This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdated.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.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is feeling the brunt of political fallout for speaking against a proposed amendment to the state constitution meant to block gay marriage.

Republican Senate leaders in a closed caucus meeting Wednesday upbraided Shurtleff for waiting until now - months before the Republican stands for re-election - to speak against the amendment when he could have testified against it during the 2004 Legislative session.

House Republicans also made their disappointment known at a "rally" in support of Amendment 3, which was approved by two-thirds of the Legislature and now heads to the November ballot to be ratified or rejected by voters.

Shurtleff said he also has received "nasty" e-mails and has heard at least one prominent conservative on radio talk shows endorsing his two opponents. Polls show that the amendment, endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has widespread support.

Last week, Shurtleff warned that the amendment could deprive Utahns, gay or straight, of "basic, fundamental rights."

But on Wednesday, he downplayed lawmakers' ire, saying "they are entitled to an explanation" of the rare joint statement that he recently issued with his opponents: Libertarian Andrew McCullough and Democrat Greg Skordas.

The state's top lawyer reiterated that he supports defining marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. It's the second section of the amendment, he said, that's troubling.

"Amend? Yes. But not this amendment," Shurtleff said, noting it could "forever deny" thousands of unmarried Utah couples the right to petition the Legislature for partnership rights, such as hospital visitation, emergency medical decision-making and inheritance.

"You may think this lifestyle is a sin, but you don't take away their right to a political process," he told The Salt Lake Tribune's editorial board on Wednesday.

The Senate caucus was dubbed by one lawmaker, a "come to Jesus meeting." But Senate Majority Whip John Valentine characterized the discussion differently.

"[Shurtleff] told us the amendment is not unconstitutional, but that other people have raised questions" about its legality, said Valentine, R-Orem.

When asked whether Valentine was insinuating that Shurtleff caved to party pressure, he said, "the press got it wrong."

Ally Isom, Shurtleff's campaign manager, said because Shurtleff may be called to defend the amendment in court, "he can't characterize the amendment as unconstitutional. He's saying that other states' similar amendments have invited litigation, and he has concerns, valid concerns, that we could be subject to a lawsuit."

The amendment's co-sponsors, Rep. LaVar Christensen, R-Draper, and Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, were more forthright in their criticism of Shurtleff's prediction, calling it "false" and "fear" promoting.

"I guess he has a right to voice his personal opinion during an election year," said Christensen at a "rally" called to announce the creation of a political issues committee in defense of the amendment. He was flanked by about a dozen Republican representatives and members of Utah's Eagle Forum, a conservative lobbying group. No Democrats participated.

Buttars said there is no factual or legal basis to the claims that the amendment restricts so-called common-law marriage between a woman and man.

"This is an effort by the gay and lesbian community to come through the back door with a battering ram to change the definition of marriage," he said.

Gayle Ruzicka, Eagle Forum president, accused Shurtleff of trying to "sabotage" the amendment. "Why now? Nothing stops him from testifying on any bill during the Legislature, and he didn't do it then," she said.

Shurtleff said he didn't speak up earlier because there isn't a formal mechanism for the attorney general to review proposed legislation. Legislative attorneys did not tag the amendment unconstitutional but warned it probably would be challenged in court.

"I'm not the spokesman for this. I'm not affiliated with groups opposing the amendment," said Shurtleff, challenging legislators to redraft the amendment, run it by the state's Constitutional Revision Commission and roll it out for public approval next election cycle.