Earlier this week, some lawmakers cited Amendment 3 before the Senate voted down a proposed "Mutual Dependence Benefits Contract," which would have provided limited health and property related rights to those who can't legally marry.

McCoy said those lawmakers proved "the motivation behind Amendment 3 was to prevent gays and lesbians from ever having access to the legislative process to get rights and protection because they are a disfavored group."

Stewart had cautioned lawmakers that using Amendment 3 as the reason to vote down the Mutual Dependence Benefits Contract could give a federal judge the impression that Amendment 3 is discriminatory. Stewart noted that many lawmakers who opposed the legislation, including Senate President John Valentine, stressed that Amendment 3 wasn't the reason.

Amendment 3 "is clearly written, and plain meaning," said Valentine, R-Orem. "It doesn't create a parade of horribles."

On Thursday, Assistant Attorney General Laura Dupaix was questioned by the Supreme Court about the context of the state's constitutional provision outlawing polygamy and plural marriages. Dupaix said that provision has never been amended.

Holm's attorney, Rodney Parker, argued that under that provision, the state was trying to create a "civil union" to define a spiritual marriage in order to prosecute his client.

It was one of several arguments Parker raised in an attempt to convince justices that it's discriminatory to use the state's bigamy statute to prosecute polygamists.

Dupaix told the Deseret Morning News that Amendment 3 "suggests a continuing intent to discourage polygamy and promote monogamy.

"Our Legislature really is charged with formulating social policy, has made a conscious decision to continue to prohibit polygamy and to continue to encourage and support a traditional monogamous view of marriage," she said.

---

E-mail: dbulkeley@desnews.com; gfattah@desnews.com