It has to be something almost exactly the same thing as a marriage. . . . An individual benefit like health insurance coverage doesn't rise to that level."

---

E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com