Before Tuesday's vote, the Senate GOP caucus heard from marriage law attorneys Monte Stewart and Bill Duncan of the Marriage Law Foundation.

Stewart cautioned lawmakers that if they used Amendment 3 as their reason to vote down SB89, it would play into the hands of those who opposed Amendment 3 on the grounds it is a "big bad prohibition" of any rights for gays and lesbians.

"If that's the interpretation of Amendment 3, it doesn't matter . . . a federal judge will strike it down," Stewart told lawmakers. "In our judgment it's a profound misinterpretation of Amendment 3 to say it prohibits the kind of legislation we see in SB89."

Both attorneys said after the vote that it seemed clear Amendment 3 hadn't played a role in most senators' opposition to the bill.

Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, who authored Amendment 3, said SB89 isn't prohibited by Amendment 3, but the legislation "absolutely does" derogate from it.

"Will Utah follow California, will it apologize or retreat from" Amendment 3, Christensen said, referring to California's domestic partnership law, which was passed after voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage.

Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, which opposed the bill, said it would have been an apology for Amendment 3, and "an apology is just not needed."

Michael Mitchell, president of Equality Utah, said: "I find it disheartening that they are letting fear get in the way of creating a law that makes easier to access the system. It just really saddens me."

---

E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com