On Nov. 2, Utah's citizens will vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment that defines what marriage is and what it is not. This proposal, Amendment 3, is carefully worded to accomplish three purposes: (1) protect Utah's definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, (2) prevent courts or other government officials from subverting that definition by authorizing counterfeit marriage, and (3) leave the Legislature free to provide specific benefits to unmarried persons.

Utah is not alone in combating efforts to redefine marriage. This year alone, the citizens of 10 states besides Utah have voted or will vote on amendments that will define and thereby protect marriage. In North Dakota, supporters of marriage have gathered over 52,000 signatures (of about 26,000 needed) to put an amendment on the ballot. These North Dakotans chose to use Utah's Amendment 3 language, word for word, because of its precision.

Why is this widespread pro-marriage effort necessary? In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion holding that its 200-year-old constitution included a previously undiscovered right to individual definitions of marriage. Attempts at a "compromise" position by the Massachusetts Senate president were rebuffed by the court, and in May 2004 the Commonwealth had to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Although Gov. Mitt Romney has wisely ensured that Massachusetts law is enforced so that only Massachusetts residents can contract a same-sex marriage in the state, that residency requirement is currently being challenged by the lawyers who brought the original same-sex marriage case. As couples move from Massachusetts, or go there to marry, other states will increasingly be called on to recognize those marriages and thus change their own policy.

Since the Massachusetts decision, trial courts in New York, Oregon and Washington have made similar rulings. Lawsuits to redefine marriage are also pending in California, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland and New Jersey. Add to this the creation of a marriage substitute called "civil unions" in Vermont (under court order) and the creation of "domestic partnerships" in California (to circumvent that state's popularly enacted definition of marriage). All these judicial and legislative assaults on man/woman marriage make Amendment 3 both timely and necessary.

Amendment 3's opponents are vocal and well-represented in the media. It is increasingly clear that each of these opponents has one (or more) of four different reasons for their opposition: They favor same-sex marriage; they want a marriage substitute for same-sex couples such as Vermont's "civil union"; they want to stay in step with their political party; and/or they in good faith believe the other opponents' mantra that the amendment "goes too far" because it is "poorly written."