From Deseret News archives:

Impact of Amendment 3 debated

Published: Thursday, Oct. 21, 2004 10:27 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
The practical impact of the proposed Amendment 3 was at the heart of a debate Thursday night at the University of Utah.

In less than two weeks Utahns will vote on the proposed constitutional amendment, which would define marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman and deny that legal status to any other domestic union.

"There's enough marriage to share. Gay people will not use up all the marriage licenses," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, who works to win marriage equality. "No one will be hurt. Marriage will be helped, and our whole community will be strengthened."

On the other side of the debate, William Duncan of the Sutherland Institute argued that the institution of marriage will be the victim if Utahns do not vote to protect it. Social signals are learned through traditional marriage and not through same-sex unions, he said.

"We risk losing an institution that binds generations," he said.

Duncan and his debate partner, Brigham Young University professor Lynn Wardle, also said the gay community was asking the government to change the definition of marriage, not just to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

"A right to marry doesn't mean a right to determine what marriage means," Duncan said.

Story continues below

Lara Schwartz, senior counsel for the Human Rights campaign, joined Wolfson in the debate and disputed the idea that same-sex marriages would threaten the institution of marriage.

"What's at stake Nov. 2 is huge. What's not at stake is the sanctity of marriage," she said. "Same-sex couples are simply asking to enter into and honor marriage."

Wolfson added that similar battles over traditional marriage have been fought in the United States through birth control, divorce and interracial marriage. In each of those battles, he said, people worried that traditional marriage would crumble.

The real threat, Wolfson said, is to the tradition of freedom in the United States. By passing Amendment 3 and similar laws in other states, he said the nation would start a habit of using "constitutional brute force to slice people off" the list of human rights.

"It would be terrible for our country to use the government as a weapon to enforce disrespect through the law," he said. "We would be using the constitution to enforce that level of discrimination."


E-mail: estewart@desnews.com

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

No, students are NOT safe from predators. If a parent wants to make sure...

If you really think Mormon's are mainstream, you must not have paid attention...

I don't see the schools presidents voting to get rid of WYM or NM, even...

Big games keep UHSAA coffers full

why people complain about how football is covered by the media too much. when...

A little perspective is not a bad thing. Notice the Cougar's won loss record...

I actually was encouraged by some aspects of the game. Any Utah fan who has...

A story about Mormons as minorities? In this paper? Get over the "victim"...

she was an awesome woman someone i looked up to when i was younger she was...

Relieved Cougs prep for Falcons

Wow you just made one of the dumbest comments I've heard yet. Fire Bronco????...

Photos: A Royal welcome home

Re: Huh?, You like many other haters are probably oblivious to many obvious...

Advertisements
Advertisement