Appendix Tabs 17-26

Tab
#
Description Pdf
Page
PART TWO
MATERIALS ON ADJUDICATIVE FACTS
17 Affidavit of William C. Duncan and Exhibit 1 (curriculum vitae) 2
18 Excerpts from Utah Voter Information Pamphlet, General Election, November 2, 2004 26
19 Vote count on Amendment 3, by county, with totals, and with percentages 32
20 Campaign materials for Amendment 3 33
21 Campaign materials against Amendment 3 40
22 New accounts, press releases, and editorials regarding Amendment 3 63
23 Fund-raising and expenditures in the Amendment 3 campaign 103
24 Affidavit of Dr. Joseph P. Price and Exhibit 1 (curriculum vitae) 105
25 [Reserved] 115
26 [Reserved] 116

TAB 17

AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM C. DUNCAN
State of Utah )
) ss
County of Utah )
I, William C. Duncan, being first duly swom, testify of my own personal
know ledge that:
1. I am a la\vyer admitted to practice in the State of Utah and am serving as the
director of the Marriage Law Foundation. a Utah non-profit corporation providing
educational and legal services relative to the public discourse on and litigation of
the marriage issue, that is, whether marriage's core meaning ought to be the union
of a man and a woman or instead the union of any two persons.
2. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1, and the information contained in it is
true and accurate.
3. In May 1996, I became a research assistant to Prof. Lynn D. Wardle, J. Reuben
Clark Law School, Brigham Young University. From that time to the present, I
have been engaged on a virtually continuous basis in studying, researching,
monitoring, representing persons and entities in, and writing and teaching about
the judicial, legislative, and larger political and social debate over the legal
definition of marriage, whether the union of a man and a woman or the union of
any two persons. In that engagement, I have monitored closely every court case
and election in the United States addressing the marriage issue. Further, I played a
personal and active role in the 2004 campaign for Utah's Amendment 3, which
became part ofthe Utah Constitution as Article 1, section 29. In that role, I
000127
personally monitored on nearly a daily basis the campaign materials of those
supporting and opposing Amendment 3 and the news accounts, press releases, and
editorials regarding the campaign.
4. My testimony in the remaining paragraphs of this affidavit is provided pursuant to
Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence. My testimony in paragraphs 16 and 17 is
also provided pursuant to Rules 601 and 602, Federal Rules of Evidence.
5. Kitchen et al. v. Herbert et al., Civil Case No. 2:13-cv-00217-RJS, United States
District Court for the District of Utah, is one among the most recent in a long
series of cases adjudicating whether constitutional norms of equality and liberty
require that the legal definition of marriage be changed from the union of a man
and a woman to the union of any two persons.
6. The organized effort to have the judiciary redefine marriage from the union of a
man and a woman to the union of any two persons began in the early 1990's. By
"organized," I mean a planned effort sustained by major organizations dedicated to
advancing the social and political interests of gay men and lesbians. By the late
1990's, the three main organizations coordinating and executing the plan were
(and continue to be) Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Lambda Legal Defense Fund
(Lambda Legal).
7. A key feature of these organizations' plan was a commitment to invoke the
equality and liberty norms of only state constitutions, not the federal constitution-
this because of concerns about a United States Supreme Court decision favorable
2
000128
to man-woman marriage. (A few "maverick" cases not brought by the
organizations raised federal constitutional challenges to man-woman marriage.
The organizations sought to persuade the "maverick" plaintiffs to abandon the
cases and, if they refused, had at least one of their number intervene to seek
dismissal on procedural grounds. The one exception to the Organization's plan to
make challenges based on state constitutions only came in the attack on
Nebraska's marriage amendment, which the Eighth Circuit upheld; Lambda Legal
and the ACLU participated, with ACLU Nebraska being a plaintiff, although
perhaps without national ACLU permission.) Another key feature of the plan was
to proceed first in those jurisdictions where the judiciary was perceived to be most
sympathetic to genderless marriage arguments and/or the defending state officials
were deemed most likely to offer a tepid defense. Accordingly, the early cases
were brought in states such as Vermont, Massachusetts. New Jersey, New York,
and California. See generally William C. Duncan, Avoidance Strategy: Same-Sex
Marriage Litigation and the Federal Courts, 29 CAMPBELL L. REV. 29 (2006).
8. In response to this plan, proponents of man-woman marriage sought to amend the
states' constitutions to preserve the man-woman marriage institution. In 1990, no
state's constitution expressly defined marriage as the union of a man and a
woman. As of today, 30 state constitutions have such a provision, with the most
recent being North Carolina's, to which that state's voter gave 61% approval on
May 8, 2012. (Hawaii's marriage amendment did not define marriage but rather
gave definitional power to only the legislature.) Some of these marriage
3
000129
amendments originated in the state legislature; some, with a voter initiative.
Additionally, in 1996 Congress passed and President Clinton signed the federal
Defense ofMarriage Act ("DOMA"), one part ofwhich enshrined the man-woman
meaning for all federal purposes and the other part of which said that no state need
recognize a marriage of two people of the same sex solemnized in another state.
9. As a consequence of the strong movement towards marriage amendments, after
the early 1990's the highest court of only nine states made a final ruling on the
constitutionality of man-woman marriage. Man-woman marriage prevailed in
three of those courts (New York, Maryland, and Washington); genderless
marriage, in four (Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, and Iowa); a "split-the-
baby" civil union result, in two (Vennont, New Jersey). California's marriage
amendment, Proposition 8, was a few months too late to preclude that state's
supreme court's gender less marriage decision but operated to reverse its effect
prospectively. Additionally, IO\ver appellate courts in Indiana and Arizona upheld
the constitutionality of man-woman matTiage, as did the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (in upholding Nebraska's marriage
amendment).
10. On May 22, 2009, two high-profile lawyers, Ted Olsen and David Boies, filed in
federal district court in San Francisco a federal constitutional challenge to
Proposition 8. The response of many in the organizations and others sympathetic
to their plan ranged from deep concern to anger to outrage - exactly because that
case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger (which became Perry v. Brown and then
4
000130
Hollingsworth v. Perry). violated the plan's first principle: prosecute no case that
might result in a United States Supreme Court decision before the membership and
jurisprudence of that court gives a good assurance of an outcome favorable to
genderless maniage. Olsen and Boies nevertheless pushed ahead.
11. After the barrier was thereby irretrievably broken and the organizations were
thereby compelled to redraw their plan, they ultimately decided to begin bringing
their own federal constitutional challenges to man-woman marriage, first against
DOMA and then against marriage amendments other than California's.
12. This case \vas not brought by any of the organizations; to what extent any of the
organizations are now providing or will in the future provide assistance to the
Plaintiffs in this case and their counsel remains to be seen.
13.After the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, 133
S. Ct. 2675 (2013), a flood of organization and maverick cases were filed around
the Nation, each making federal constitutional challenges to the various States'
laws protecting and perpetuating man-woman marriage and seeking a judicial
mandate that marriage's meaning must be changed from the union of a man and a
woman to the union of any two persons.
14. The charts appearing in Tabs 7 through 11 of this Appendix are accurate.
15. Utah's 2004 Amendment 3 campaign was robust and vigorous, with each side's
campaign being well-financed, well-articulated, and well-supported by prominent
political figures, scholars, and business, religious, and other community leaders
and entities. The tenor of the political discourse tended toward the intellectual and
5
000131
legalistic, which I deemed remarkable in a campaign on an issue that stirs strong
and deep feelings among most citizens.
16. The piece collected at Tab 18 of this Appendix is a true and correct copy ofthe
portion of the Utah Voter Information Pamphlet, General Election, November 2,
2004, dealing with Amendment 3. The cha11 at Tab 19 is a true and correct copy
of a chart appearing at a State of Utah website that provides the numbers on the
votes in Utah's November 2004 general election.
17. The materials collected at Tab 20 constitute a fair and representative sample of the
campaign messages made by the proponents of Amendment 3. The materials
collected at Tab 21 constitute a fair and representative sample ofthe campaign
messages made by the opponents of Amendment 3. The materials collected at Tab
22 constitute a fair and representative sample of the news accounts, press releases,
and editorials dealing with Amendment 3 during the campaign. Each ofthe pieces
collected at those three Tabs is a true and conect copy of the content of the
original pieces (although formatting may be changed due to changes in technology
or mode of storage), and each of those pieces is just what it purports to be.
18. Tab 23 is a summary chart created under my direction. It accurately reflects the
amounts raised and expended by the various groups, entities, and organizations
that actively participated in the Amendment 3 campaign and were required by
Utah election laws to file reports with the State regarding their fund-raising and
expenditures relative to the campaign. Those reports, as maintained by the State
of Utah, are the sources of the chart's figures. (Because of a just discovered glitch
6
000132
Assisted education campaign for report on the taxpayer costs of family fragmentation.
Visiting Professor & Executive Director
Marriage and Family Law Research Grant, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young
University (Provo, UT)
February 2003-July 2004
Organized series of academic conferences related to family law issues.
Extensive research and writing on family law and policy issues.
Technical assistance to state legislators and attorneys general and other attorneys and
interested groups.
Taught Family Public Policy (Political Science/ Marriage Family & Human Development)
Children and the Law (Law School) courses.
Administered grant.
Counsel & Expert Consultant
U.S. Department of Education (Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity in
Athletics; Office for Civil Rights; Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools; Safe & Drug Free
Schools & Communities Advisory Committee) (Washington, D.C.)
August 2002-February 2003 (counsel) March 2003-June 2003, May 2004-February 2005, August
2006-2008 (expert consultant)
Advised Commission appointed by U.S. Secretary of Education on Federal civil rights law
(Title IX).
One of the primary authors of Commission report: "Open to All: Title IX at Thirty."
Drafting and editing reports, policy documents and other official documents.
Assistant Director, Acting Director & Staff Attorney, Marriage Law Project
Columbus School ofLaw, The Catholic University of America (Washington, D.C.)
July 1998-July 2001 (assistant director), August 2001-August 2002 (acting director), February
2003-July 2004 (staff attorney)
Extensive research and writing on family law and constitutional law issues.
Technical assistance to state legislators and attorneys general and other attorneys and
interested groups.
Supervised projects performed by research assistants and staff attorneys ofthe Marriage Law
Project.
Provided assistance for various law and undergraduate students writing on the issues of
marriage and the Constitution.
Administered numerous grants.
Research Assistant, Professor Lynn D. Wardle
J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University (Provo, UT)
May 1996-June 1998
Performed research and writing on various issues of constitutional and family law.
2
000135
Boards and Committees
Member, Same-Sex Partnership Law Reporter Board of Advisors (2005)
Member, Sutherland Institute Policy Committee (2005-present)
Member, Ruth Institute Academic Advisory Board (2008-present), Circle of Experts (2012-
present)
Member, The Family in America Board of Editorial Advisors (2009-present)
Director, International Academy for the Study of Jurisprudence of the Family Advisory Board of
Directors (20 1 0-present)
Member, Constituting America Board of Academic Advisors (20 11-present)
Trustee, John Adams Center Board of Trustees (2011-present)
Education
J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University
Juris Doctor, 1998
Articles Editor, BYU JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW
Brigham Young University
Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, 1995
Presentations
Ethics Awareness Week 2012 (Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah)
Speech: The Meaning ofTraditional Marriage (September 18, 2012)
Marriage on the Ballot 2012 (Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.)
