Maudine"In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers included the Ninth
Amendment, 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.'"Notice the rights are retained by the people...
not a government."Marriage, along with many other rights, is not
listed by name in the Constitution. That does not mean it is not a right
retained by the people."Again... retained by the people.Schnee:"Right, and a state law is what is being challenged
here."And Utah's state law re marriage provides 'equal
protection' for all state citizens. It says in essence that anyone can
marry provided they marry someone not already married, of marriageable age, not
closely related, of the opposite sex, etc. It applies equally to all state
citizens." So why would they write an amendment that basically
says 'we can't do anything at a federal level about
this?'"The Founders were more concerned about the powers of
states rather than the federal government. That's why Article 1.8 delimits
the federal powers, and Amendment 10 says all other powers are reserved to the
states and the people.
This land is suppose to give freedom to all of us! Because some Mormon gets
offended over same sex marriage, does not mean that they have the right to deny
somebody their rights! There is no proof of a God who condemns same sex
marriage! Why is it so hard to give a little respect? If you want somebody to
treat you with dignity, then don't you think that you should do the same?
What else can anyone say? Gay people don't deserve to be treated like
garbage! We deserve a little more dignity than some people like to give and
there is no excuse for it! None! I would be embarrassed to treat someone like we
have been treated!
@wrz" And don't say the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection
Clause. That clause deals with Equal Protection under STATE LAW."Right, and a state law is what is being challenged here. If the 14th Amendment
had no ability to be applied to state laws from a US federal court then the
Amendment would have absolutely no power anyway. Consider the context the 14th
Amendment was written, at a time when the gov't was trying to limit the
power of states to do their own thing with regards to black people. So why would
they write an amendment that basically says "we can't do anything at a
federal level about this"?
Utefan60Salt Lake City, UTBTEW Real Maverick, if we wait a few more
weeks I'm sure Frank will have yet another letter for us to dissect!
Can't wait9:14 p.m. May 17, 2014===== I
hope it's about the discontinued use of incandescent "light bulbs",
as a express form of Totalitarianism, he went on that one for
BTEW Real Maverick, if we wait a few more weeks I'm sure Frank will have
yet another letter for us to dissect! Can't wait
There are a number of facts in this debate1. Both some heterosexuals and
some gay people want to be married.2. Judges are ruling in a number of
states that not allowing gay people to do so is unconstitutional.3.
Judging from the past arguments against a similar argument (interracial
marriage) it looks like the argument for gay marriage will win.4. People
not liking it don't have to and religions not wanting to perform such
marriages don't have to either. This separation is unlikely to change. 5. Many married couples like me and my spouse know that their marriages are
not threatened by gay couples, so we wish them the best in theirs. That's
how it is folks!
@ wrz: One of the main concerns with the Bill of Rights was that it was not
comprehensive enough and that as time passed it would prove to be a limiting
force used to deny to people things that were not specifically named - sort of
like what you are attempting to do. In their wisdom, the Founding
Fathers included the (much overlooked) Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in
the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."Marriage, along with many other
rights, is not listed by name in the Constitution. That does not mean it is not
a right retained by the people. Marriage, along with all the other named and
unnamed rights of the Constitution, is protected. Rights can be limited, but
only if there is a compelling governmental interest in doing so, and then the
limitation must be as narrowly defined as possible to serve only that interest
while not limiting rights in ways that do not serve that interest. Additionally,
the limitation cannot target a particular group but must be generally applicable
It is time DN to start printing letters from more mainstream sources. There is
always the letters from the same people that promote some type of dividedness.
You need to start representing the larger voice that is rapidly emerging even
within the Conservative LDS base. People are not against equality. The DN and
its editorial board still print the same arguments, by the same people with the
same old arguments that have already fallen by the wayside. Most of
the letters disagree strongly with what this letter writer said and I'm
sure that many were not approved by the DN.
Schnee:"So the court was wrong to remove the bans on interracial
marriage?"The court had no jurisdiction in making decisions on
any kind of marriage, including interracial marriage. The court is responsible
for determining the constitutionality of laws, State and Federal. And, since
there is nothing in the US Constitution about marriage, there was nothing for
SCOTUS to decide on.If something is to be done re defining marriage,
the responsibility falls to the US Congress. And don't say the US Congress
has no authority to define marriage. It can and does stick its collective nose
into almost every aspect of human existence. Which means that DOMA was not
unconstitutional."As long as it (State marriage regulation)
doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution."Since marriage is
not covered in the US Constitution, how could a specific marriage arrangement
defined my a State, violate the US Constitution? And don't say the 14th
Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. That clause deals with Equal
Protection under STATE LAW.
@ wrz: Not quite.The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."That part you left out is very important - especially when coupled with
Article IV, Clause 2, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of
the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the
constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."andAmendment XIV, Section 1, "All persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
frank wants to tell us that LBGT can have civil unions? Well in Utah that
wasn't even an option. Whether any of us like it or not LBGT people have
the same rights as anyone else.
"Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the concept of marriage
mentioned."True... And in fact, per the Constitution, the
'powers not delegated to the United States... is reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.'This means that States have the
power to decide what marriage will be so long as it applies equally to all
citizens within the states. And it does... any State citizen can marry so long
as they marry only one person who is not already married, of legal age, not
closely related, mentally competent, and of the opposite sex.
If the law should reflect the concept that any persons who love each other can
marry, then why not first cousins or brothers and sisters or even parents and
children (assuming all are adults and there is no fertility)?If the
concept truly is that ANY adult can marry ANY other then why not? Tradition?
The "ick" factor? Others have forcefully argued that these do not
matter. If they don't matter (and again, if there is no issue of
fertility) then what is to restrain such from marrying if they choose?
Frank has overlooked the fact that though states have powers not delegated to
the federal government, at the same time they are forbidden to deny citizens of
their state due process of law and equal protection under the law. He is also
forgetting that the very problem with Amendment 3 is that it forbade civil
unions or any contract which provided the benefits of marriage. If it had not
been so draconian it might not have been stricken down and we would not even be
having this debate.
@ Karen R.It was Bertrand Russell. I was just testing you. No, you
are right about that and other things. I'm glad you caught it. Hopefully
it will save me from future embarrassment.
re: LDS Liberal,You have two choices in life, and only two choices.
You can serve the God who gave you life, or you can rebel against the clear and
precise doctrine of the God who gave you life. You claim to sustain the
prophets who were chosen by Christ to be His spokesmen, but you clearly reject
"The Family: A Proclamation to the World". The title tells us that that
proclamation was not limited to those who have aligned themselves with the LDS
Church, but that it was sent to all the world. In that
proclamation, gender was discussed as something that God gave us, not something
that we choose for ourselves. In that proclamation, marriage between a man and
a woman was declared to be only between a man and a woman. In that
proclamation, we are warned against unchastity, which the prophets have defined
as sexual relations outside of marriage.You can choose to serve
whomever you wish, but for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and we will
not stand idly by while you declare that God and His doctrine is inconsequential
@ AjaxRe: how SSM will affect American society: Opponents seem to
look upon LBGTs as if they’re an alien species whose ways are so different
they must be carefully studied before they can be deemed “safe.”
No. They’re human beings and, like all human beings they possess 1) a
sexual orientation; and 2) human nature. The State of Utah contrived the term
“complementarity” in an attempt to make a distinction, but
incorrectly applied it to gender. What is complementary about heterosexual and
homosexual couples is their sexual orientation. What is unnatural is to
encourage the coupling of one to the other.So we already know a
great deal about how SSM will affect society. They’re marriages.
They’ll impact society the way marriages generally do. Another effect
will be a more just and equal society. I see no downside there. And finally
– something I don’t know, but do expect – over time
they’ll impact the current negative perceptions of those who oppose SSM as
they see their fears were for naught.
@ AjaxThanks for the compliment. I believe your quote is actually
from Bertrand Russell. Even had it been J.S. Mill, he too was an atheist, so I
doubt that he would’ve reached the same conclusion you did. Also, a
reading of the full quote reveals no mention of religion whatsoever.Your conclusion implies that religion is required to accomplish social
cohesion. While it may serve this purpose for some, it also frequently serves
to emphasize differences, so I don’t think it’s the best means for
creating cohesiveness society-wide. I think the values embodied in our
Constitution offer far more. Religion is included there, but is not
required.I’ll address your comment about social effects of SSM
in another post.
@LDS Liberal"I didn't service this country, and my God, to
fight those who are doing this in the Middle East, just to fight guys like you
doing it here too."Profound! Thank you for your service then and
continued service now.
@John Charity Spring"Calling same sex unions "marriages"
doesn't make it so."In my state 54% of the voters said it
did and now it does. Claiming otherwise now is simply dishonest."No society has ever created legal protections for "marriage"
solely as a mechanism for the personal fulfillment of those involved."Do you have something to back that up?"Societies have
only created legal protections for marriages that benefit society as a
whole."And in my state we did that--and rightly so--by a wide
margin. Utah and the rest of the country will do the right thing eventually,
perhaps kicking and screaming along the way, but they will get it right."It is up to society, not the courts,"Except when
"society" continues to run roughshod over the rights of others
necessitating the courts to take action.
@Mike Richards: "Mankind has always attacked those who reminded us that God
exists..."======= Mike, Where do you draw the line
with defining American laws and the Scriptures?The Bible? The Book
of Mormon? The Holy Quran?Look we "share" a religous belief,
but I draw a very hard line against those who try to implement
"GOD's laws" in America.True - good laws should share
similar values, but the buck stops with a literal interpretation and
implementation of those laws.I didn't service this country, and
my God, to fight those who are doing this in the Middle East, just to fight guys
like you doing it here too.What's next?Stonings?Cutting off hands?Look:If you want to change the world --
Here's the perfect example to follow:Live a good life,
set a good example, treat others with Love, kindness and respect,
then allow them to follow you by their own free will and choice, like a Good Shepard.Remember -- Lucifer's plan was to
force everyone to do GOOD, and Jesus said, there is good, there is bad --
choose for yourself.
@Mike Richards,It's real simple, Mike. Your god has no say with
respect to my civil rights or the civil rights of any other American. None. Your
claiming--ad nauseum--otherwise does not change that simple fact. He is your god
and you are welcomed to him. He is not my god and he is not allowed to determine
what rights I do or do not have.
@at Mike, Sal, John, et alActually marriage was defined by men and
women. This is undeniably true when one actually studies the history of marriage
across the world. Marriage is different, sometimes radically different, in
cultures all through the past and even across the world today. The definition of
marriage has even changed in Christianity through the ages. There is no one
definition of marriage. Because this institution was created and has been
defined by men we have the ability to change it now; and so we will because
making same sex marriage legal will be a benefit to this country. America will
be a stronger and better nation once same sex marriage is legal across the
country.Oh and Mike, the Secret Service investigates the
counterfeiting of money in the United States not the FBI.
@Mike Richards: "Mankind has always attacked those who reminded us that God
exists..."Those who claim to speak for a god or gods tend to
rule with blood and horror, using their supposed pipeline to deity to dominate,
manipulate, oppress and justify imprisoning, torturing, banishing, shaming and
killing those who don't obey the power elite. There has never
been a religion established that did not see those in power using their position
to abuse others. The monotheistic religions are the worst, because their most
basic creed says they have truth and there can be no competing system of thought
or belief, no rules but their rules, no way but their way. In this
country the rule of law has tended to offset the darkest impulses of religion,
though American history is replete with examples of religion using law to
enforce their dictates. In other parts of the world we see the very thin line
separating us from the horror of a ruling theocracy on the one side and the hope
of rational secular society on the other. Protecting the children
from religion seems sensible.
@Ultra Bob: "When someone insists on forcing the meaning of a common word on
others, they are disavowing the concept of freedom of religion which would say
that a person can believe as they please."In the Bible,
"marriage" referred to one man and the women he traded livestock for,
and the slaves of the women, and perhaps some concubines. In the
Territory of Deseret "marriage" referred to one man and one or two or
twenty-five wives. In modern America "marriage" is about
many legal protections and benefits for the spouses and their children or, in
the case of some older adults, "marriage" can mean the loss of certain
benefits and protections and incomes. Space is limited, but the
reality is that the definition and meaning of marriage has changed many times
and will change yet again as society changes.
@Mike Richards"Marriage is the sacred union established by God to
ensure that children born into this world have the best opportunity to receive
PROPER instruction and PROPER example."That's true for your
church (more or less, I guess, I suppose I'll leave it to fellow members of
your church to see if that's accurate). However, we're talking about
civil marriage, and the definition you give is not the definition of marriage in
the law. @Ajax"may well be surprised at just how fragile
are the ties that bind us as a nation."Support is shifting too
quickly and support among the young is so high that there'd never be enough
popular support in any state to be that extreme.
@Mike Richards,Are you saying Marriage is like a logo—a brand one
wears on the sleeve? Or like the coins in our pocket? Your marriage is
something I can steal? Or copy like a piece of paper on a Xerox machine?
Fortunately, I’m confident no one can steal my marriage because my
marriage is defined by the private covenants and commitment I have made to my
spouse not by the public filing of a paper with the courts. No one can steal or
counterfeit our love. How sad for you that your marriage experience is
Mankind has always attacked those who reminded us that God exists and that He,
and only He, has the right to define immutable laws, of which "marriage"
is one. Those in the past have resorted to killing those who reminded mankind
that God exists. They mistakenly thought that killing a messenger was killing
the law. Today, the favorite tactic is to attack the messenger instead of
examining the message.The covenant of marriage established by God
can easily be researched. Again, those who demand that believers
"prove" that God exists have only shown that they have rejected
knowledge that is easily obtainable. They might just as well live in a cave, in
darkness, instead of enjoying the light.Those who reject God and his
directives live in a world of their own making. They think, perhaps, that they
created life; that they breathed the breath of life into the bodies of their
children. That is just a little bit pretentious, don't you think? Parents safeguard their children against danger. Wise children listen
and learn, yet some people tell us that our Heavenly Father has no right to
direct THEM - because they already know it all.
@ Ajax: No, we cannot have a more Solomonesque discussion because, when those
who oppose same-sex relationships had the power on their side, they decided to
go with an all or nothing approach and wrote Constitutional Amendments giving
same-sex couples absolutely nothing.Now that the shoe is on the
other foot and opponents of same-sex relationships are losing their power, they
want to offer a compromise.Unfortunately for them, the laws they
wrote and passed prohibit the very compromise they are offering - leaving those
who support same-sex relationships with no choice but to go for the whole
thing.Ten years ago there was the opportunity to accept this
compromise, and the answer was no.Opponents to same-sex
relationships created this situation and they have to live with the consequences
of their actions.And for the record, nationwide there is growing
support for same-sex marriage, even in the reddest of red states it is now
evenly split for and against, and all indications are that support will continue
to grow in favor of same-sex marriages.
The concept of freedom in America seems to be that an adult American can do
anything he pleases so long as he does not harm or diminish the rights and
freedoms of others. The word marriage is a common word and neither
the word or its meaning are the private property of any one. When someone
insists on forcing the meaning of a common word on others, they are disavowing
the concept of freedom of religion which would say that a person can believe as
@Mike Richards: "Marriage is the sacred union established by God to ensure
that children born into this world have the best opportunity to receive [proper]
instruction and [proper] example."[all caps removed for
politeness.]Your definitions, based on your religion, are no more -
or less - valid than definitions based in Celtic traditions as practiced by
Pagans or Wiccan beliefs or the doctrines of Muslims or teachings of Buddhists.
And your definition of "proper instruction" and "proper example"
are based on your experience. Members of each of those groups believe they are
giving their children proper instruction and setting a proper example. In times past, marriage was a business transaction between two men. In modern
times women have gained autonomy and make their own choices in marriage. Shall
we return to trading livestock for wives? Or perhaps raiding villages and
kidnapping women to marry, as was done in the Bible?When my daughter
was 5 she had a very strident imaginary friend who's opinion always - by
coincidence - backed what my daughter wanted. I notice your imaginary friend
does the same.
