From Deseret News archives:

Debate on gay nuptials grows

New group in favor of state amendment kicks off campaign

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 8, 2004 10:17 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
As November's election nears, it appears Utah voters will hear from several voices — candidates and campaigns — on just what impact a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages would have on Utah families.

Yes! For Marriage on Wednesday became the second campaign in favor of the amendment to kick off, with a handful of attorneys saying a vote for the amendment is essential to protect Utah's traditional definition of marriage.

On the other side of the debate, Scott McCoy, head of the Don't Amend Alliance, claims the amendment would prevent unmarried partners, gay or straight, from ever gaining basic legal protections, such as hospital visitation.

Another campaign in favor of the amendment, Constitutional Defense of Marriage Alliance, is chaired by two lawmakers who sponsored the amendment. There's also a third political issues committee registered in the state — Traditional Marriage Crusade — which is part of the Pennsylvania-based American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, which has about 1,000 members in Utah.

Kelly Patterson, director of Center for Study of Election and Democracy at Brigham Young University, said the outcome this November will likely depend on which side frames the issue most effectively with voters.

Story continues below
Prominent individuals, such as Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who opposes the amendment, and Republican gubernatorial candidate Jon Huntsman Jr., who supports it, will also play a role.

On the pro-amendment side, Patterson said "it depends on how they pool their resources, it depends on whether or not their messages contradict each other or reinforce each other."

So far, all three campaigns pushing for the amendment have said they'll work together to convince voters the amendment's needed. Those opposing the amendment have combined their resources into one campaign.

Patterson said those arguing against ballot initiatives usually have the advantage because they are arguing for maintaining the status quo. However in this case, both sides could be seen as arguing for maintaining the status quo, he said.

"All the opposing campaign needs to do is raise doubt to give individual voters a reason to vote 'no,' " he said. In this case however, "the yes side this year can actually argue, 'you need to do this to protect the institution of marriage.' I think that will be a very powerful argument with a lot of voters."

Both sides are actively working to present their views to Utah's voters. McCoy says it's possible to support traditional marriage and vote against the amendment.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

Image

Lawyer Frank D. Mylar speaks in favor of a Utah amendment to ban gay marriages.

previousnext

Latest comments

No, students are NOT safe from predators. If a parent wants to make sure...

If you really think Mormon's are mainstream, you must not have paid attention...

I don't see the schools presidents voting to get rid of WYM or NM, even...

Big games keep UHSAA coffers full

why people complain about how football is covered by the media too much. when...

A little perspective is not a bad thing. Notice the Cougar's won loss record...

I actually was encouraged by some aspects of the game. Any Utah fan who has...

A story about Mormons as minorities? In this paper? Get over the "victim"...

she was an awesome woman someone i looked up to when i was younger she was...

Relieved Cougs prep for Falcons

Wow you just made one of the dumbest comments I've heard yet. Fire Bronco????...

Photos: A Royal welcome home

Re: Huh?, You like many other haters are probably oblivious to many obvious...

Advertisements
Advertisement