Panelist (July 31, 20 12)
Ruth Institute It Takes a Family Symposium (San Diego, California)
Presentations: Defining Marriage in the Law, Religious Freedom in the United States & The
Law of Marriage and Parenthood (July 27-28, 2012)
The Ethics & Effect of Roe v. Wade: Pro- and Con- Perspectives (J. Reuben Clark Law
School, Provo, Utah)
Presentation: A Statistical Snapshot of Abortion in the USA (January 23, 2012)
Ruth Institute It Takes a Family Symposium (San Diego, California)
Presentations: Marriage and the Law & Custody Law (July 29-30, 2011)
Utah House Judiciary Committee (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Provided expert testimony on proposed bill to reinstate a waiting period between filing and
finalization of divorce (February 28, 2011)
Utah Senate Judiciary Committee (Salt Lake City, Utah)
3
000136
Provided expert testimony on proposed bill to make remove non-economic fault
considerations in alimony determinations (February 9, 2011)
Utah House of Representatives, Health & Human Services Committee (Salt Lake City,
Utah)
Provided expert testimony on proposed bill to clarify fault grounds in alimony determinations
(February 7, 2011)
Utah Senate Health & Human Services Committee (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Provided expert testimony on proposed grant of adoption rights to cohabiting couples
(February 7, 2011)
The Constitutionality ofthe Defense of Marriage Act (University of Minnesota Law School,
Minneapolis)
Presentation: By Any Means Necessary-Defeating DOMA (January 28, 2011)
Mini-Colloquium on the Legacy of Roe v. Wade (J. Reuben Clark Law School, Provo, Utah)
Presentation: Roe v. Wade: A Case Study in Law and Cultural Change (January 21, 2011)
Sutherland Institute Responsible Citizenship Exchange (Salt Lake City, Utah & American
Fork, Utah)
Lectures on the Utah Constitution (January 20,2011, August 31, 2011)
Legal, Secular, and Religious Perspectives on Marriage Equality/Marriage Protection/
Same-Sex Marriage (St. John's School of Law, Queens, New York)
Presentation: A Case Study in Constitutional Conflict (November 12, 2010)
Utah State University Center for Women and Gender Panel (Logan, Utah)
Presentation: Harnessing Religion (November 2, 201 0)
Georgia Family Council Online Lecture (Norcross, Georgia via Internet)
Lecture: The Legal Transformation of Marriage (October 22, 2010)
Sutherland Institute Responsible Citizenship Exchange (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Lecture: Articles, Amendments & Aspirin: Understanding the Utah State Constitution
(October 7, 2010)
Pizza & Politics (Murray, Utah)
Presentation: Marriage-Two Messages (October 6, 2010)
Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists Conference (Salt Lake City,
The Role of Professional Organizations in the Marriage Debate (September 30,
2010)
Utah Republican Precinct 35 Constitution Discussion (Orem, Utah)
4
000137
Panelist: The First Amendment (September 23, 2010)
BYU Family Law Society (J. Reuben Clark Law School, Provo, Utah)
Presentation: Every Lawyer a Family Lawyer (September 7, 2010)
Ruth Institute Student Symposium (Temecula, California)
Presentations: Marriage and the Law, Custody Law & Pornography Panel (August 13-14,
2010)
Twelfth Annual Mormon Apologetics Conference (Sandy, Utah)
Presentation: Religion in the Legal Controversy Over Marriage (August 6, 2010)
American Heritage School Community Forum (American Fork, Utah)
Panelist: Understanding Our Times Constitution Education Series (August August 5, 201 0)
American Parent Action League Meeting (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Presentation: Divorce Counterrevolution (June 22, 201 0)
American Heritage School Community Forum (American Fork, Utah)
Panelist: Understanding Our Times Constitution Education Series (June 3, 2010)
Missouri House of Representatives, Special Standing Committee on Children & Families
(Jefferson City, Missouri)
Provided expert testimony on proposed bill to reintroduce fault grounds into divorce law
(April21, 2010)
Stand for the Family Symposium (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah)
Presentations: Abandoning Marriage, Abandoning Children & Legal Update on Same-Sex
Marriage (March 6, 20 1 0)
Liberty University Law Review Symposium (Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia)
Presentation: Problems ofClassification (February 13, 2010)
Journal of Law & Religion Symposium on the Global Economic Crisis (Hamline
University, St. Paul, Minnesota)
Presentation: Private Welfare in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (October
16, 2009)
Hinckley School of Politics, University of Utah (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Presentation: Same-Sex Marriage-Legal Argument Update (September 22, 2009)
Ruth Institute Student Symposium (San Diego, California)
Presentations: Marriage and the Law & Custody Law (August 7, 2009)
International Voice for Youth Presentation: Why Marriage? Understanding the Same-Sex
5
000138
Marriage Debate (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah)
Presentation: Benefits of Marriage (April 9, 2009)
Symposium: As Iowa Goes, So Goes the Nation (University of Iowa School of Law, Iowa
City, Iowa)
Presentation: The Varnum v. Brien Litigation (February 27, 2009)
S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Participated in debate (February 19, 2009)
Utah House of Representatives, Business and Labor Relations Committee (Salt Lake City,
Utah)
Provided expert testimony on proposed sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination
statute (February 17, 2009)
Hinckley School of Politics, University of Utah (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Presentation Justifications for Redefining Marriage: A Moving Target (February 6, 2009)
New Mexico Senate, Judiciary & State Affairs Committees (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Provided expert testimony on proposed comprehensive domestic partnership statute (January
28, 2009)
The Fidelio Society (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah)
Presentation: What Happens After Proposition 8? (November 20, 2008)
Sutherland Institute State of the Union (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Keynote Speech: Why Does Proposition 8 Matter? (October 14, 2008)
Pennsylvania Senate, Judiciary Committee (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Submitted expert testimony on proposed amendment to Pennsylvania Constitution regarding
the definition of marriage (April10, 2008)
Sutherland Institute Conservative Roundtable (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Keynote Speech: What Are We Conserving? (February 5, 2008)
Lasting Change for Families: Family Outreach Conference (Brigham Young University,
Provo, Utah)
Gave presentation: Turning Your Family Strengthening Concept Into a Reality (March 9,
2007)
Utah Senate, Judiciary Committee (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Provided expert testimony on proposed bill to provide a preference for married couples in
adoption and foster placements (February 7, 2007)
Art of Womanhood Phone Lecture (Highland, Utah)
6
000139
Gave lecture: Defending the Family (December 2, 2006)
Symposium: Same-Sex Couples & "The Exclusive Commitment" (Rutgers School of Law,
Newark, New Jersey)
Gave presentation: Issues Raised by Lewis v. Harris (November 10, 2006)
Symposium: "What's the Harm" (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah)
Gave presentation: Same-Sex Marriage and Lawlessness (September 16, 2006)
Sutherland Institute Transcend Series (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Gave presentation: The Judiciary and the Rule of Law (August 10, 2006)
Legacy Law Foundation Constitutional Law & Leadership Conference (Salt Lake City)
Gave presentation: State of Marriage Law (March 31, 2006)
Gave presentation: Philosophies of Policymaking (December 8, 2005)
Symposium on Lofton and the Future of Lesbian and Gay Adoption (Stetson University
College of Law, Tampa, Florida)
Gave presentation: Linking Marriage and Adoption (October 28, 2005)
Symposium: Decisions and Families (University of Utah Law School, Salt Lake City, Utah)
Gave presentation: Marriage-Instrumentalism and Individualism (September 23, 2005)
Gave presentation: Foundation Principles ofthe Rule of Law (August 11, 2005)
International Society of Family Law 12th World Conference (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Gave presentation: Balancing Structural and Substantive Considerations in Same-Sex
Marriage Litigation (July 20, 2005)
Illuminating Marriage Conference (Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture,
Kananaskis, Alberta)
Co-authored presentation: The Betrayal of Perez and Loving (May 18, 2005)
State Marriage Amendments Conference (Georgia State University Law School, Atlanta,
Georgia)
Co-authored presentation: Marriage Amendments and the Reader in Bad Faith (April16,
2005)
Brigham Young University State and Local Government Conference (Provo, Utah)
Gave presentation: The Aftermath of Amendment 3: Where Do We Go From Here? (March
24, 2005)
7
000140
Idaho Senate, State Affairs Committee (Boise, Idaho)
Provided expert testimony on proposed amendment to Idaho Constitution regarding the
definition of marriage (January 28, 2005)
Countdown to the November Election: The Legal Battle Over Gay Marriage (University of
Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah)
Gave presentation: The Case for Caution (October 21, 2004)
Symposium on Parentlessness: Protecting the Best Interests of Parent-Deprived Children
Growing Up In a World of Diversity (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah)
Gave presentation: Choice and Kinship in Contemporary Family Law (October 8, 2004)
Gave presentation: The Rule of Law: Lost and Found (August 12, 2004)
Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts: The Meaning and Implications of Goodridge v.
Department of Public Health (Southern New England School of Law, North Dartmouth,
Massachusetts)
Gave presentation: Goodridge and the Rule of Law (June 11, 2004)
University Faculty for Life Conference (St. Thomas University Law School, Minneapolis,
Minnesota)
Gave presentation: Statutory Responses to "Wrongful Birth" and "Wrongful Life" Actions
(June 5, 2004)
The Implications of Lawrence and Goodridge for the Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages
and the Validity ofDOMA (Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.)
Gave presentation: Revisiting State Marriage Recognition Provisions (May 20, 2004)
The Constitution, Civil Rights, Religion & Same-Sex Marriage: Where are We Going
(Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas)
Gave presentation: The Case for a Federal Marriage Amendment (April15, 2004)
Symposium on Recognizing Same-Sex Couples: Should Connecticut Change the Law?
(Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Connecticut)
Gave presentations: National Developments in the Law of Marriage and Against Redefining
Marriage (March 26, 2004)
"Share and Defend": Second Family Outreach Conference (Brigham Young University,
Provo, Utah)
Gave presentation: Public Policy: Defending the Definition of Marriage (February 6, 2004)
Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships (University of California Los Angeles)
Gave presentation: AB 205: Alternative Marital Status? (December 1, 2003)
8
000141
Reaffirming Marriage in a Post-Marriage Culture (Catholic University of America,
Washington, D.C.)
Gave presentation: State Interest in Marriage (November 15, 2003)
Hinckley Institute of Politics Forum (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah)
Gave presentation: Redefining Marriage: Legal and Policy Concerns (November 12, 2003)
NARTH Annual Conference (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Poster presentation: Litigation and Same-Sex Attraction: Some Scenarios (November 8,
2003)
Adoption and the Family System (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah)
Organized interdisciplinary conference with twelve presenters including professors from
eight universities and two major adoption agencies (September 26, 2003).
Gave presentation: Normative Judgments in the Law of Adoption (September 26, 2003)
The Future of Marriage and Claims for Same Sex Unions (Brigham Young University,
Provo, Utah)
Organized conference with eighteen presenters including law professors from twelve law
schools (August 29, 2003).
Gave presentation: Same-Sex Marriage Litigation: An Historical Overview (August 29,
2003)
International Society of Family Law North American Regional Conference (University of
Oregon, Eugene, Oregon)
Gave presentation: Non-Marital Cohabitation and the Law (June 27, 2003)
Title IX: Women, Athletics and the Law: A Symposium on the Final Report of the
Secretary's Commission for Opportunity in Athletics (University of Maryland, Baltimore,
Maryland)
Gave presentation: Title IX at Thirty: Unanswered Questions (April24, 2003).
Southern Methodist University & U.S. Department of Labor Spring 2003 Higher
Education Symposium (Dallas, Texas)
Gave presentation: Title IX After 30: Where to From Here? (March 27, 2003).
American University Women and Politics Institute: Women, the Law and Litigating for
Social Change Course (American University, Washington, D.C.)
Gave presentation on the Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics
(January 9, 2003).
Symposium on Marriage, Adoption and the Best Interests of the Child (Capital University,
Columbus, Ohio)
Gave presentation: In Whose Best Interests: Sexual Orientation and Adoption Law
(November 1, 2002).
Symposia-Homophobia in the Halls of Justice: Sexual Orientation Bias and its
9
000142
Within the Legal System (American University, Washington, D.C.)
Gave presentation: Professional Implications: Canons of Ethics and Codes of Professional
Conduct (March 26, 2002).
Family Outreach Conference (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah)
Gave presentation on the Marriage Law Project (March 19, 2002).
Symposium Addressing the Impact of Civil Unions: The Many Questions of Civil Unions
(Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.)
Organized conference with 16 presenters including law professors from seven law schools
(February 15-16, 2002).
Gave presentation "The Mere Allusion to Gender": Answering The Charge That Marriage Is
Sex Discrimination (February 15, 2002).
Symposium on the ALI's Family Dissolution Principles: Blueprint to Strengthen or
Deconstruct Families? (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah)
Gave presentation: Domestic Partnership Laws in the United States: A Review and Critique
(February 3, 2001).
Maryland House of Delegates, Judiciary Committee (Annapolis, Maryland)
Presented testimony in support of a bill to prevent the recognition of an out-of-state same-sex
"marriage" in Maryland (March 23, 1999 & March 9, 2001).
Revitalizing Marriage Conference (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah)
Gave presentation: The "Functional" Definition of Family: Displacing Marriage in Family
Law at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah (March 3, 2000).
Selected Briefs
Hollingsworth v. Perry, U.S. Supreme Court, 2013 (representing Scholars of History and Related
Disciplines as amici curiae)
Windsor v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court, 2013 (representing National Organization for
Marriage as amicus curiae)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, U.S. Supreme Court, 2012 (representing Judge Georg Ress & Marriage
Law Foundation)
Windsor v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2012 (representing the
National Organization for Marriage)
Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2012
(representing the National Organization for Marriage)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 2011 (representing the National Organization for
10
000143
Marriage)
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010 (representing the
National Organization for Marriage, et al.)
