From Deseret News archives:

State Bar panel opposes same-sex measure

Family Law Section committee cites their fear of impact

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004 9:26 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
"There's a difference of opinion," Knauer said. "Minimally, one has to say if there's a difference of opinion, there's going to be litigation. . . . Who knows what the Utah Supreme Court or Court of Appeals will do."

Attorney Bill Duncan of the conservative issues group Sutherland Institute said common-law marriage fits into the amendment because it's the union of a man and a woman.

"The difference between common-law marriage and regular marriage is just how it's entered into," Duncan said. "The distinction is ceremonial, or licensed marriage versus common law."

Josh Ewing, spokesman for the Don't Amend Alliance, which is spearheading opposition to the amendment, said a court could use the second sentence to invalidate a common-law marriage because it's a "kind of domestic union."

"I think it's definite that all sorts of ranges of issues will be litigated, and cost the taxpayers money," Ewing said. "We recognize that a lot of this is a big legal gray area. . . . There are certainly a lot of big question marks that people need to think about."

Rep. Mike Thompson, R-Orem, a family law attorney and former member of the Family Law Section, said the executive committee is a liberal one. He doesn't see a problem for common-law marriage, because it requires solemnization in Utah.

Story continues below
"I think it will be positive, if there are any impacts, because things will be defined properly," he said. "Under this they're not going to be able to get in the back door."

Salt Lake attorney Steven H. Gunn, president-elect of the executive committee, wasn't present for the vote. Gunn said he does see a potential impact, but would like to hear from both sides before making his decision on how to vote.

"My sense was that the main reason for opposing the amendment was concern about the ambiguity of the second sentence, concern that there might be some unforeseen ramification," he said of a previous meeting. "We didn't discuss the concept of defining the family consisting of man and woman, it was more about technical aspects of the amendment."


E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

Has anyone heard about the Bottle Hollow Resort on the Ute reservation?

Budget cuts won't help in 2011

Re Crazy: People arbitrarily decide how much a teacher should make, so it...

No question everything is going BYU's way: the calls, the bounces, the...

This woman speaks the truth....your butt really does look big in those...

Well, sir, I believe there is hope yet for the X, Y and Z generatiosn of...

Modern medicine didn't even exist when this country was founded. Health...

I want to comment on a XM show you did on subliminal suggestions. I recently...

Yes, we Latter-day Saints do indeed celebrate Christmas, in fact, the...

Yes, LDS are fully commissioned officers in the US Armed Forces, and they all...

Davis man sues over Tasering

The police routinely cycle in and out of military units now in the national...

Advertisements