This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Utahns will have to choose between compassion and religion when deciding whether to amend the state's constitution to ban gay marriage.

Opponents and supporters of the proposed amendment have written statements in favor and against the amendment for a voter guide that will be inserted in Utah newspapers and available in libraries in October.

The "pro" statements, written by Republican legislators, West Jordan Sen. Chris Buttars and Draper Rep. LaVar Christensen, rely heavily on references to God and the founding fathers. Opposing statements written by Salt Lake City Democratic Rep. Jackie Biskupski, the only openly gay member of the Utah Legislature, a Utah County couple, and Terry Kogan, a University of Utah Law School professor, try to appeal to Utahns' sense of fairness.

Three constitutional amendments will be on the ballot in November. One would allow the state to invest in companies that spinoff from the state's universities. Another would allow lawmakers to call themselves into special session to hold impeachment hearings. Amendment No. 3 has two parts. The first section defines marriage as the "legal union between a man and a woman." A second clause would prohibit the state from recognizing any other "domestic union" as a marriage or giving such relationships "the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

As they did on the floor of the state Senate and House when the amendment passed in the waning hours of the 2004 Legislature, Buttars and Christensen argue Utah needs to change its constitution to stop future activist judges from more "modern" interpretations of marriage law.

"Let us heed the warning of Lincoln and not allow others to 'blow out the moral lights around us,' the conservative legislators write. "The courts have long recognized that marriage and family law are domestic matters to be decided by state and not federal authority. Therefore, this matter will be decided by a majority of the voters in this election and that is as it should be. As Thomas Jefferson explained, 'It is rare that the public sentiment decides immorally or unwisely.'

The opponents note that the first part of the amendment, the definition of marriage, has been adopted three different times in Utah statute. They also quote polls that show 70 percent of Utahns have a family member or friend who is gay. Finally, they appeal to Utahns' love of family and the institutionalized discrimination they say is bound to result from the amendment.

"This amendment is certain to have unintended consequences that will hurt real Utah families," Biskupski and Kogan write. "You may not approve of same-sex couples having children, but they do. These children didn't choose their circumstances, yet this amendment would deny them rights and protections that provide stability and security for all other Utah children."

Scott McCoy, director of the Don't Amend Alliance, said his group will try to flesh out the amendment debate, rather than relying on the statements. "They are what they are. Fortunately, that's not the last word on the issue."

Also this week, legislative staff approved a "ballot title" for the amendment that almost mirrors the amendment itself, taking out the legal language "however denominated" and changing equivalent to "equal."

"We tried to summarize it and make it a little bit shorter," said Gay Taylor, legislative attorney. "There was no attempt to change the meaning. We were just trying to make it a little more simple."

McCoy said such "dumbing down" is unnecessary.