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, U.S. District Court Northern District of California, 2010 (representing
the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention)
Debra H v. Janice R., New York Court of Appeals, 2010 (representing Family Watch
International)
Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service, New York Court of Appeals, 2009
(representing Family Watch International)
Adar v. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2009 (representing Family Watch
International)
Strauss v. Horton, California Supreme Court, 2009 (representing National Organization for
Marriage California)
Perdue v. 0 'Kelley, Georgia Supreme Court, 2006 (representing United Families International as
amicus curiae)
Lewis v. Harris, New Jersey Supreme Court, 2005 (representing The Anscombe Society at
Princeton University as amicus curiae)
Hernandez v. Robles, New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, 2005 (representing United
Families International as amicus curiae)
Shields v. Madigan , New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, 2005 (representing United
Families International as amicus curiae)
Samuels v. Department of Public Health, New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, 2005
(representing United Families International as amicus curiae)
Anderson v. King County, Washington Supreme Court, 2005 (representing Marriage Law
Foundation as amicus curiae)
Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, United States Court of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit,
2005 (representing United Families International and Center for Arizona Policy as amici curiae)
ACLU v. Anchorage, Alaska Supreme Court, 2005 (representing North Star Civil Rights Defense
Fund as amicus curiae)
Lewis v. Harris, New Jersey Court of Appeal, 2004 (representing New Jersey Catholic
11
000144
Conference, New Jersey Family Policy Council & New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect
Marriage as amici curiae)
Lofton v. Kearney, United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit, 2004 (representing
Florida legislators as amici curiae)
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2003
(representing Marriage Law Project as amicus curiae)
Lawrence v. Texas, United States Supreme Court, 2003 (representing Center for Marriage Law
as amici curiae)
Burns v. Burns, Georgia Court of Appeal, 2002 (representing Vermont legislators as amici
curiae)
Scholarly Publications
Shifting the Marriage Conversation 27 THE FAMILY IN AMERICA I65 (Spring 2013)
From Accommodation to Conscription? The Obama Health Care Mandate in Context 5
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 3 7 (20 12)
The Imperial Judiciary's New Robes 26 JOURNAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
639 (Spring 20 12)
The Generals Who Started the War on the Family 26 THE FAMILY IN AMERICA 198 (Spring
2012)
The Bitter Fruit of the Sexual Revolution 25 THE FAMILY IN AMERICA 198 (Spring 2011)
Why French Law Rejects a Right to Gay Marriage 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE
JURISPRUDENCE OF THE FAMILY 215 (20 II)
Marriage and Inevitability: A Lesson from Maryland 41 UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW
FORUM 99 (20 11)
Manhattan Declaration in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL THOUGHT, volume Ill
(Scarecrow Press forthcoming 20I1) (with Maggie Gallagher)
Abandoning Marriage, Abandoning Children STANCE: FOR THE FAMILY 5 (Winter 2010)
Problems of Classification 4 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 465 (20 1 0)
The Legal Fiction of De Facto Parenthood 36 JOURNAL OF LEGISLATION 262 (20 1 0)
Enough About Marriage, Let's Talk About Me 24 THE FAMILY IN AMERICA 199 (Spring 201 0)
12
000145
Waxing State, Waning Family 23 THE FAMILY IN AMERICA 21 (Winter 2009)
Speaking Up for Marriage 32 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY 915 (2009)
Marriage on Trial12 JOURNAL OF GENDER, RACE & JUSTICE 493 (2009)
Deconstructing Parenthood 22 THE FAMILY IN AMERICA 1 (October-December 2008)
Redefinition of Marriage and the Rule of Law in WHAT's THE HARM? 3 7 5 (University Press of
America 2008)
Does Marriage Have a Future? 83 NORTH DAKOTA LAW REVIEW 1273 (2007)
Marriage and the Utopian Temptation 59 RUTGERS LAW REVIEW 265 (2007)
Constitutions and Marriage 6 WHITTIER JOURNAL OF CHILD AND FAMILY ADVOCACY 331 (2007)
Portrait of an Institution 50 HOWARD LAW JOURNAL 95 (2006)
Civility & Chivalry 19 UTAH BAR JOURNAL 18 (November/December 2006)
Avoidance Strategy: Same-Sex Marriage Litigation and the Federal Courts 29 CAMPBELL LAw
REVIEW 29 {2006)
Marriage Amendments and the Reader in Bad Faith 7 FLORIDA COASTAL LAW REVIEW 233
(2006)
Statutory Responses to "Wrongful Birth" and "Wrongful Life" Actions in LIFE AND LEARNING
XIV (University Faculty for Life 2005)
Is There a Link Between Adoption and Same-Sex Marriage? 2 MARRIAGE LAw DIGEST
Supplement (October 2005)
State, Society and the Redefinition of Marriage 19 THE FAMILY IN AMERICA 1 (September 2005)
Survey of Interstate Recognition of Quasi-Marital Statuses 3 AVE MARIA LAw REVIEW 617
(2005)
The Charitable Exemption and Civil Society 2005 SUTHERLAND JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC
POLICY L25 {2005)
DOMA and Marriage 17 REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 203 {2005)
Marriage and the Betrayal ofPerez and Loving 2005 BYU LAw REVIEW 555 (2005) (with
Monte N. Stewart)
Defending Marriage in HELPING AND HEALING OUR FAMILIES (Deseret Book 2005)
13
000146
Choice and Kinship in Contemporary Family Law 4 WHITTIER JOURNAL OF CHILD AND FAMILY
ADVOCACY 233 (2005)
Legislative Deference and the Novelty of Same-Sex Marriage 16 STANFORD LAw AND POLICY
REVIEW 83 (2005)
Private Property and Public Policy 2005 SUTHERLAND JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 23
(2005)
Revisiting State Marriage Recognition Provisions 38 CREIGHTON LAw REVIEW 233 (2005)
Foreword 38 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW vii (2005) with Lynn D. Wardle
Marital Status and Adoption Values 6 JOURNAL OF LAW AND FAMILY STUDIES 1 (2004)
The State Interests in Marriage 2 AVE MARIA LAW REVIEW 153 (2004)
Against Redefining Marriage: A Review and Critique of Recent Legal Developments 23
QUINNIPIAC LAW REVIEW 427 (2004)
The Role of Litigation in Gay Rights: The Marriage Experience 24 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY
PUBLIC LAW REVIEW 113 (2004)
Goodridge and the Rule of Law 14 BOSTON UNIVERSITY PUBLIC INTEREST LAW JOURNAL 42
(2004)
The Case for a Federal Marriage Amendment 30 THURGOOD MARSHALL LAW REVIEW 145
(2004)
The Litigation to Redefine Marriage: Equality and Social Meaning 18 BYU JOURNAL OF PUBLIC
LAW 623 (2004)
The Social Good of Marriage and Legal Responses to Non-Marital Cohabitation 82 OREGON
LAW REVIEW 1001 (2004)
Re-Binding the Ties that Bind: Governmental Efforts to Preserve and Promote Marriage 53
FAMILY RELATIONS 459 (October 2004) with Sean E. Brotherson
Family as the Fundamental Unit in Policy Making in FAVORING THE FAMILY (Sutherland
Institute 2003)
Family as the Fundamental Unit in Marriage and Divorce in FAVORING THE FAMILY (Sutherland
Institute 2003)
Title IX at Thirty: Unanswered Questions 3 MARGINS: THE JOURNAL OF RACE, RELIGION,
14
000147
GENDER AND CLASS 211 (2003)
In Whose Best Interests: Sexual Orientation and Adoption Law 31 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAw
REVIEW 787 (2003)
Imposing the Same-Sex Marriage Template on State Constitutional Law: the Implications for
Marriage, Constitutional Theory and Democracy in MARRIAGE AND SAME-SEX UNIONS (Praeger
2003)
Whither Marriage in the Law? 15 REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 119 (2003)
"The Mere Allusion to Gender": Answering the Charge that Marriage is Sex Discrimination 46
ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL 963 (2002)
Sexual Orientation Bias: The Substantive Limits of Ethics Rules II AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
JOURNAL OF GENDER, SOCIAL POLICY AND THE LAW 85 (2002)
The Many Questions of Civil Unions: An Introduction to a Symposium Addressing the Impact of
Civil Unions 11 WIDENER JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW 36I (2002)
The Legacy ofRomer v. Evans I 0 WIDENER JOURNAL OF PUBLIC LAW I61 (2002)
Impasse in the Marriage Debate II TRINITY LAW REVIEW I93 (2002)
Domestic Partnership Laws in the United States: A Review and Critique 2001 BYU LAW
REVIEW 96I (200 1)
"Don't Ever Take a Fence Down": The "Functional" Definition of Family-Displacing
Marriage in Family Law 3 JOURNAL OF LAW AND FAMILY STUDIES 57 (200 1)
"A Lawyer Class": Views on Marriage And "Sexual Orientation" in The Legal Profession 15
BYU JOURNALOFPUBLICLAW 137 (2001)
Marriage and Democracy in Oregon: The Meaning and Implications ofTanner v. Oregon Health
Sciences University 36 WILLAMETTE LAW REVIEW 503 (2000) with David Orgon Coolidge
Reaffirming Marriage: A Presidential Priority 24 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW, ETHICS AND
PUBLIC POLICY 623 (200I) with David Orgon Coolidge
Beyond Baker: The Case for a Vermont Marriage Amendment 25 VERMONT LAw REVIEW 6I
(2000) with David Orgon Coolidge
The Alaska Marriage Amendment: The People's Choice on the Last Frontier I6 ALASKA LAW
REVIEW 213 (1999) with Kevin G. Clarkson & David Orgon Coolidge
15
000148
Definition or Discrimination? State Marriage Recognition Statutes in the 'Same-Sex Marriage'
Debate 32 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW 3 (1998) with David Orgon Coolidge
16
000149

TAB 18

TAB 19

TAB 20

In Summary, Amendment 3:
./ IDn def"me ntarriage in Utah as exclusively the union of
a man and a woman and prevent the courts or the legisla-
ture from changing that defmition.
./ Will prevent the the creation of counterfeit marriage
relationships, such as "civil unions" or "domestic partner-
ships", by either the courts or the legislature, giving them
the same or substantially the same status as marriage.
./ Will stop the recognition of counterfeit marriage
arrangements, created in other states, from being
recognized as a legal marriage in Utah.
Why Amendment 3 is Necessary:
In the past few years, activists have been trying to radically redefine
marriage in the United States - by working toward the legalizing of
same-sex unions. A Massachusetts court has already forced legal-
ized same-sex marriage in that state, andjudges in New York,
Oregon and Washington are challenging the marriage laws in their
states. We can be sure other lawsuits will be filed in the near future.
These activists will undoubtedly soon be challenging Utah's
marriage laws, and demanding that marriages performed in other
states should be recognized as legal in Utah. Adopting Amendment
3 to our constitution is the most emphatic and legally binding way
we can protect marriage in Utah.
Is Amendment 3 Constitutional?
The Utah Constitution determines what is constitutional for this state,
so when Amendment 3 becomes part of the constitution, no one can
argue that the definition of marriage violates the Utal1 Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long said that marriage is a crucial
social institution that deserves special legal protection, and it has
upheld many marriage protection and preference measures over the
years. I have yet to hear a single credible legal argument for the
claim that Amendment 3 would be w1constitutional. TI1ose asser-
tions are simply political rhetoric, not based on sound legal analysis
(Lynn D. Wardle, Professor of Law. Family Law Expert- in cooperation
with Richard Q Wilkins, Professor of Constitutional Law, Brigham Young
University and William Duncan. Fellow, Sutherland Institute).
Specifically, Amendment 3:
./ Will not deny any existing rights to anyone
./ Will not prevent the legislature from offering benefits
to any Utahns, who need them as such as health
insurance.or giving special rights to a grandmother caring
for her grandchildren. The only restriction is that these
benefits could not be provided based solely on sexual
behavior .
./ Will not interfere with any private arrangements
including employment contracts, granting benefits to anyone
the employer chooses, etc.
./ Will not prevent anyone from appointing another person
as a decision maker when they experience a medical emer-
gency.
./ Will not prevent anyone from leaving property to
whomever they desire.
./ Will not prevent anyone from living with whoever they
like.
./ Will not stop anyone from petitioning the legislature for
benefits not dependent on marital status.
When Amendment 3 Passes,
No One Will Lose Any Legal Rights
Amendment 3 is narrowly and carefully drafted. It will only prevent
the legalization of same-sex marriage or the creation of any
counterfeit marriage arrangements, such as civil unions, in Utal1.
It will also prevent the recognition of any same-sex marriages or
counterfeit marriage arrangements performed in another state.
Because same-sex marriage and other "counterfeit" marriage
arrangements arc not legal in Utah at the present time, no one will
lose any legal rights of any kind when Amendment 3 is adopted.
See www.YesForMarriage.orgfor a detailed
discussion of the legal impacts of Amendment 3.
000157
[MOnte Stewart- L ~ n n Wardle's Statement on Amendment Three August 19 2004.WQd
Would Amendment 3, the Utah Marriage Amendment, Reallv Do Those Horrible
Things?
By Lynn D. Wardle, Professor of Law
August 19, 2004
There has much talk about the horrible things that proposed Amendment 3, the proposed
Marriage Amendment to the Utah Constitution, would do. But if one looks at the language of the
amendment, it is apparent that the "parade of horribles" is just political "hype."
What Amendment 3 says and does
Amendment 3 contains two short, simple sentences:
"(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
"(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or
given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."
The first sentence of amendment 3 prohibits same-sex marriage from being formed in
Utah, and also would bar same-sex marriages performed in other places, like Massachusetts or
Canada, from being recognized as valid in Utah.
The second sentence prohibits courts or other public officials from circumventing the first
sentence by the ruse of creating same-sex marriage and calling it something else, like "civil
unions" or "domestic partnerships," with legal benefits substantially similar to marriage.
The Need for Amendment 3
Governor Mitt Romney has eloquently explained the need for a constitutional amendment
to protect marriage. Last October, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court interpreted the
Massachusetts Constitution to require same-sex marriage. If Massachusetts had passed an
amendment to the state constitution like Amendment 3, the court could not have done that. Now
the Massachusetts legislature (which delayed passing such an amendment earlier) has proposed
an amendment, but the cumbersome process of amending the constitution in Massachusetts will
take at least three years. Governor Romney published a plea in the Wall Street Journal (February
5, 2004) encouraging all states to consider state constitutional amendments (like Amendment 3)
to protect marriage.
Sentence 1 of Amendment 3 would not be sufficient alone. In California, when the
people overwhelming passed Proposition 22 prohibiting same-sex "marriage" (like sentence 1 of
Amendment 3) gay and lesbian lobbyists persuaded the legislature to pass a law giving all of the
rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples who registered as "domestic partners." Thus,
they brushed aside Prop 22 by creating same-sex marriage but calling it something else.
Judges in several other states (such as Vermont and Oregon) have interpreted state
constitutions to require the creation of either same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions with
legal benefits substantially equivalent to marriage. Sentence 2 of Amendment 3 is necessary to
prevent creating imitative alternative unions, whether called same-sex marriage or something
else, that have "the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" to marriage.
Amendment 3 Confirms Utah Law, Rather Than Changes It
Nearly a decade ago, the Utah legislature passed a law barring same-sex marriage.
Amendment 3 would make that legislative law a part of the constitutional law of Utah. It would
Page 1
000158
Monte Stewart- LY-nn Wardle's Statement on Amendment Three Au ust 19 2 0 0 4 . w ~ d
Jiving together "as if' married. Moreover, the CAA provides protection for individuals (whether
Jiving in couples or not), not benefits for couples, and at least three, and arguably 5 of the 6
categories of persons covered by the CAA are or include non-spouses, so the CAA could hardly
be categorized as extending "the same or substantially equivalent legal effect" of marriage! So
Amendment 3 does not bar protection from domestic violence for gays and lesbians from their
violent present or former gay or lesbian cohabitants. The claim by Don't Amend is not even
plausible; it is simply a misrepresentation based on a deliberately manipulated quoting of part the
Cohabitant Abuse Act, while ignoring multiple other provisions. It is blatantly erroneous.
Don't Amend also claims that Amendment 3 would bar private companies from
extending specific benefits like insurance and pensions to gay and lesbian partners or employees.
But Don't Amend does not explain how or why that is so; they just make the wild accusation.
Amendment 3 says nothing about private benefits whatever. It prohibits creating a same-sex
marriage or similar "domestic union" which private employers do not claim to do. Offering
private employment benefits to nonmarital couples could not be said to amount to creating a
"domestic union" providing "the same or substantially equivalent" benefits that accompany
marriage.
Don't Amend further asserts that Amendment 3 would prevent the legislature from
"grant[ing] limited rights and protections to gay and lesbian couples and their families ... "
However, Amendment 3 specifically uses the phrase "the same or substantially equivalent legal
effect." Don't Amend does even try to explain how "grant[ing] limited rights and protections"
would violate a provision that only bars giving "the same or substantially equivalent legal effect"
as marriage. By definition, "limited rights and protections" are not "the same or substantially
equivalent" rights and protections as marriage.
Don't Amend claims that private contracts, wills and powers of attorney benefiting gay or
lesbian partners would be invalidated. However, they also admit that the very same legislature
that passed and proposed Amendment 3 passed legislation, S.B. 24 (now U.C.A. 30-1-4.1 ), that
included a provision providing that the new law would not "impair contract or other rights that
are enforceable independently of this section." That certainly suggests the intent of the drafters
of Amendment 3 - because it was the same legislature, the same representatives and senators that
passed both. Of course, under existing law, some private contracts, wills, etc., can be invalid (for
example, homosexual prostitution contracts or cohabitation agreements based on illicit sexual
consideration in violation of public policy). That is already the law. Amendment 3 confirms
those principles and gives them constitutional effect.
Don't Amend may be correct about one claim - that if a gay or lesbian couple break up
and one sues the other for property division or "palimony" or parenting rights, Amendment 3
could prevent a court "from grant granting an equitable division of a same sex couple's assets," or
awarding custody or visitation to a former lesbian partner of a child's mother, because "doing so
would be giving their relationship a marriage-like status." Amendment 3 is intended to prevent
treating same-sex unions as the same or substantially equivalent to marriage. Since custody,
alimony, and property division are basic, substantial incidents of marriage, that arise not by
private agreement but from the public status marriage, to extend those core public benefits to
same-sex couples in at least some cases would be tantamount to treating them as marriages and
would be barred. Again, that does not change the law but extends and protects existing
principles and protects them against distortion.
3
Page 3
000160
THE TRUE LEGAL EFFECT OF AMENDMENT THREE:
WHY THE CRITICS ARE WRONG
An Analysis Prepared by Yes! For Marriage
www .yesformarrige.org
Executive Summary
The "Don't Amend Alliance," the three candidates for Utah Attorney General, several
newspapers around the state and others are opposing Amendment 3, the proposed
constitutional amendment on the ballot November 2nd that will protect marriage, because
they claim would have a number of negative impacts, including reducing some rights and
protections Utahns currently enjoy. However, as this legal analysis clearly they are
wrong on all the points and concerns they have raised.
Amendment 3 states:
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No
other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a
marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
This amendment contains a single concept in two parts. The first sentence
explains what legal marriage is and the second part describes what it is not.
Contrary to the claims of those opposed to it, Amendment Three is actually a simple and
straightforward response to a real and growing problem: the efforts around the country to
redefine marriage through court decrees and to force states like Utah to recognize these
new definitions of marriage or civil unions that are being adopted in other states.
Yes! For Marriage believes that the voters must have the facts about Amendment Three
when they decide how to vote in November. The facts prove conclusively that
Amendment Three will not affect arrangements made by private individuals and
organizations. The facts prove conclusively that Amendment Three will not invalidate
existing rights. The facts prove conclusively that Amendment Three will not prevent the
extension of benefits to individuals based on any criteria or relationship so long as it is
not a legal status meant to approximate marriage.
This analysis addresses each of the arguments against Amendment Three in tum.
000162
THE TRUE LEGAL EFFECT OF AMENDMENT THREE:
WHY THE CRITICS ARE WRONG
YES! FOR MARRIAGE
WWW.YESFORMARRIAGE.ORG
Amendment Three, a proposed amendment to the Utah Constitution provides:
Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No
other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a
marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
The amendment contains a single concept in two parts. The first sentence explains
what legal marriage is and the second describes what it is not.
Contrary to the claims of the "Don't Amend Alliance," attorney general candidates and
others who oppose the amendment, Amendment Three is actually a simple and
straightforward response to a real-world legal problem-the effort to gain a redefinition
of marriage through court decrees and to enforce the new definition in other states.
Amendment Three will not affect arrangements made by private individuals and
organizations. It will not invalidate existing rights or prevent extension of benefits to
individuals based on criteria other than a legal status meant to approximate marriage.
This paper will address the arguments against Amendment Three in tum.
Amendment Three is Necessary
A series of recent court decisions in other states demonstrate the necessity of Amendment
Three. Until November 2003, the question whether one state would have to recognize a
same-sex marriage contracted in another state was largely academic because no state
issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
1
As a result of a decision of the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, however, Massachusetts began issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex couples in May 2004.
2
Accordingly, a same-sex couple validly
married in Massachusetts could move to another state and seek to have their marriage
recognized by another state.
Some have asserted that the amendment is unnecessary since Utah already has a statute
preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages
3
and approximations ofmarriage.
4
This
argument is undercut not only by the Massachusetts decision but by a more recent
decision by a trial court in Washington. In that decision, the court held that a marriage
1
See, Note, Litigating the Defense of Marriage Act: The Next Battleground for Same-Sex Marriage 117
HARVARD LAW REVIEW 2684, 2687-2688 (2004).
2
See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003).
3
Utah Code Annotated 30-1-2; 30-1-4.
4
2004 Utah S.B. 24.
1
000163
definition similar to Utah's was unconstitutional under the Washington Constitution.
5
Thus, the mere existence of a statute will not make Utah's marriage policy immune to
challenge.
Interestingly, the Washington decision also rebuts another argument-that Utah courts
would not make a decision similar to Massachusetts. In Washington, the ruling directly
contradicted an earlier decision of the Washington Court of Appeals.
6
Thus, predictions
about the "future course" ofUtah decisions are questionable. Amendment Three will
provide long-term protection to Utah's policy of recognizing marriage as the union of a
man and a woman.
The Second Sentence of Amendment Three is Necessary
Some critics have claimed that the second sentence of Amendment Three is unnecessary.
The sentence, however, is needed to insure that Utah law preserves the unique institution
of marriage.
In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to create a new status
for same-sex couples which provided all of the benefits of marriage under a different
name.
7
In response, the legislature created a new legal status called a "civil union." A
"civil union" was defined as "two eligible persons [who] have established a relationship
pursuant to this chapter, and mal receive the benefits and protections and be subject to
the responsibilities of spouses." This "civil union" is marriage in everything but name.
Since the Vermont law was enacted there have been a handful of cases in which plaintiffs
sought to have their civil unions recognized in other states. Some states have rejected this
claim,
9
but others have ruled that the state is required to recognize the civil union.
10
Amendment Three, therefore, is necessary to protect Utah's policy of not recognizing
alternative statuses meant to be treated as the equivalent of marriage.
In 2000, the people of California enacted Proposition 22, a ballot initiative which defined
marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
11
In response, the California Legislature
recently created a new status of domestic partners defined as "two adults who have
chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual
caring" but must involve persons of the same sex or persons over 62.
12
Thus, the effort to
define marriage in California law was severely undercut by the creation of an alternative
5
Andersen v. King County, 2004 WL 1738447 (Washington Superior Court 2004).
6
Singer v. Hara, 11 Wn.App. 247,522 P.2d 1187 (1974).
7
Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999).
8
15 Vt. Stat. Ann. 1201.
9
Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. App. 2002); Rosengarten v. Downes, 802 A.2d 170, 173 (Conn. App.
2002).
10
Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital of New York, 765 N.Y.S.2d 411 (N.Y. Nassau Cty. Ct. 2003); Salucco v.
Alldredge, 2004 WL 864459 (Mass. Super. 2004).
11
Cal. Fam. Code 308.5.
12
Cal. Fam. Code 297.
2
000164
status approximating marriage. Amendment Three would prevent his from happening in
Utah.
Amendment Three is Not Unconstitutional
Opponents of Amendment Three have made much of a recent court decision that they
believe casts the constitutionality of Amendment Three in doubt.
13
The case involves a
challenge to Article I, Section 29 of the Nebraska Constitution which provides: "Only
marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The
uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other
similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."
14
The
amendment was approved by about 70% ofthe voters in the 2000 election.
15
Opponents
have characterized Amendment Three as analogous to the Nebraska Amendment and
charged that these two amendments are the only of their kind that address both marriage
and quasi-marital statuses. In fact, the proposed federal marriage amendment
16
and
proposed amendments in four other states include language that addresses marriage
equivalents.
17
The plaintiffs in the challenge to the Nebraska law, represented by the ACLU, make the
novel claim that this state constitutional amendment violates the federal constitution
because it deprives the plaintiffs (groups that lobby for gay rights legislation) of access to
the political process.
18
The state's position was that plaintiffs are free to amend the
constitution as the group of citizens who proposed Section 29 did or to get legislation
enacted that does not violate section 29.
1
!1 The state filed a motion to dismiss the case
based largely on standing grounds, arguing that no one has been affected by the law and
that the plaintiffs' lawsuit is premature.
20
In November 2003, however Judge Joseph
Bataillon of the Nebraska federal district court denied the motion to dismiss.
21
This does
not mean the claims are valid, only that the judge believes more information is needed to
make that decision. The court also focused on the language in the Nebraska amendment
about "persons of the same sex."
22
This language is not included in Utah's proposal.
The mere possibility oflitigation over an amendment is not a valid reason to reject the
law. Every provision of state law, whether statutory or constitutional, is subject to
13
Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, 290 F.Supp.2d 1004 (D. Neb. 2003).
14
NEB. CONST., Art. I, sec. 29.
15
See Tom Shaw, Lawsuit Over 416 Readied OMAHA WORLD-HERALD lB (Nov. 19, 2000).
16
U.S. Senate Joint Resolution 60 (2004).
17
2004 Ky. S.B. 245 (prohibits recognition of a "legal status identical or substantially similar" to
marriage); 2003 Wis. A.J.R. 66 (same); 2004 La. H.B. 61 ("A legal status identical or substantially similar
to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."); 2004 Arkansas Proposed
Const. Amend. No. 3 ("Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to
marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas.").
18
Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, 290 F.Supp.2d 1004 (D. Neb. 2003).
19
Id. at 1007.
20 ld.
21
ld. at 1011.
22
Id. at 1009.
3
000165
challenge for serious or frivolous reasons. Thus, if the threat of litigation were an
appropriate reason not to enact a law, little or no law would be promulgated.
The fact that Utah's amendment is significantly different from Nebraska's, that the
litigation over Nebraska's amendment raises extremely novel legal claims, and that it is at
a very early stage at the lowest court level, suggests that the Nebraska litigation does not
provide sufficient reason to oppose Amendment Three.
Other precedent suggests that a federal challenge to Utah's marriage amendment would
be unsuccessful. For instance, a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit held that a Florida law which prohibits homosexual persons from
adopting does not violate the federal constitution.
23
The Florida law is clearly more
restrictive than the narrow provisions of Amendment Three. In addition, every court to
examine federal claims for same-sex marriage has rejected those claims.
24
A recent
California Supreme Court decision rejected the mayor of San Francisco's claim that the
state marriage law was clearly unconstitutional.
25
Amendment Three Will Not Invalidate "Common Law Marriages"
Contrary to some news reports, common law marriage is not a court created status in
Utah.
26
Instead in Utah, any common law marriage is created by statute.
27
In addition,
contrary to popular belief, a common law marriage is substantively different from just
living together. To have a common law marriage a man and woman must (1) live
together, (2) "assume marital rights, duties, and obligations," and (3) "hold themselves
out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife. "
28
Obviously, with the ease of obtaining a marriage license, this situation is not common.
Since Utah's statute recognizing common law marriage specifically requires parties to
hold themselves out as "husband and wife" and only applies to a couple consisting of a
man and a woman, it does not contradict Amendment Three, which contains the same
definition of marriage as a "union between a man and a woman." Amendment Three does
not say anything about the distinction between licensed and common law marriage and
thus cannot be read to abolish common law marriage or any of its rights or protections.
Only if the amendment had used language such as "Marriage consists only of a licensed
union between a man and a woman" could it be read to apply to common law marriages.
23
Lofton v. Secretary of Dept. of Child & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004), rehearing en bane
denied 2004 WL 1627022 (11th Cir. 2004).
24
See Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186-87 (Minn. 1972), appeal dismissed for want of substantial
federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1973); Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588, 589-90 (Ky. 1973); Singer v.
Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974); Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir.
1982) cert denied 458 U.S. 1111; Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307, 355 (D.C. 1995); Standhardt
v.Supeior Court, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
25
Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 2004 WL 1794627, *25 (Cal. 2004).
