2 sides clash on legality of amendment

The following are responses from supporters of Amendment 3 to commonly asked questions about the effects of the proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage in Utah.

Why do we need this amendment now?

SUPPORTERS:

The state's marriage law already limits marriage to heterosexual couples, but amendment supporters say recent court decisions around the country have exposed the state to a legal challenge to traditional marriage in Utah.

The amendment would eliminate the possibility of a state court challenge and strengthen the state's case in a federal court challenge. That challenge could come from same-sex couples married in other states that sanction those unions.

Precedence shows a state does not have to recognize the official act of another state, if it goes against strong public policy. And putting the ban in Utah's constitution by the approval of a majority of Utahns indicates a strong public policy.

OPPONENTS:

Amendment 3 is not necessary. The state's marriage law, since 1977, already bars same-sex marriages and other similar relationships such as civil unions. The amendment would only prevent traditional marriage from being challenged in state court. It wouldn't prevent a challenge in federal court, where it's more likely to be challenged anyway.

Utah's judicial, and political climate, is much more conservative than Massachusetts or California, so even if Utah's marriage law is challenged in state court, it's likely to fail.

But the proposal as crafted will certainly generate a tremendous amount of litigation.

What's so bad about the second part of the amendment?

OPPONENTS:

The wording is so vague it, at the least, borders on unconstitutionality. The term "domestic union" is a new one that's never been tested in court, and it's hard to say just what existing or future legal protections could be impacted because the amendment not only prevents giving the "same" legal effect as a marriage to any other union, it also prevents giving "substantially equivalent" legal effect.

SUPPORTERS: