This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdated.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 don't want their constitution to hurt co-workers, friends and relatives. But that's exactly what Amendment 3 would do. It goes far beyond defining marriage and takes away basic rights and protections from real Utahns and their families. Reasonable, fair-minded voters have every reason to reject this flawed and hurtful amendment.

Part 1 of the amendment defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Although this definition is already enshrined three different times in Utah law, most Utahns would vote for Part 1, if it were by itself. Unfortunately, the amendment has two parts.

A number of prominent legal authorities, including all three candidates for attorney general, agree that Part 2 would deny a substantial group of Utahns many basic rights and protections.

Elderly heterosexual couples who can't get legally married without losing retirement benefits, common-law married couples and same-sex partners would all be denied many rights.

Part 2 would restrict these Utahns from visiting sick partners in the hospital or making emergency medical decisions. They would lose the ability to receive or share health insurance benefits. They would lose the safety provided by domestic-violence protective orders.

They would be denied family and bereavement leave, inheritance rights, tax benefits, child custody rights and even the right to carry out a partner's wishes for funeral arrangements.

In short, voters are being asked to deprive nontraditional families of basic rights and protections that provide stability and security for them and all other Utah families.

The unfair and hurtful consequences of Part 2 have led a host of conservative Utahns who are against gay marriage to vocally oppose Amendment 3. Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff calls it bad law that would take away basic and fundamental rights.

The amendment's sponsors say we shouldn't worry about unintended consequences and let the courts decide how to interpret the language. They ignore the expert opinions of our attorney general and ask us to support broad and vague language that was never studied by the Constitutional Revision Commission.

They also argue that private contracts between individuals won't be affected. But this just isn't true. Not all rights and protections can be practically covered by contracts, and even those contracts already drawn up would likely be challenged if this amendment passes.

Gayle Ruzicka and the amendment sponsors argue that Part 2 is needed to protect Part 1. But, of all the states that already have amendments defining marriage, only one, Nebraska, has language similar to Part 2.

Guess which state with an amendment is the only one facing a protracted and expensive legal battle because its amendment has taken away basic rights from a group of taxpaying citizens? That's right, Nebraska.

Changing our constitution is serious business. We should send a message to our Legislature that constitutional amendments should do what they are supposed to do - not hurt families, like ours, with unintended consequences.

If you want to protect existing families and if you want to show true moral leadership, vote NO on Amendment 3. It goes too far.

---

Dr. Gary and Millie Watts live in Provo. They have six children, four straight and two gay. They are the co-chairs of the Family Fellowship, a support group for LDS families that have gay children.