26
See Rebecca Walsh, Vote Could Void U. 's Policy on Partner Benefits SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, Aug. 12,
2004, Bl.
27
Utah Code Annotated 30-1-4.5.
28 Id.
4
000166
Instead it uses the term "legal union" and since common-law marriages are legal in Utah
and involve a man and a woman, they are not affected by Amendment 3.
Amendment Three Will Not Deny Any Protection of the Cohabitant Abuse Act
Also without basis are concerns that Amendment Three might affect Utah's Cohabitant
Abuse Act.
29
The law includes four independent factors by which a person can be
identified as a "cohabitant" for purposes of qualifying for a protective order in the event
of abuse. The final factor is that the individual "resides or has resided in the same
residence as the other party." A same-sex couple living together is covered by this
portion of the definition regardless of whether they are given any legal status as
"spouses." In addition, the act provides in subsection (2)(b) that a "cohabitant" includes
any person "living as if a spouse of the other party." The "as if' language makes clear
that, even if a cohabitant is not a spouse, he or she is a person covered by the act. This
does not give that person any legal recognition that would be prohibited by Amendment
Three; it merely identifies a covered cohabitant. A cohabitant is, by definition, not
married so Amendment Three would not affect this law.
Amendment Three Will Not Impact Health Insurance and Other Benefits
Amendment Three will have no effect on private employers who choose to offer benefits
to same- or opposite-sex partners of their employees. Not one private employer or
organization would be affected in any way by Amendment Three. The language of the
amendment is clear. It provides that a legal status ("domestic union") cannot be
recognized by the State of Utah "as a marriage" or "given the same or substantially
equivalent legal effect." Since private entities have never been able to define marriage for
legal purposes, they cannot give "legal effect" to a relationship "as a marriage."
Private individuals and organizations can give benefits to married couples. Private
individuals and organizations are also free (both now and after the passage of
Amendment Three) to give any other benefits to other individuals or relationships as they
see fit. To return to the example ofNebraska, which opponents argue is analogous to
Amendment Three, private businesses in Nebraska are still offering benefits to unmarried
partners of their employees three years after its marriage amendment went into effect.
30
In fact, a Qwest spokesman reported that their company did not believe their policy
would be affected by Amendment Three.
Opponents have specifically complained that the University of Utah's policy of providing
insurance coverage to unmarried partners of employees would be affected by the
amendment. This ignores the reality that the University's employment policy also offers
coverage for children of employees, so insurance coverage is obviously not contingent on
marital status. Thus Amendment Three, which only affects marital status or its
equivalent, has no effect on employment policies such as the University ofUtah's which
29
Utah Code Annotated 30-6-1(2)(e).
30
See Rebecca Walsh, Vote Could Void U. 's Policy on Partner Benefits SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, Aug. 12,
2004, Bl.
5
000167
provide benefits on bases other than marital status or an equivalent status. The relevant
section of Amendment Three for this claim is the phrase "equivalent legal effect." It
cannot be plausibly argued that extending one or two benefits to unmarried couples treats
those couples as legally equivalent to married couples. This same analysis would apply to
a local city's decision to offer some minor benefit like health insurance coverage to
someone designated by a public employee even if the employee is not married to that
person.
Amendment Three Will Not Adversely Impact Future Legislative Extension of
Benefits
Amendment Three will have an effect on future legislatures, but not the one that the
"Don't Amend Alliance" claims. Amendment Three would prevent the legislature from
creating a "substitute" for marriage. But, the amendment would have no effect on a
legislative decision to extend identified benefits to unmarried persons. For example,
while the legislature could not establish a "civil union" that (like Vermont's statute)
provides that where the word 'spouse" appears in the law, "partner in a civil union" or
similar terminology needs to be added, the legislature could provide that any person can
appoint any other person to make medical decisions on their behalf.
Amendment Three Has No Effect on Wills, Trusts and Other Legal Instruments
Amendment Three merely prevents the creation of a new status for unmarried couples. It
does not have any effect on individual choices regarding whom to name as a beneficiary
in a will or a similar legal document. Those decisions have never been affected by the
definition of marriage or the lack of an alternative status. Now (and after the amendment
is passed), a person can leave property to anyone that person wishes whether or not he or
she is married to that person. This understanding of the amendment is strengthened by the
fact that Utah Code Annotated 30-1-4.1, which was enacted by the same legislature that
approved Amendment Three, said that Utah's definition of marriage and prohibition of
quasi-marital statuses will not "impair[] any contract or other rights, benefits or duties
that are enforceable independently of this section."
Amendment Three Only Limits a Court's Ability to Redefine Marriage
Utah courts would be prevented by Amendment Three from creating a new status for
unmarried couples or ordering the legislature to do so (as the Vermont Supreme Court did
in 1999).
31
Otherwise, the powers currently provided to courts would be completely
unaffected by the amendment.
Amendment Three is a simple and narrow response to threats to marriage in Utah or
some other state. It ensures that our state constitution cannot be used as a lever to
redefine marriage against the will of the people of the State.
31
Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999).
6
000168
Review by the Constitutional Revision Commission is Not Mandatory
Utah's Constitutional Revision Commission has authority to review current and proposed
constitutional amendments but is not required to do so.
32
Amendment proponents may
submit their text to the Commission but may choose not to for reasons such as time
constraints. In fact, the Commission was not established until1977, so the vast majority
of the Utah Constitution was not reviewed by the Commission before it was promulgated
and no one argues that it is invalid for that reason. In fact, six members of the
Commission are also members of the state legislature
33
and were thus able to vote on the
amendment before it was sent to the people for ratification. The legislative vote in favor
ofthe amendment was 58-14 in the House and 20-7 in the Senate, both overwhelming
margms.
Finally, if a court were to make the unlikely decision in the future that Amendment Three
raises federal constitutional issues, the Commission could recommend changes to the
amendment to resolve those issues which could then be approved in general election
without the need to begin the legislative amendment process over again.
34
Conclusion
Utah's proposed Amendment Three is a necessary response to significant current threats
to marriage in the United States. It provides constitutional protection to marriage and
prevents attempts to circumvent the marriage law by creating a new status meant to have
the same effect. There is no reason to believe that Amendment Three will violate the
federal constitution. Contrary to the claims of the amendment's opponents it will have no
effect on individual benefits, private decisions, or employment benefits and will not
constrain the legislature from extending benefits like insurance coverage or hospital
visitation on a basis other than marital status. The amendment would not unduly remove
power from state courts (except to redefine marriage or create an alternative).
The only reasons to oppose Amendment Three are (1) a desire to redefine marriage to
include same-sex couples or (2) a desire to create an alternative legal status meant to have
the same effect as marriage such as civil unions. Those who share neither of these
desires, but rather desire to preserve the definition of marriage properly can and will give
effect to their desire by voting in favor of Amendment Three.
32
Utah Code Annotated 63-54-3.
33
34
7
000169

TAB 21

Don't Amend Alliance:
2 of9
http:/ lwww.dontamendalliance.com/site/PageServer?pagen.ame=amt _legal
Utahns has focused on Part II of the proposed Amendment. Part II goes far beyond
simply defining marriage and threatens harm to many Utah families. In effect, the
language of Part II states that unmarried persons who have chosen to share their lives
together in a domestic setting may not be given the same rights or any similar right to
those given to married couples. A simple analysis of Part II's language makes this clear.
Webster's Dictionary defines "domestic" as ''of or relating to the household or the family"
or "devoted to home duties and pleasures." Webster's Dictionary defines "union" as
"something formed by a combining or coalition of parts or members" or "a confederation
of independent individuals (as nations or persons) for some common purpose.''
Accordingly, together the phrase "domestic union" means the combining or coming
together of individuals for a common purpose relating to the household, family or home
duties and pleasures. Nothing in the plain meaning of those words says anything about
the presence, or lack thereof, of a sexual relationship between the parties in the
domestic union. Nor has any court anywhere in the country ever determined that those
words should be limited to couples engaged in a sexual relationship.
For example, an SO-year-old heterosexual couple that has come together to share a
home, finances and expenses and to live and care for each other in their latter years, but
whose relationship is not characterized by or focused on a sexual relationship, would be
considered to be In a "domestic union" according to the plain language of Amendment 3.
Likewise, a 55-year-old Aunt living with and being cared for by her 26-year-old niece
would be considered to have formed a "domestic union" under Part II of the proposed
amendment. Furthermore, a lesbian couple who have been in a committed and loving
long-term relationship for 15 years would be considered to be in a "domestic union"
because they have come together for the common purpose of creating a household and
sharing the duties and pleasures of forming a home. The fact that this last example may
involve a sexual relationship does not make It any more or any less a "domestic union"
for purposes of Amendment 3. The plain meaning of the words Imparts no requirement
of sex whatsoever.
Amendment 3's proponents argue that the use of the term "union" in Part I of the
amendment implies the existence of a sexual relationship and that the parallel use of the
same term in Part II of the amendment also implies a reference to a sexual relationship.
As demonstrated above, the use of the word "union" in Part I does not imply a sexual
relationship. Accordingly, it follows that Part I provides no support for interpreting Part II
as requiring such a relationship.
The intent and effect of Part II of the proposed amendment is to prevent the legal
recognition of any living arrangement between two people other than that created when
a man and a woman go to the county clerk's office and receive a marriage license from
the state.
Part II applies to all potentisl actors, not just the State of Utah
It Is critical to note that the language of Part II is addressed not only to the State of
Utah. It sets forth a universal mandate that no one in Utah may recognize or give legal
recognition or any marital right or benefit to any partnership relationship other than a
formal marriage. Its broad-reaching scope addresses everyone who may be in a position
to extend any kind of rights or recognition to unmarried couples. It applies to the State
of Utah; but it also applies to private entities such as private employers who may seek to
extend marital-like benefits to partners of their unmarried employees. The scope of Part
II as drafted is so broad that It may also be deemed applicable to religious Institutions In
the state which currently bless and recognize same-sex unions.
Because opposition to Amendment 3 has focused on Part II, the damaging effect of that
Part of the Amendment will be considered first. Then this paper will turn to examining
why Part I is entirely unnecessary .
. Il of Amendment 3 is Hurtfu!!-2 Families
Let's begin by exploring how Part II of Amendment 3 limits the State of Utah as well as
private entities from extending any partnership rights and protections to unmarried
couples in nontraditional families.
.. . .. 9.f..f..l!.tY.t:f!
Basic Legal Rights and Protections to Nontraditional Families
If Amendment 3 passes, the Utah Legislature will be prohibited from extending even the
most basic partnership rights to unmarried state employees who are involved in a
domestic union. Included among such marital-like rights that will be foreclosed to such
state employees are:
1. The right to health care benefits for the unmarried partner of a state
employee;
2. The right of a state employee to take family leave for sick care and
10/2112004 8:32AM
000172
3 of9
http://www.dontamendaUiance.com/site/PageServer?pagename=amt_legal
funeral leave for an unmarried partner;
3. The right to worker's compensation benefits for an unmarried partner
in the event of a state employee's death on the j ob; and
4. The right to pension and accidental death benefits for the unmarried
partner of a state employee.
But the limitations of Part II reach far beyond the workplace and the state's granting of
benefits to state employees. The Utah Legislature will be prohibited from extending a
host of other rights and benefits to all unmarried partners in nontraditional relationships.
Among such benefits that the Legislature will be prohibited from extending are;
1. The right to visit and to make emergency health care decisions for
one's life partner in the hospital. Equally troubling, if Amendment 3
passes, not only will the Legislature not be able to mandate by statute
that unmarried couples have hospital visitation and the ability to make
emergency health care decisions for one another; a private hospital
may interpret the Amendment as prohibiting lt from ever extending
such privileges to unmarried couples;
2. The right to make funeral decisions for one's unmarried partner, as
well as dedslons concerning organ donations;
3. The right to be heard in civil commitment proceedings for one's
unmarried partner;
4. The right to inherit from one' s unmarried partner through the Intestacy
laws in the event of death without a will;
5. The right to bring a wrongful death lawsuit for loss of care, support,
attention and counsel of one's unmarried partner;
6. Protection under the state's victim's rights laws the same as that given
spouses; or
7. Exemption from paying a state transfer tax when conveying property
to one's unmarried partner.
Other rights potentially impacted by Amendment 3 will be discussed ln more detail
below.
The Experience In Nebraska Supports the Conclusion that Amendment 3 will Hurt
Y.[JJ!J!!,rr/ed Couples and Their Families in Utah
Because Amendment 3 would prohibit the Utah Legislature from proposing or enacting
even the most limited and basic legal rights and protections for couples in a domestic
union, the amendment effectively forever prevents the Legislature from ever even
debati ng the public policy question of affording any legal rights and benefits to
non-traditional couples. This conclusion is supported by the experience of the State of
Nebraska under similar circumstances-the only real world exi!lmple in which a provision
i!lki n to Part II was inserted into a state constitution.
In 2000, Nebraska amended its constitution with a provisi on similar t o Amendment 3.
The Nebraska l anguage was interpreted by the Nebraska Attorney General as prohibiting
proposed legisl ation that would have granted the survivi ng partner i n a domesti c union
the right to make funeral arrangements and organ donation decisi ons for the deceased
partner regardl ess of the sexual orientation of the parties in the domestic union. The
Nebraska Attorney General explained i n a formal legal opinion Interpreting the Nebraska
amendment that:
[S]uch legislation would create new rights which spring from recognition of
a domestic partnership; a partnership which could comprise same sex
couples. And the rights being created are placed on the same plane as
rights which arise as a consequence of the marital relationship. This would
give legal effect to a same sex relationship, thereby validating or
recognizing it, which runs counter to Art. 1, 29.
