From Deseret News archives:

Family law experts debate amendment

Published: Friday, Sept. 24, 2004 8:50 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Family and constitutional law attorney Monte Stewart says opponents of a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage are "not intellectually honest" in their argument that it goes too far.

"Amendment 3 does two things. No. 1, it nails down the long-held definition of a legal union of a man and a woman," Stewart said, speaking to members of the Family Law Section of the Utah State Bar on Friday. "It is a narrow and rigorous test of what constitutes counterfeit marriage."

Scott McCoy, head of the Don't Amend Alliance, countered that Stewart's arguments supporting the amendment, which will be on November's ballot, are "shortsighted."

"This is going to cause a lot more chaos and litigation than it's going to stop," McCoy said.

The Family Law Section's executive committee has voted to oppose Amendment 3. Friday's luncheon gave members of the entire section a chance to hear from both sides of the debate on areas concerning their practices.

The discussion focused on the amendment's second sentence, which reads: "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

Story continues below
Speaking for a coalition of amendment supporters, Stewart said that if the amendment passes, the only relationship that could be declared unconstitutional or a "counterfeit marriage" is a legally recognized one that is based on a sexual relationship and is one that must "walk, talk and act like a marriage."

The relationship must be defined under a law before it can be declared unconstitutional, Stewart said. The amendment is so narrowly crafted, he said, that only those relationships that meet the above standards would be unconstitutional.

He said the amendment wouldn't prevent companies from providing health insurance coverage to dependents, or have any impact on the state's cohabitant abuse law.

McCoy said supporters will argue that the language is "so simple, so pure, so plain."

He said Stewart was using a quantitative approach to civil unions — if a civil union offers all the rights associated with a marriage, it's a counterfeit.

"Where is the magic line?" McCoy said. "If 10 rights and responsibilities are OK, what about 25?"

McCoy said that if, for example, the Legislature decided to guarantee hospital visitation rights, a court would likely look at the quality or nature of that individual right, as far as how marriage-like they are.


E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

There were no FLDS people on the jury. I'm sure the prosecution made...

Letters: Endless black hole

You go guy. So true.

Vatican looks to heavens for aliens

once mankind makes contact with intelligent life on another world its going...

Dont blame the refinery for the city allowing the building too close to it.

While on the one hand there is freedom of association for which I feel...

As an active LDS member with gay friends and relatives, this is a great step...

Letters: Will wrong on warming

The planet heats up, it escapes into space. Who woulda' thunk. Get over...

4A football: Mustangs vs. Tbirds

I am an avid timpview fan, but i have a really bad feeling about this game,...

Millsap a surprise on ballot

Maybe D Will. Whoever did the picking made some bad calls. Why don't we get...

NBA's worry is Donaghy

The NBA has the credibility of the WWF, and you you haven't known that for 20...

Advertisements
Advertisement