Monte Stewart sums up the debate over the that would ban same-sex marriage in Utah's constitution this way: "No on 3 is a vote for radical change."

Voting "yes" on Amendment 3 simply maintains the status quo, said Stewart, co-chairman of Utahns for a Better Tomorrow, one of four campaigns trying to persuade voters to approve the amendment on Nov. 2.

Scott McCoy, head of the Don't Amend Alliance, counters: "Marriage in Utah is only between a man and a woman," noting the definition of marriage is already clearly defined in state law. "If Amendment 3 is defeated nothing will be different."

McCoy and estate planning attorney Jane Marquardt faced off Monday with Stewart and Tiani Coleman, co-chairwoman of Utahns for a Better Tomorrow, and chairwoman of Salt Lake County Republican Party.

The potential impact, or lack thereof, of the amendment's second sentence became the focus of an hourlong political forum broadcast on KUED's Radio West program.

The second part reads: "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

Stewart, and other amendment supporters, have said the amendment is needed to protect Utah's marriage law from so-called activist judges, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which legalized same-sex marriages in that state.

Opponents counter that the second sentence is overly broad and could deny basic legal protections to unmarried couples, gay or straight.

Both sides of the issue are preparing to launch large-scale media campaigns this month targeted at convincing voters their argument is the more credible one.

The Yes on 3 Coalition, consisting of the four campaigns supporting the amendment, is officially kicking off an organized effort this evening, with plans for English- and Spanish-language broadcast and print ads to launch Wednesday, according to spokeswoman Nancy Pomeroy.

Don't Amend has been active all summer. It is holding a fund-raising preview for its media ads this Wednesday, with a broadcast launch planned later this month. Another group, Utah Lawyers for Sound Constitutional Amendments, is also opposed to the amendment, based on its second sentence.

Monday's forum focused on what is becoming a battle of semantics — or how the second sentence could be interpreted.

McCoy and Marquardt argued that the term "domestic union" is a vague one, with potential implications for not only same-sex couples, but for other relationships, such as elderly widowed heterosexual couples who choose not to remarry, or for those who live with and care for a disabled relative.

Marquardt questioned whether the amendment would impact her own benefits, such as health insurance through her workplace for her "domestic partner," or legal contracts such as wills, or power of attorney.

"Definitely the intent is to restrict the rights of gay and lesbian couples," she said.

Stewart and Coleman countered that a "narrow scope" is written into the language. A union, according to Stewart, implies a sexual relationship, and the amendment will simply prevent the state from giving "legal" recognition to any relationship as equal to a marriage.

"It simply will not touch mechanisms already in place," said Stewart, who noted he was not one of the amendment's crafters. "I was very impressed with (the amendment's) elegance, economy and effect . . . "This is good language."

---

E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com