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, Compatibility of Legislation to Vest Rights in
Domestic Partners and Neb. Const. Art. I, Section 29, March 10, 2003 at 2.
Attorney General Shurtleff and his two opponents for that position all agree that the
Nebraska Attorney General's reasoning is directly applicable to Amendment 3 In Uti!lh.
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, News Release, Attorney General Explains
Opposition to Proposed Utah Marriage Amendment, August 5, 2004 {"This
gees too far. It could forever deny to a group of citizens the right to approach its
to seek benefits and protections. That is bad law and should be rejected by
the f air-minded citizens of the state of Utah."); Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, Greg
Andrew McCullough, Joint Statement Regardi ng Proposed Amendment 3,
August 5, 2004 {"As written, Part Two of the pr oposed amendment would prohibit the
10121/2004 8:32 AM
000173
4 of9
http://www.dontarnendalliance.com/site/PageServer?pagename=arnt_legal
Utah Legislature from ever extending even the most basic partnership rights to an
unmarried couple, such as rights to hospital visitation, to emergency medical
decision-making, and to inheritance."); Deborah Bulkeley, Shurtleff stands by his
criticism of Amendment 3, Deseret Morning News, Sept. 17, 2004.
Part II of Amendment 3 Could Prohibit Private Employers from Extending Basic
Legal Rights and Protections to Nontraditional Families
Amendment 3's categorical prohibition on extending marriage-like rights and benefits to
same-sex couples could directly jeopardize a private employer's ability to offer
employment benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. As suggested above,
the language in Part II of Amendment 3 is broad and general and addressed not only to
the state. Accordingly, a court or private employer could read Part II to prohibit a private
employer from extending any of the marital like rights and benefits listed above to
unmarried employees living In domestic unions. This would affect not only private
employers currently offering such benefits to their unmarried employees; it would also
prohibit private employers not currently offering such benefits from choosing to do so in
the future. The proponents of Amendment 3 claim that Part II of the amendment will not
affect private employers because "domestic union" refers to a legal status that only the
state can define and to which only the state can "give legal effect." Given the broad
language of Part II, the state Is not the only actor affected by the proposed amendment.
Private employers are also In a position to, and in fact do, recognize and grant
partnership benefits to their unmarried employees. Accordingly, such private employers
will in all likelihood be directly affected by Amendment 3.
Amendment 3 May Affect the Equitable Powers of Courts
Amendment 3 may also impact a court's power to grant an equitable division of an
unmarried (straight or gay) couple's assets in the event of the couple's separation,
because to do so would treat that relationship like a marriage. Utah courts, when faced
with dissolution of nontraditional relationships have on occasion relied upon on their
equitable powers to divide property and assets. Amendment 3 will undermine Utah
courts' ability to exercise such powers.
3 Brings into Question Enforceaf!l111Y. .. Ii!f..f::!tgal
Documents Meant to Replicate the Legal Rights and Benefits of Marriage
Because the law does not automatically create partnership rights for unmarried couples,
such couples often rely on certain legal instruments, documents and contracts in an
attempt to replicate the rights and benefits of marriage. In essence, these couples rely
upon such legal arrangements to create their domestic union. The very existence of a
"domestic union" between such a couple springs from those legal arrangements just as
the "legal union" between a man and a woman arises from the marriage license granted
by the state.
Part II of Amendment 3 would bring into doubt the validity and enforceability of these
legal arrangements that are used to create unmarried domestic unions. Amendment 3
states categorically that Utah will not give legal effect to any domestic relationship other
than the legal union between a man and a woman. Presumably, any attempt whatsoever
to gain the same or substantially similar legal rights and benefits by a nontraditional
unmarried couple would be prohibited under Part II's categorical statement of pubic
policy. In other words, a court would be barred by Part II from enforcing the legal
documents and instruments used by nontraditional unmarried couples to replicate the
rights and benefits of traditional marriage. Passage of Amendment 3 also would increase
the likelihood of success of potential challenges to those legal documents and
arrangements that nontraditional unmarried couples use to create their "domestic
unions." The sweeping language of Part II of the Amendment hands a powerful
constitutionally-basad argument against the enforcement of such legal instruments to
family members unsympathetic and hostile to the nontraditional relationship.
It Is clear that the Utah Legislature was aware of this concern over the effect that the
"substantially equivalent legal effect" language might have on the validity of legal
instruments and arrangements. When the 2004 Legislature adopted S.B. 24 (now U.C.A.
30-14.1), it specifically included a provision stating that the new law would not
"impair contract or other rights that are enforceable Independently of this section." No
such protective language is included in Amendment 3.
.. ..
Cohabitant Abuse Act
Particularly troubling is the possibility that Part II of Amendment 3 may deny protections
to unmarried couples under the Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act ("Act"). Currently, unmarried
couples are afforded protections and have access to protective orders under that Act.
Were Amendment 3 passed, a court might feel bound to Interpret the "living as if a
spouse of the other party" or "resides or has resided In the same residence as the other
party" in that statute as falling within the broad "domestic union" language of Part II.
10/21/2004 8:32AM
000174
6of9
http://www.dontamendalliance.com/site/PageServer'?pagen.ame=amt_legal
The Utah Legislature could choose to redefine marriage as something other than the
legal union between a man and a woman. Given the current make-up of the Utah
Legislature, this possibility is totally implausible. Utah has one of the most conservative
legislatures in the country. It has already codified the traditional definition of marriage
and banned same-sex marriage in Utah. There Is absolutely no chance-absent a great
sea change in the ideology of the state-that the Utah Legislature will redefine marriage
in this state.
Judicial Redefinition in State Court
The Utah Supreme Court could presumably, in response to a legal challenge to the
state's marriage laws, redefine marriage. The proponents of Amendment 3 cite examples
of courts in Massachusetts and Vermont to stir fears of similar "liberal judicial activism"
here in Utah. Again, this scenario Is equally implausible. The Utah Supreme Court is one
of the most conservative In the country. Four of the five current sitting Justices on that
court were appointed by Republican Governor Mike Leavitt and confirmed by a
Republican-controlled Utah Senate within the last four years. Furthermore, in the last
twenty-seven years, there has been ample opportunity for the "radical homosexual
agenda" to attempt to redefine marriage in Utah by coaxing Utah Judges Into action. In
fact, no challenge to Utah's marriage laws has ever been filed, let alone considered by
the Utah Supreme Court. The truth of the matter is that the claim that activist judges
will redefine marriage in Utah is nothing more than a scare tactic aimed at evoking a
knee-jerk. reaction from the Utah electorate.
Judicial Redefinition in Federal Court The Full Feith and Credit Clause
Finally, supporters of Amendment 3 have claimed that a same-sex couple validly married
in another state such as Massachusetts could move to this state and attempt to have
their marriage recognized here. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United
States Constitution, a federal judge In Utah could force the state to recognize a
same-sex marriage from another state like Massachusetts. But no language in the Utah
Constitution could foreclose such action by a federal judge because under these
circumstances, that judge would be interpreting the federal, not the state, constitution.
Passing Amendment 3 would provide no protection from this scenario.
Moreover, under the public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause it is
unlikely that a federal judge In Utah would in fact force Utah to recognize a foreign
same-sex marriage. Under this exception, if a state has a strong public policy which
conflicts with the law or act of another state, it will not be forced to recognize or enforce
the law or act of the other state. Accordingly, based on Utah's long-standing and strong
public policy against the recognition of same-sex marriages, it Is Improbable that a
federal judge would forced the state to recognize such a marriage performed in another
state.
Utah's stated public policy can be found in the three statutes mentioned above that have
been on the books in Utah since 1977. In the statute passed just this year, the Utah
Legislature explicated stated: "It Is the policy of this state to recognize as marriage only
the legal union of a man and a woman as provided in this chapter." Utah Code Ann.
30-14.1. This statement of Utah public policy is more than sufficient to trigger the
protections of the public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Amendment
3 proponents' assertion that Utah's statement of public policy on this subject and for this
purpose must be made In the Utah Constitution is incorrect. Adding Amendment 3 to the
Utah Constitution Is simply unnecessary to application of the public policy exception.
Additional protection against "liberal activism" by federal judges is also found in the
Defense of Marriage Act, enacted by the United States Congress in 1996. That federal
law ensures that no state can be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in
another state. Recently a federal district court in Washington State ruled that the
Defense of Marriage Act was constitutional. No court has ever held that the Defense of
Marriage Act is unconstitutional or unenforceable.
Finally, the Full Faith and Credit Clause has never been used to force one state to
recognize an unwanted marriage from another state. Even during that period in United
States history when states had differing views on Inter-racial marriage, no state
outlawing inter-racial marriage was forced by any court to recognize an inter-racial
marriage from another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Despite recent court decisions and legislative acts in other states, there simply is no
realistic concern that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution might be
used by a federal judge to force Utah to recognize same-sex marriages from another
state.
Amendment 3 is not necessary to stop so-called "Counterfeit Marriages"
Proponents of Amendment 3 claim that Part II of the Amendment is necessary to
10/21/2004 8:32AM
000176
7 of9
http://www.donta.mendallia.nce.com/site/PageServer?pagenume=amt_Jegal
"preserve the unique institution of marriage" and to prevent so-called "counterfeit
marriages" such as civil unions in Vermont and domestic partnerships i n California.
Again, fears that Utah will follow in the footsteps of Vermont or California are unfounded
and only intended to play on the fears of the Utah electorate.
Amendment 3's promoters presumably fear that the Utah Supreme Court will force the
Legislature to enact a l egal status similar to marriage recognizing same-sex
relationships. As previously discussed, this seems highly improbabl e given the current
composition of the Court. Just as improbable is the notion that the Utah Supreme Court
would hold that Utah must recognize a civil uni on or other "counterfeit marriage" from
another state.
Supporters of the amendment also citl! ev11nts in California to suggest that Part II of the
Amendment is necessary. In California, in 2000, voters approved a statewide proposition
that codified in California law a traditional definition of marriage. Two elections and four
years later, the California Legislature created domestic partnershi ps for same-sex
couples. Amendment 3's proponents characterize this legislative enactment as the
product of a "run-away" legislature. Instead, the legislative process worked exactly as it
should in California with the people's representatives legislating on a subject important
to the state and the people. The domestic partnership law enacted in California did not
change the definition of marriage. In California, marriage Is exclusively a union between
a man and a woman.
Again, the bottom line is the Utah Courts end the Utah Legislature are not going to
sanction the creation or recognition of so-called "counterfeit marriages," making
Amendment 3 wholly unnecessary.
Amendment 3 is Subiect to Feder21l Constityt!onl Challenge
Despite the attempts of the proponents of Amendment 3 to minimize the ongoing
litigation underway In federal court in Nebraska over a similar provision to the Nebraska
Constitution, Nebraska's experi ence simply cannot be dismissed out of hand. The
litigation over Nebraska's amendment bodes ill for Utah's proposed amendment. The
Nebraska federal district court has denied the state's motion t o dismiss the "novel"
constitutional cl aim (based in part on the 1996 Supreme Court case, Romer v. Evans,
517 U.S. 620, which incidentally Is still good law) against the Nebraska Amendment.
The ongoing l itigation in Nebraska prompted Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff to
contact his counterpart in Nebraska about the issue. See Deborah Bulkeley, Shurtleff
stands by his criticJsm of Amendment 3, Deseret Morning News, Sept. 17, 2004.
After comparing Utah's amendment to the Nebraska amendment and discussing the
Nebraska litigation with the Nebraska Attorney General, Shurtleff concluded that
"[Amendment 3] could forever deny to a group of citizens the right to approach its
legislature to seek benefits and protections"-preclsely one of the arguments being
pursued in the Nebraska litigation. Obviously Attorney General Shurtleff does not share
the proponents' optimism over the outcome of the litigation in Nebraska or their
characterization of the Nebraska claims as "novel."
Despite their attempt, the proponents of Amendment 3 fall to identify any material
differences between the proposed Utah amendment and the Nebraska amendment. In
fact, Nebraska's amendment is narrower than the broad-reaching language of Utah's
proposed Amendment 3 because the Nebraska amendment focused only on same-sex
domestic partnerships and civil unions and is a mere "recognition" provision that does
not go as far as limiting the "legal effect" of domestic unions in general. If a more
narrowly and carefully drawn amendment is subject to constitutional challenge, there is
no doubt that the vague and broadly drawn Amendment 3 will be subject to serious
challenge in the courts.
Amendment 3 Bypassed the Utah Constitutional Revision Commission
Since the early 1970s, proposed constitutional amendments are usually considered by
the Utah Constitutional Revision Commission ( " C R C ~ ) before being presented to the
electorate. Amendment 3 is the first serious substantive amendment in Utah history to
bypass this important body.
The CRC was created in the late 1960s to review the Utah Constitution and propose
amendments to update this important document. In the 1970s, the CRC was made
permanent and given the task of reviewing ell proposed constitutional amendments to
ensure that the prospect of amending our foundational documents was not taken lightly
or done in a haphazard way. The CRC Is made up of some of the finest legal and
constitutional experts and scholars In Utah, e.g., the Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme
Court, the deans of the Utah's two law schools, members of the House and Senate
Judiciary Committees, the Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives and other
judges.
The supporters of Amendment 3 attempt to downplay the CRC's role. Whether the
10/2ll2004 8:32AM
000177
8 of9
http://www.dontamendalliance.com/site/PageServer?pagem:Jme=aml_legal
sponsors of Amendment 3 chose to skip CRC review out of sloppiness and haste or
whether they knew that the CRC would identify the many flaws and negative impacts of
the proposed amendment's language, many of the problems associated with Amendment
3 would likely have been caught by the CRC. Governor Olene Walker, a former member
of the CRC, identified as one of her concerns about Amendment 3 that this proposed
amendment did not first go through CRC review.
