This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdated.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.
Rather than get bogged down in complicated questions about the legal ramifications of Amendment 3, supporters of the proposed marriage amendment say voters must sign on and change the Utah Constitution this year.
Otherwise, Utahns' commitment to traditional marriage might be questioned.
"What the voters decide is going to impact what happens around the country," said Tiani Coleman, one of three chairmen of a new coalition of four political issues committees promoting the amendment. "I don't think there is better language that could be drafted. If we hold off now [to refine the language], that decision could be used to say" Utahns don't support traditional marriage.
Coleman, who doubles as Salt Lake County Republican Party chairwoman, and attorney Monte Stewart along with the Don't Amend Alliance's Jane Marquardt and Scott McCoy dissected the amendment's language Monday at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics. The debate, moderated by KUER radio host Doug Fabrizio, revealed new arguments and spokespeople in the ongoing political fight over the amendment.
Stewart, Coleman and attorney Yvette Diaz are scheduled to "kick off" a new coalition of the committees today. The "Yes on 3 Coalition" will "spearhead media communication," a news release says. The new coalition apparently bypasses the bill's sponsors, Draper Republican Rep. LaVar Christensen and Sen. Chris Buttars, and more controversial supporters such as Eagle Forum Director Gayle Ruzicka and Brigham Young University Law School professor Richard Wilkins.
"They're hiding all of the people who are really behind this and, if you will, shoving them into the closet and locking the door so Utah voters won't see the real personalities and the real folks who are behind this amendment," said McCoy.
McCoy believes the new coalition is trying to condense the argument into one easy sound bite about gay marriage. "The new group has taken over. They're not going to toe the line on the legal arguments anymore."
Coleman rejects the idea that she is a more moderate front for the conservative figures who had been pushing the amendment.
"Together, we all have the same role," Coleman said. "But individuals have different purposes and talents."
And she turns McCoy's analysis back at him, insisting his legal arguments against the amendment are cover for a larger campaign to legalize gay marriage in Utah.
Monday's debate hinged on language that will appear on ballots Nov. 2. Stewart and Coleman insist the two-part amendment, based on an amendment Nebraska voters approved in 2000, works in tandem to define legal marriage and stop future legislatures or judges from recognizing same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships legalized in other states.
McCoy and Marquardt argue the language of Utah's amendment is so broad it will jeopardize the rights of unmarried Utah couples - same-sex or otherwise - and even a hypothetical disabled aunt living with her niece.
Stewart insists Utah's amendment is limited to sexual relationships and pulled out a dictionary definition of the word "union" to prove it. He also argued the amendment only restricts state action, not private contracts between adults.
McCoy noted the amendment makes no reference to "sex" or the "state," leaving wide room for legal interpretation of relationships and contracts.