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.

"Traditional marriage is all well and good," McCoy said. "Part two is not about that."

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

Image
Laura Seitz, Deseret Morning News

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

previousnext

Latest comments

Didn't Obama and Biden just admit to the fact that the stimilus programs were...

The last part of the article about Cowherd is classic!!! I normally like the...

This man was my teacher in high school. He is my friend, he was like a father...

I like millsap, but portland just burried themselves. They made themselves...

It's amazing how quickly society is willing to vaccinate it's children with...

The first income tax was introduced during the Civil War, that's only 70...

If he really did what the evidence seems to show, I don't think he should be...

Utah needs Portland too much. It's much harder than you think to find good...

Restaurant destroyed by fire

stacy, have you ever eaten there ??

I had Brother Pratt at Viewmont High School my sophomore year... I was really...

Advertisements