Amendment 3's sponsors' assertion that "if a court were to make the unlikely decision in
the future that Amendment Three raises federal constitutional issues, the Commission
could recommend changes to the amendment to resolve those issues which could then
be approved in the general election without the need to begin the legislative amendment
process over again" is flatly wrong. Were a federal court to conclude that any part of the
amendment is unconstitutional, It Is likely the entire amendment will be struck down.
This would require beginning the amendment process over again, i.e., a proposed
amendment would require two-thirds approval in both houses of the Utah Legislature
and majority approval by the Utah electorate. Contrary to the amendment proponents'
claim, there is no quick fix to mistakes made in amending our state constitution.
Amendment 3's Supporters' Reliance on Lofton is Misplaced
On numerous occasions, the proponents of Amendment 3 cite to Lofton v. Secretary of
the Department of Children and Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004) for the
proposition that proposed Amendment 3 would withstand constitutional scrutiny under
the federal constitution. This reliance Is misplaced, and the proponents severely distort
what the court said in that case. Moreover, the proponents conveniently ignore a much
more important decision that could potentially impact litigation over Amendment 3, the
United State Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
Lofton involved a challenge to the state of Florida's categorical ban on adoption by gay
and lesbian individuals. While the Eleventh Circuit did uphold Florida's gay adoption ban,
it noted the unique context of the prohibition and the court explicitly limited its holding
to adoption:
Because of the primacy of the welfare of the child, the state can make
classifications for adoption purposes that would be constitutionally suspect
in other arenas . Many of these preferences and requirements [of the
Florida adoption scheme], if employed outside the adoption arena, would
be unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Lofton, 358 F.3d at 810.
Amendment 3's supporters read Lofton as a broad license to deny basic rights and legal
recognition to gay and lesbian Utahns. They conveniently ignore the limiting language of
the Lofton opinion. Also of note, Lofton has now been appealed to the United States
Supreme Court for review. Given the LawrenCI! case discussed below, many legal
scholars suggest that Lofton will be overturned on appeal.
But more importantly, Amendment 3's proponents totally ignore the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision In Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003). In Lawrence, the Court
struck down as unconstitutional a Texas statute that criminalized private consensual
sodomy between persons of the same sex. In doing so the Court noted that:
It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon
[same-sex relationships] in the confines of their homes and their own
private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality
finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the
conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.
The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the
right to make this choice.
Lawrence, 123 s.a. at 2478. Furthermore, Lawrence grounded its holding in previous
Supreme Court precedent that confirms that "our laws and tradition afford constitutional
protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family
relationships, child rearing, and education." Id. at 2481. In effect, the Supreme Court
has stated that relationships between same-sex couples are worthy of the same dignity
and respect as that given to opposite sex couples.
The proponents of Amendment 3 contend that every single one of the dozens and dozens
of concerns that have been raised about Amendment 3 have no validity. It is simply
Implausible that the literally hundreds of lawyers, legal experts, and life-long students of
constitutional law are all wrong. The list of legal experts that oppose the amendment is
Impressive: the past two attorney's general and all three of this years candidates for
attorney general, the leadership of the Utah Bar Association's Family Law Section, law
professors, judges, and now a new group called Lawyers for Sound Constitutional
Amendments, which will have hundreds of members before the election.
10/21/2004 8:32AM
000178
9 of9
http://www.dontamendalliance.com/siteiPageServer?pagename=amt_legal
Who are we going to trust? The people who have a vested Interest in the amendment
because they drafted, sponsored and voted for It and who would have to admit that they
were wrong If they even acknowledge the possibility that the amendment is flawed and
hurtful? Or are we going to trust the majority of legal experts, those who simply are
concerned about hurting people and permanently altering our constitution with a flawed
amendment that goes too far.
About Amendment 3
Frequently Asked Questions
Talking Points about Amendment 3
Don't Amend Alliance
175 West 200 S o u t h ~ Suite 2006, Salt lake City, Utah, 84101
Office (801) 746-1314 Fax (801) 746-1319
Contact Us
10/21/2004 8:32AM
000179
GET UPDAl'ED
email
zip code
GET INFORMED
Home
Amendment Text
Legal Implications
FAQ
Talking Points
Press Coverage
Alliance Partners
GET INVOLVED
Action Center
Sign the Petition
Calendar
House Parties
Volunteer
Donate
Tell a Friend
Register to Vote
RESOURCES
Downloads
Lawn Signs
Speaker Requests
Important Dates
Contact Us
,/"Go
Press Coverage
For Immediate Release
Friday, August 6, 2004
Page 1 of 1
JOIN THE CAMPAIGN ACnON CE
Attorney General Candidates Agree on One Thing: Amendment 3
Goes Too Far
In joint statement, Shurtleff, Skordas, and McCullough oppose proposed
constitutional amendment because Part 2 is bad law.
Salt Lake City - The Don't Amend Alliance today announced that the three candidates for
Attorney General of Utah have agreed to issue a joint statement opposing Amendment 3,
the marriage and legal rights amendment that will be on Utah's ballot in November. The
candidates realize that the amendment is overly broad and will have unintended
consequences that will hurt real Utahns and their families.
Joint Statement Regarding Proposed Amendment # 3
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, Greg Skordas, Andrew McCullough
Utahns of good faith disagree over whether the state constitution should be amended to
define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. We respect each citizen's views on
this complex issue. However, because proposed Amendment 3 goes far beyond simply
defining marriage, and would prove unnecessarily hurtful to many Utahns and their
families, we oppose the amendment.
As written, Part Two of the proposed amendment would prohibit the Utah Legislature
from ever extending even the most basic partnership rights to an unmarried couple, such
as rights to hospital visitation, to emergency medical decision-making, and to
inheritance. Moreover, Part Two's overly broad language could lead private employers in
Utah to question the legality of their desire to extend certain benefits (such as
healthcare) to unmarried partners of employees.
Furthermore, proposed constitutional amendments, such as Amendment 3, ought to be
given the careful scrutiny of the Utah Constitutional Revision Commission.
For these reasons, we oppose adoption of Amendment 3.
Don't Amend Alliance
175 West 200 South "' Suite 2006, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101
Office (801) 746-1314 Fax (801) 746-1319
Contact Us
http://www .dontamendalliance.cornlsite/PageServer?pagename=prc _ 080604 9/112004
000182

TAB 22

1011/13 AG. caroidates unite against gay1T9rriage a .. J The Salt l.aJie Trlbure
Utht fnkt
A. G. candidates unite against gay marriage amendment
Utah ballot: McCulbugh, Shurtleff and SkoiOas all agree the rreasure \IIIOUid have negative consequences
BY RBlea:A. WALSH
TI-E SAlT lAKE mBt.H::
FU!I..ISI) AOOUST 7. 200ol1 !50 AM
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and infonnation in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for
personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Legal training trumped political self-interest when three candidates for attorney general issued a rare joint statement Friday against a
proposed amendment to the Utah Constitution meant to block gay marriage.
Libertarian Andrew McCullough, Republican Mark Shurtleff and Democrat Greg Skordas say the potential ramifications of the ballot
question forced them to issue the unusual news release. Although Shurtleff opposes gay marriage, McCullough does not and Skordas wnt
not say where he stands on the fundamental question, the three candidates came together- on paper at least.
The statement said "because proposed Amendment 3 goes far beyond simply defining marriage. and would prove unnecessarily hurtful to
many Utahns and their families, we oppose the amendment."
"'ritten by Draper Republican Rep. LaVar Christensen for the 2004 Legislature, Amendment 3 has two parts. Like proposed
constitutional changes on the ballot in at least 10 states this yea a, Utah's amendment would define marriage as the union between a man
and a woman. A second clause prohibits re<:ognition of tummon law marriages and civil unions: "No other domestic union, hmvever
denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equhalent effect."
The candidates say that second section would block lawmakers from extending basic partnership rights of hospital visitation, emE"rgency
medical decision-making and inheritance to thousands of unmarried Utah couples- gay and straight. Tltey worry if voters approve the
amendment, the change could throw some Utah employers' benefits packages into chaos. And they note the amendment was not
reviewed by the state's Constitutional Revision Commission.
Since 1987, Utah has recognized so-called "common Ia\\'" marriages for couples who have lived together and acted like husband and \\-ife.
The state is home to about 24,000 unmarried, heterosexual partners, according to 2000 census figures. Another 3.400 same-sex couples
live in Utah.
Utah's amendment simply invites litigation on their behalf, the attorneys say. Gay rights groups challenged similar language in a 2000
Nebraska initiative on constitutional grounds. That rose is pending in federal court.
ShurtlE'ff says Utah's amendment is equally problematic. "It potentially deprives a bunch of Utahns - not just same-sex couples, but
heterosexual wmmon-law couples as well as their children- a set of basic. fundamental rights," he said. "It wuld forever deny to a group
of citizens the right to approach its legislature to seek benefits and protections."
McCullough's campaign manager and Jaw firm partner Rob Latham added: "This thing is so flawed, it's difficult to find an attorney
paacticing in Utah who thinks it's a good thing. It just creates a mess."
And Skordas says the amendment is unne<:essary, given lawmakE-rs' repeated efforts to pepper state statutE's with traditional definitions
of marriage.
''Anytime you have a constitutional amendment, you can count on decades of challenges and thousands and thousands of dollars trying to
interpret what the amendment means," Slwrdas said. "We spend a lot of time and money trying to define the Constitution. This isn't an
issue that needs to go down that road."
The amendment is unquestionably popular in conservathe Utah. Last month, The Church of ,resus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a
statement supporting amending both the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions to block gay marriage. A Salt LL1ke Tribune poll in May
showed most Utahns would vote for such au amendmeut.
The amendment co-sponsor, Sen. Chris Buttars, R- West Jordan, disagrees with aU three attomeys' interpretation of the language.
Buttars argues both parts of the amendment ure necessary; the second paragraph the first. He believes Utahns still will vote
for the amendment, despite the attorney general candidates' concerns.
"They're going to give the homosexual community some help causing confusion," Buttars said. "But Utahns still "'ill vote in favor of the
amendment."
But Don't Amend Alliance director Scott McCoy, whose group is leading the fight against the amendment, figures the candidates'
agreement will neutralize a sensitive issue - at least in the race to be attorney generaL McCoy talked to each candidatE' individuatiy,
discovert'd their common thinking and suggested the collective statement.
"This was meant to be a political wedge issue," he said. "By bringing all the candidates together, we're trying to neutralize this, making it a
non-issue. It can neither hurt anyone nor help anyone when they all come out together in a statement."
While the joint statement "'ith Skordas and McCullough provides all three candidates with political cover, Republican Shurtleff has the
archhe.sltrlb.coi1Vprlntfriendly.php?ld=2389508&itype:=ngpsid 112
000187
1G'1/13 AG. candidates unite against gaymmlage a .. I The Salt Tritule
most tolwe.
The attorne)' general acknowledged worrying about alienating his consenative base and lawmakers.
"If I were making a strictly political decision, 1 wouldn't say a word. The right wing is not that forgiving," Shurtleff said. "But once it
passes, it's passed. I don't think we can go bacl\.1 just felt like I couldn't l<eep quiet on it."
Brigham Young University Political Science Department d1airman Kelly Patterson said Shurtleff will have to explain his position to
conservative voters. That explanation could be tricky.
"It's a complex legal argument that ultimately he'll have to make to voters. And the more you have to explain yourself to voters, the more
likely you are to get into trouble," Patterson said.
At the same time, Patterson said, most Utah voters are staunchly conservathe. They have no alternatiYe to Shurtleff. "1 doubt this issue-
.,..iJll>e the cutting point on most voters make their decisions about Shurtleff and S'kordas," he said.
Joint Statement Regarding Proposed Amendment No. 3
Utahns of good faith disagree over whether the state constitution should be amended to define marriage as the union of a man and a
\\"'man. We respect each citizen's views on this complex issue.
However, because proposed Amendment 3 goes far beyond simply defining marriage, and would prO\'e unnecessarily hurtful to many
Utahns and their families, we oppose the amendment.
As ''Titten, Part Two of the proposed amendment would prohibit the Utah Legislature from ever ex tending even the mast basic
partnership rights to an unmarried couple, such as rights to hospital visitation, to emergency mediCI! I decision-making, and to inheritance.
Moreover, Part Two's overly brond language could lead private employers in Utah to question the legality of their desire to extend certain
benefits (such as health care) to unma1ried partne-rs of employees.
Furthermore, proposed constitutional amendments, such as Amendment 3, ought to be given the careful scrutiny of the Utah
O:lnstitutional Revision Commission.
For these reasons, we oppose adoption of Amendment J.
- Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, Greg Skordas, Andrew McCullough
C> Copyrighl2013 The Seh I.Jii01 Tribune. AI Resarveo. Thi$ Mot9(1aJ Way 89 Raw ri!lan Or RIJ<!isuib<Jied.
archile.sltrib.com'!rinlfrierJlly.php?id== 2389506&l l)pe=ng psid
000188
1011/13 Atnefldl'l'ent 3 ad wars undef way I The Salt LaJ!e Trlbure
$bt inlt tnkt mnbunt
Amendment 3 ad wars under way
Down the stretch: Both sides are gearing for battle on the issue of defining marriage in Utah Dawn the stretch: Both sides are spending
thousands on the issue of defining rrarriage in Utah
BY REBECCA
n-E SALT lAKE TRBI..N:
1'\.l!USI-ED OCTOBER 8 2004 1 28 AM
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2004, and information in the article may be outdatEd. It is pro\'ided only for
personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Between "Jeopardy" and "Wheel of Fortune," the first televised sal\'o in Utah's culture war over gar marriage aired this week.