Both sides in the SSM controversy, in their all-out commitment one against the
other, may well be surprised at just how fragile are the ties that bind us as a
nation. Winning at the expense of others is always an illusion.Rather than all or nothing, might we have a more Solomonesque decision?
To M Richards.Just exactly how do you know that's what God wants? And how can you involve "god" in legal matters?You DONT and you
As one among millions who has taken the time to know God through sacrifice of
time, talents, and resources, it's sad to see the celebration of the
redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions. The rejoicings will be
short-lived as God begins to chastise the nation for re-writing his religious
laws and commandments to suit its personal preferences.
Thomas F. Meagher once said that "you can call a mule a race horse all you
want, but it doesn't make it so." That principle is directly applicable
here.Calling same sex unions "marriages" doesn't make
it so. For a thousand generations, marriage has had a specific meaning.
Pretending otherwise is nothing short of dishonest.No society has
ever created legal protections for "marriage" solely as a mechanism for
the personal fulfillment of those involved. Societies have only created legal
protections for marriages that benefit society as a whole. It is up to society,
not the courts, to decidewwhich relationships meet that definition.
Karen R.I always enjoy your well-reasoned commentary. Your quick
response to all things relating to SSM is impressive.However, in
your lament of religious attitudes you might consider the observation of one of
Europe’s most lauded intellects, who said that “Social cohesion is a
necessity, and mankind has never yet succeeded in enforcing cohesion by merely
rational arguments (John Stuart Mill).”Truth is, that you nor
I nor anyone else knows exactly how fully equating SSA with traditional marriage
might affect U.S. society. But as John Stuart Mill makes clear, rational
arguments and edicts alone divorced of religious content are not the answer.
My church is very happy to do both Opposite Sex and Same Sex weddings. So are
about 75 other churches. In the last decade I have been to more than a few gay
and lesbian wedding performed in churches, in a grove by a Wiccan high
priestess, and one by a Rabbi. Why should your religious rights
trump those of religions that are willing to marry gays and lesbian?This is not a religious issue. It is one of equality and civil rights. If your
church does not want to do gay marriage it wont have to. If you don't want
to go to a gay marriage you don't have too. But your religious
views are no more valid than the views of any group in favor of gay marriage.
So you are saying, Frank, that a religious rite should be controlled by the
government? Are you sure that's what you really want?
There have always been those who want "substitutes". The University of
Utah and BYU actively prosecute anyone using their logos without permission.
The NBA, NFL and baseball leagues actively prosecute anyone using their name or
their logos without permission. The FBI actively prosecutes anyone involved in
counterfeiting; yet, some people think that they can take something that
doesn't belong to them, i.e., God's definition of marriage, which
defines marriage as being between a man and a woman; that they can redefine that
meaning, i.e., define marriage as being between a man and a man or between a
woman and a woman; that they can personally profit from that redefinition; and
that they can demand that everyone accept their redefinition.Marriage is the sacred union established by God to ensure that children born
into this world have the best opportunity to receive PROPER instruction and
PROPER example.No matter how loudly the "re-definers"
scream, marriage is between a man and a woman. Sex outside of marriage is
prohibited. Their argument is with God. Do they think they'll win that
Well, Frank, you, Mr. Anderson, the DesNews, and several former proponents of
Amendment 3 seem to keep forgetting one very important factor in the whole
"live and let live but be happy with a civil union and leave marriage to
us" discussion: Amendment 3 prohibits civil unions, as do most other
constitutional amendments that prohibit same-sex marriage. In 2004,
when Amendment 3 was passed, those who opposed very clearly stated that it went
to far by also denying civil unions. Two-thirds of the voters in Utah, and I am
fairly sure you and the majority of the DesNews editorial board were among them,
voted in favor of Amendment 3 denying LGBT Utahns the very civil unions you now
think they should be happy with. In most states where LGBT Americans
are denied marriage, they are also denied civil unions. And no one on your side
of the argument, anywhere, has proposed repealing the denial on civil unions -
so it is hard to buy the "live and let live" idea you are trying to sell
- your actions against it speak much louder than your words for it.
