From Deseret News archives:
3 Utahns called to debate
The group, headed by Richard G. Wilkins, board chairman of Yes! For Marriage, has called the candidates' critical analysis of the proposal "seriously flawed."
That analysis came in the form of a statement issued last week by Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and his opponents, Democrat Greg Skordas and Libertarian Andrew McCullough. In opposing the amendment, their joint statement focused on the proposal's second part, which would prevent recognition of any domestic status or union other than marriage. That "would prohibit the Utah Legislature from ever extending even the most basic partnership rights to an unmarried couple, such as hospital visitation," the joint statement said.
The candidates also said the language was also overly broad and was not evaluated by the Utah Constitutional Revision Commission.
Wilkins, a Brigham Young University law professor, on Thursday countered that the amendment would preserve Utah law, the "same as it is right now."
He said the amendment's second sentence is necessary to prevent the Legislature from creating legal unions, such as domestic partnerships, that would give same-sex couples rights equivalent to marriage. It wouldn't, he said, prevent someone from visiting a partner in the hospital.
"The Legislature can extend any benefits it wants, as long as it doesn't do it on the basis of a sexual relationship," he said.
Shurtleff said he'd decline the debate, saying the marriage amendment is not a campaign issue for him.
"Ultimately if it passes, I'm going to have to defend it," he said. "I made my statement as attorney general to highlight the problems I see with it based on my legal analysis. I'm done."
Skordas said he hasn't had time to decide on such a debate, saying he doesn't have any concerns for or against it. He said the joint statement simply indicated "the amendment goes too far."
"We have a law that outlaws gay marriage, it has not created problems, it hasn't created controversy; to my knowledge it hasn't created any litigation," he said. "We're now proposing a constitutional amendment that will do all three."
McCullough could not be reached for comment.
Shurtleff said the amendment could call into question the constitutionality of such laws as the state's Cohabitant Abuse Act, which extends domestic violence protections beyond a spouse of an offender to "anyone living as if a spouse."
He said, if the amendment passes, "only legally married heterosexual couples will have the protection of that (law)."
