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

In addition to defining marriage between a man and a woman, the proposed change would also prevent the state from giving the "substantially equivalent legal effect" of a marriage to any other union. Opponents says that affects gays as well as heterosexual couples not legally married.

Those for the amendment say that's misinformation.

Frank Mylar, a Yes! For Marriage legal adviser, said Wednesday the amendment is needed to "protect the institution of marriage, not just the word."

He said the amendment's wording prevents opening the door to civil unions, domestic partnerships and a diminishment of parental rights. The amendment is needed to prevent Utah's state marriage law from being challenged under the U.S. Constitution, which requires legal contracts in one state be recognized in another state, Mylar said.

He said an amendment is needed now to protect the state against a lawsuit to recognize the marriage of a gay couple married in Massachusetts, where gay marriages are legal.

McCoy countered that "it's disingenuous making those arguments."

"There is a public policy exception to the Full Faith in Credit Clause, if a particular act is strongly against the stated public policy of a particular state," he said. "In this example ,Utah has in three different places unequivocally stated . . . not to recognize the marriages of same-sex persons."

---

E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com