Hmm, where to begin. Frank you contradict yourself. Marriage is NOT in the
federal laws but freedom of religion is. How in the world does freedom of
religion equate to passing legal statutes that have religious bearing? To me
that is the opposite of religious freedom. We have had our rights stripped
while the predominate religion flexes.
Isn't this a rehash of a letter you published last week? We get it, you
don't like seeing gay couples getting married. You don't like seeing
us join your club and get the same benefits. Might I suggest you actually step
out of the comfort of your own homes and actually try to listen to and
understand people who are different than you? We need to stop dividing people
and bring us all together.
Dear Frank;What about MY religious freedom, MY 1st Amendment rights?
My religious beliefs are such that marriage is permissible for LGBT couples.
But my First Amendment rights don't matter to you, do they? Because
they're the opposite of your religious beliefs (that, sir, is called
hypocrisy).1) Civil Unions DO NOT provide even "most" of the
legal benefits provided by marriage.2) Separate is not equal. The 14th
Amendment says that the government treats all citizens equally, not just
heterosexual citizens.3) Marriage may not be listed, but then there are
thousands of "unenumerated" rights that aren't either.4) You
don't have the right to vote on the rights of your fellow citizens; not
even in Utah.
Frank -- Utah's Amendment 3 banned "Civil Unions",
"Domestic Partnerships", or anything like unto it.And
THAT'S why it was shot down.======= For the record
conservatives...I fought for Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships
for 16 years, as a way to provide civil rights and liberties to Gays and
Lesbians, yet still maintain the term "marriage" as between man
and woman.But, -- you all dog piled on me, and called me all sorts
of names -- Anti-Mormon, Devil worshipper, ect. for YEARS.Now that
Amendment 3 has be striken, it's funny [not really] to listen to the
all about face, 180, flip-flopping hypocrasy.
Frank's letter and the 60th birthday of the Brown vs. Board of Education
decision remind me of the old separate but equal laws that existed for decades
in this country whereby segregation of American citizens, based solely on the
color of their skin, was the law of the land, in some states at least, and the
implied law in other states. This law seemingly provided equal access to public
facilities - rest rooms, restaurants, schools - but were segregated by race.
According to Wikipedia, "On at least six separate occasions, spanning a time
period of nearly 60 years, the United States Supreme Court held, either
explicitly or by necessary implication, that the “separate but
equal” rule announced in Plessy was the correct rule of law, although,
toward the end of that time period, the Court began to focus on whether the
separate facilities were in fact equal."Why should gay citizens
be given the right for a civil union but not for marriage - a ceremony in which
two people are married to each other (Webster's)? Like "separate but
equal" the ban on gay marriage is slowly but surely being proven to be
anything but separate and equal. Reality, embrace it.
"...don’t degrade the long-held esteem of the marriage
covenant."Heterosexuals to homosexuals: Our relationships are
more special than yours and are deserving of greater recognition. How do we
know this, you ask? Well, um - okay, you're right that we've never
been homosexual so we haven't a clue whether it feels the same for you as
for us. But we think so regardless and besides, it has always been this way and
it makes us feel icky when we see you married, so...No rational
For the sake of discussion, lets assume that civil unions have the exact same
benefits as "marriage".(i am not convinced that it does).So, help me out here.This whole issue is only about a label?
Seriously? What difference does it make?And I say this to both
sides. Whats the big deal?I still think that from a government
perspective, a "insert name here" license should be issued. Then if
someone wants to go to their church and get a "marriage license" so be
it.All this carping over a word. Move on folks.
Utah explicitly prohibits Civil Unions, so this argument is moot.
"Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the concept of marriage
mentioned."So the court was wrong to remove the bans on
interracial marriage?" However, religious freedom is supported
by the First Amendment."That's fine, nobody's making
churches marry same-sex couples. "Marriage is not a right of
everyone and should be regulated by the states (not the federal judiciary).
"As long as it doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution."There is no discrimination of rights when homosexuals have civil
unions"That's all well and good (except separate but equal
is inherently unequal) but Amendment 3 banned civil unions too.