Amendment 3 necessary

I watched the live broadcast on KBYU of the debate between our Utah governor candidates held in Provo on Monday, Oct. 4.

Jon Huntsman and Scott Matheson were asked how they intended to vote on Amendment 3. Huntsman said he would vote for Amendment 3. Matheson then showed his liberal political "neutrality" position by saying that in spite of believing that marriage is between a man and a woman, he would vote against Amendment 3. He said the second part is controversial and should therefore be worded differently, and he sees no urgency to pass any amendment.

I wish to tell Scott Matheson and anyone else who believes in the sanctity of marriage and yet takes a non-urgent "neutrality" position to vote against Amendment 3 with the idea that a less controversial amendment should be written, that no amendment could ever be written that would be less controversial because Amendment 3 is as simple and straightforward as it gets.

Also, if we wait until it's needed to pass an amendment, it will be too late. If there is not an amendment to prevent it, our out-of-control judicial activism system will soon force a definition of marriage on us that supports the definition set by judges in Massachusetts.

Ray Huffman

Mona