From Deseret News archives:

Paul Van Dam answers Deseret Morning News questionnaire

U.S. Senate

Published: Monday, Oct. 18, 2004 8:17 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Democrat challenger Paul Van Dam

1. What is the major issue facing Utah today, and how would you deal with it?

Having met with thousands of Utahns in the past year, I know there are a number of important issues presently facing us. If there is one issue on the federal level that is more important than the others, it is the proposed resumption of nuclear testing. Utah has already borne a tremendously high cost from past testing, and borne unimaginable suffering. Until recently, a ban on testing was in place, but my opponent voted to lift that ban. To prevent new testing from occurring, I will introduce legislation that would reinstate that ban and keep Utah free from radioactive fallout.

2. What are the key issues that this U.S. Senate race should focus on?

As already mentioned, I think the resumption of nuclear testing is one important issue. Others include health care, the economy, fiscal responsibility, education, homeland security, and creating better, higher-paying jobs in our state.

Story continues below
3. Do you favor or oppose a U.S. constitutional amendment that would define marriage between a man and a woman? If yes, why? If no, why? Also, what is your position on the proposed Utah constitutional amendment on marriage, including on the debated second part?

I believe that the definition of marriage should be decided by individual states. If the people of Utah want to define marriage as between one man and one woman, I support their right to do so, and I will defend that right during my term in the United States Senate. Any definition of marriage should not take away civil rights such as hospital visitation rights or the ability of businesses to extend health-care benefits to domestic partners.

As the former attorney general of the state of Utah, I join our current AG, Mark Shurtleff, in opposing the second part of Amendment 3. The second part of the amendment is poorly written and contains vague language that exceeds the original intent of the amendment, which is to legally define marriage. The problems with the law open the door to costly legal battles — battles that would drain our state's already limited resources. My recommendation to the Legislature would be to rewrite the bill, allow the Constitutional Revision Commission to suggest changes, and resubmit the amendment to the voters in the next election.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

Editorial: 10 years of TRAX

Sorry earlier I meant to say that tracks seems to travel at 35 miles an hour...

'Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of...

The Non-BCS crowd ought to create their own title game...their own brand, and...

Letters: Democrats' ethics

That's the whole of your defense of GOP resistance to badly-needed ethics...

Your criticism should hardly be focused on Bennett alone. What about all the...

'Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a...

The reality of climate change is supported by multiple lines of evidence and...

BYU professor remembered

I had the priviledge of staying in the LeBaron home on severl occasions as I...

Letters: Growing jobless rate

So the unemployment rate has dropped to "just" 10%, huh? I wonder what that...

Ahh for the love of money...what money can buy!!!

Advertisements