She said Buttars' proposal is not a prohibitive statute but an affirmative definition of what a marriage is. The bill, which would have the strength of state and federal legal precedents, is modeled after a Georgia statute already upheld by that state's highest court, she said.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has already refused to review the Georgia statute," said Chelsea-McCarty.

Buttars said another Utah statute is needed to ensure a gay marriage conducted in another state can't be honored here.

"For goodness sake, for years the gay and lesbian community has had us under a full-court press (saying) that two men having sex together isn't a perversion; it's a choice. That's baloney. So now they say: 'Let us be married.' But wrong is wrong, and a perversion is a perversion," Buttars said.

Shurtleff backs Buttars' proposal as a way his office can help defend against lawsuits he expects to be filed against the state. He also backs amending the Utah Constitution, a move Buttars said is unnecessary.

"What would ultimately solve this is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Shurtleff said, something that Sen. Orrin Hatch is pondering in reaction to the Massachusetts ruling.

Shurtleff filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Massachusetts case arguing that the Massachusetts high court shouldn't approve same-sex marriages, for to do so would "wreak havoc" with other states' anti-gay marriage laws.

"So now we have four judges (in Massachusetts), not elected by anyone, having such an effect on Utah law," Shurtleff said Tuesday after reading the 4-3 ruling. "We will see a flood of lawsuits now, both in Utah and across the country. There will be challenges (to same-sex marriage laws) and civil suits against employers who refuse to provide benefits to (same-sex) partners."

Gov. Olene Walker issued a statement saying she believes Utahns should stick with the "traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman."

Scott McCoy, a Salt Lake lawyer who had already downloaded the 91-page Massachusetts decision early Tuesday, called Buttars' proposal "election-year grandstanding" and vowed to lobby against it.

"We're not so naive to think that some form of this bill might not pass," he said. "But we hope to influence it so that the most onerous and unconstitutional provisions are taken out."

McCoy was joined in a "civil union" with his partner in Vermont in 2001, the only state in the nation that grants such licenses.

For McCoy and some other gays, the civil union option — which grants same-sex couples the same rights, responsibilities and securities granted to heterosexual couples, including the right to adopt children or claim wrongful death benefits — is an acceptable compromise. But others argue that this creates a "separate-but-equal" status for gays and lesbians.

"Unless you really call it a marriage, people will find a reason to deny us the same rights as heterosexuals," said Jane Marquardt, another Utah lawyer joined to her partner in a Vermont civil union. "Unless you really call it marriage, people will find a reason to call our relationships lesser."

---

Contributing: Associated Press

E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com; jarvik@desnews.com.