Utahns for a Better Tomorrow, one of a walition of four political issues committees organized in support of Amendment 3, paid S4,8oo for
a da.z:en 30-second slots to run Wednesday through tonight in the game show hour on KJZZ, Channel14.
With the headline "The Simple Truth About a Simple Amendment," the advertisement features two couples- one engaged, the other
married. The woman stands in front of a green background, reading the text of the two-part amendment.
The first sentence defines marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman. A second clause states that "no other domestic union,
however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."
"That's the entire amendment," she says.
Then a man wnlks in behind her. "By supporting Amendment 3, you're saying yes to marriage the wny yon\:e always knm"11 it,'' he says.
"Simple," she concludes.
On the other side, the Don't Amend Alliance unveiled four television ads and four radio ads this week that will air Oct. 18 through Nov. 1.
The Alliance will pay $2oo,ooo to $220,000 to air the ads on all major broadcast stations three or four times a day.
The Alliance ads feature two Utah families: Gary and Millie Watts, a Provo couple \\ith six children, two who are gay, and Ed and Bobbie
Butterfield from Sandy, who have a gay son.
Interspersed with black-and-white family photos, the couples tell their stories. Wiping away tears Millie Watts admits her 0\"'11
misconceptions- she thought gay people only lived in San Francisco until one of her children C<Jme out. Gary Watts laments America's
cultural divide and says the solution is living by the Golden Rule.
"Our ads have real, traditional Utah families who will be hurt by Amendment 3,'' says Alliance director Scott McCoy.
University of Utnh communications professor .Ken Foster says the emotional pull of the Alliance's ads might appeal more to voters.
But the Alliance's task in co11Se1vative Utah might be too daunting.
"An emotional appeal is far more liket) to have an effect than a rational appeal. But it only goes so tar," Foster says. ''In this case, it has to
change values. That just isn't likely to happen."
In four less personnl radio ads, Alliance narrators riff on .Eagle Forum President Gnyle Ruzicka's criticism of Attorney General Mark
Shutleffs concerns about the amendment. Another uses taped floor debate from the Lr1st night of the 2004 Legislature, quoting Orem
Republican Rep. Jim Ferrin, Rep. David Ure, a Republican from Kamas, and Salt Lake City Democratic Rep. Scott Daniels aU urging
caution when amending the Utah Constitution.
"The amendn1ent writers only meant to hurt gays and lesbians," a female narrator says. "But their shotgun approo.ch will hurt thousands
of heterosexual couples, their children. None of us want to hurt people, our friends and relatives with a pennanent, flawed amendment."
All of the ads end with the Alliance mantra: "It goes too tar."
To listen to the ads before they I'Un, Jog on to http://WY"\V. dontamendalliance.com.
Amendment supporters paid $9,000 for ads also running on KTVX, Channel4. Yes on 3 consultant Nancy Pomeroy said she does
not know if amendment supporters' ads \'l'iU air on any other Utah stations o1 next week. The ads can be renewed week by week.
"There is no further information available on the media buy," Pomeroy said. "They've been released. They're out there. Wntch. That's aU
l can tell you about them right now."
Foster says both groups will have to spend between $65,000 to $8o,ooo to create any "significant media noise levels" and catch voters'
attention.
C Copyri;jhl 2013 The Sell llll<e Tribune. AI Rights Restorvea. Tl1i$ Mi!IG<!lll May 6e 1'\Jblish.,O. Broadcll$1. Rew ritlen Or Redlstrlbule<l.
2424411&it:J!Je= rg psid 1/1
000189
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 13 of 68
Print .M:ticle http://www .sltrib.com/portlet/articlelht
Print Article
36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 15 of 68
Print J rticle http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/prin ...
1 nt?
The impossible dream
Salt Lake Tribune
2004-08-29 23:04:04.283
"Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
LEWIS CARROLL, Through the Looking Glass
Perhaps Jon Huntsman Jr. wants us to believe that his position favoring certain
benefits for same-sex couples- just as he favors a proposed amendment to the
Utah Constitution that would ban certain benefits for same-sex couples - is an
example of his outside-the-box thinking.
The stand assumed by the Republican candidate for governor certainly is
different than that held by all those starched-collar lawyers who say it can't be
done.
And these aren't just any lawyers. Those who say that Huntsman is holding two
mutually exclusive positions on the matter include not only Huntsman's
Democratic opponent- and dean of the University of Utah law school- Scott
Matheson Jr., but also the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian candidates for
Utah attorney generaL
Huntsman and Matheson, like nearly every other non-suicidal politician in Utah,
agree that marriage is something for a man and a woman. But the words that are
being offered for Utah voters to say that Nov. 2, Amendment 3, don't stop there.
The amendment goes on to say, No other domestic union, however
denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially
equivalent legal effect.
What that means, apparently, according to any lawyer worth his billable hours,
is that the state may neither offer nor allow any sort of alternative to marriage for
gay partners or unmarried straight couples. That means no law, and perhaps even
no employment-based or private deal, extending health coverage, hospital visits
and decision-making, joint ownership or anything else like marriage to any union
other than legally recognized boy-girl matrimony.
0 ~ / ~ 0 / ? 0 0 4 1 017 AM
000194
Prim ;\.rticle http://www .sltrib.corn/portlet/article!htmVfragments/prin ...
2 of2
Thus the opposition to Amendment 3, from Democrat Matheson, from the
incwnbent Republican attorney general and from the two men trying to become
attorney generaL Outgoing Gov. Olene Walker, not a lawyer but a long-time
public official, has also wondered aloud if the amendment isn't constitutional
overkill.
Not only would the second part of Amendment 3 block whichever governor and
whatever Legislature from making policy on domestic benefits short of marriage,
it would also drag whoever is attorney general into court with a losing hand.
Huntsman, nevertheless, favors Amendment 3. He also proposes what he calls
some reciprocal beneficiary legislation that would allow domestic partners, gay or
otherwise, to contractually establish an intermingling of their economic, medical
and other important affairs.
By backing Amendment 3, and then proposing to do things that amendment says
he can't, Huntsman is promising something he can't logically deliver.
O R / ~ 0 / ? 0 0 4 1017 AM
000195
Print Article http://www.sltrib.com/portletlarticlelh
Print Article
Print Article http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/htmVfragments/prin ...
(Utah) and director of the Rex E. Lee Advocacy Program at Brigham Young
University's law school. He currently practices law in Provo and lives in Orem.
Here is the text of Amendment 3:
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union> however denominated> may be recognized as a marriage
or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
09/07/?004 1 ?11 PM
000198
Anti-Amendment 3 groups: Think of consequences
Jh Ht.RH('\
"Jlw .vtl: J.U... ! nloutll'
ll<Jb IL'" ts and h pannrr
1-,'01 13 The:
jn:1 nr.-vt.>r t-.lthtn.oei 10 tc,lluw
UHOU ;!h.
'The aruplt> share hank ar
counts, rent. uti.litie-; and \..'1"'(\-
rery COS\S. She is the primary
hcncfici.'lry on his life insurnnCY.'
policy. If something to
h1m . .,nc 11.1U Sllht hts
mPnt wuh lhrt'' <'htl
t!nn MamaJ.!( tc-mt'<.l
r\nd !A.'Wl:, Ot>\'l'r Wur
rtL'<! ah'Ut h.a::.hztnl!
nlnl ip.
i'l1Jt n<1W. he wmldir-. The
51)'l!dr-<!d schml
din.'\.fnr wll} '>'c)t!.'
JUst 10
.., dfln'f knu-..; th:U 11
ll'<"uh1 rhamw my rel"'ucms.tup
Rut tht' poh:-nti.tl 1:; thl:re.-
!.I'll IS !w'\yS. "l J..."Ur.s!i thm m'.'\0$
I "-'t\'C> a mn<xm -
I.LWl.:- fJtW of 41l.ff:t) . : h<>r
TJU\hn}. ltniTliHT'l'(1
Jj;U'l h<l;;.'fi on -.ampit..-1 dat;j
from tne Cfmlls.
an at the t1mcr nr Lhc
k'g<LI 4nd ..:mo: lol\41 :tl'!;ll.JTI('n Lo;
fur aM tht! ront.ro\'f'r
:;i.1l They
tnclude itbOut
lll)tn:trril11 l'l 1\l
pies 4JOJ tt.n cYupli'
ncarh :! 1.;no of . .,_ t111:n h 1',
chlldn11
Aml-r1rtnwm c p))(ml n.. 1r
I L'lh " l on"-!st\J
ll(li1 v.tll hun UltN' f:umlu.""
chdd custody, mtwnt
Rnce rtrz.hL-c;. and mtd!t :.tl
dl'CLSIOOIlhlklllJ: power ntn
Bu1 nmendtn<'n!
"'"' ANOIOUDIT. Bl
Unmarrifd partners in UtM
C.tevorf I HouWIKIIM
lot AI m:mbfr
M 11f'<J se l

on t: tliJI!!n
or telatl'C!
t:ot 11Hft o..-:1
or :E>Iati,>G rhlli1f eo

?0,192
3,912
2.568

fb.,..,.. ,. I j .-t.h'U. /J ,..._,.,_., fllo..ttrtA
000199
An1cndment
f (.>cs : C{ Hl i tl t' r
t c > 11 setJU c n ccs
a Coutllllll'tl from Ul
'llllJIUrltr, 11\-.lo..t lll.H t l,lJ..!t liHt
11 .. lllfwpnt 1 t..:hl'- .tr -..It,..,,
1'hl'\ .lll!IW IIUIJI,IJTh"l t'OISJih'
:m "lh'll h-eal t'111ll rat'!' In l!a m
... nnw n1 flu .. 1m "''' up
l"HWfll.!- '*" t'\t'n th,....,.. I" I\ :Ill'
, 1111tr-;u '' '"111 h" 11
th .uncndnll'nt ..,
t\m"dnwnt .1 ,., 'Ar allt ' JI Ill
1"' o Jt.:trt<- rtw lk-.1 "4'nt4'1H'1' tic
till'' m.trTWg UfliOII
t..f .t m.m .ml 1 'A\1111.11\ '11u .for
111\IJ .. t,lh..._ "flO oltWr (jorlU .... tl<'
Htllllll . h,Wt'\4'r 1l nnmtn.lll'"'l.
m.a, 1'1( t,..,. ,,
ur J!l\ 1'1: tlw .... ,nw lit' ... ul"'t.lll
ll.llh pf),'l t ..
II the .tmnclnwnl ll.l'-"'
l'l.lh o.,1Jfllll,lrt'll"4t t'll'lj)lt ....... I Ill
thr jtJIIlt'.l JIIJ!' !11 lt"l lht lrgal
tht-.lril'' ,JIJ.O\JI If' I Itt .. t
Th thuuJ,!ht ...,.,aru .... . \\HI'
'''lit 1;111' ou ..... tor l.am '
l'11l,u lu"' k lht nu...,l
'11lnhh antUJ of umnar ru'll
I l,thll' \4 hn \'tttlhl ht .tftt'dt"'l h'
tht .tmrtlnunl "'' ,,., lrt"t"t I<
11n-. ... "'h .. ..,.. tlr-.t .,,,.,u .... -.. ha\
tlte-.f tl'-k lt...,II\J.! ml S.'( ur\1\
lrtnf 11-. .uul t'\1'1\ p.n
nunt-.. at tlw\ 1 trn u n lrao.h ul
111m\ .... unph nhr lon1: ltrrn ,,.
lath'""'" 'P' "11 h th11 r"t In 'I(-..
1 Hltr 'uuph' an .m IJ.!'t' v. h"u
'"' h ent Ht l1h nuhr .... mhtf'tnt
tn \\nllh! t 11mc mtn
pt.n Tht .mlt'mtnwnl t.tiW
1 tllhlr-.n 11r ullwr fmnll\' mtm
"""' aut hot lh tn thallt'llJ.'t' .m\
.tJ.'tvml'nh unmln' tt'll
,,, r1 rwr ...
ThP \n.tranm "'""" ur
Ht-t tn'fll\r.,..._.n., l 'tnh ha' pcKtf"'l
" c:tut ton ahoul tht .mwnt1nuont
cu1 ''' Wh <,itt' In Ohh1 \\htn
-.mutar tmmlmt 1U '' on til'
'm '1. lMilnt '' \:U' t)mnally
opt,. N .... tlw 'h;t
w, \\ lilt 1"' ,.ph '" uneltr
... r.md ltw r:umftt'.4t ""''.. l'o
1. h-. k .... wt ...... ,J,h ... tumid
!onk 11 thl' \t' J'Y t'.tn<f\llh lt
\\oultt ch..,nJpt a lot tlf rlt.:ht' th.H
t lilt ftlt.._, ha \I' Itt hnn ... ttl fnc't'l I
I ,mcJ dt't'I .. IOil._
If .1 <-.lupit m.tk{..., ,, th'tt.,ton h tK
t'HIIIJIH(H'tf fo 1'.\1 h 11lh1i hut lh't
lo r,u lhrtMIJ.!h 1 lt\,trrl,l.!'l'. the\
..,huu ltitft o,uff ' ..
1\t..,Hlto.t; qut ... t\IIU., .lhaiiU Ullh
'ulu.tl unnl.lrr It-t I P(lfiH
TIPlll"' 11f pnJ\ \4lliT'\o tht
;lfl\t'ntlml'ttt lAIII 11\.lkc 1'"....,'" u
lion HI 111h J.!,lnlt , .. , rnon
tflnlt ult I'.CJK...,U'\ l'oh I!
.um lhn"tor \'u In li"'\Hlt\ ... aiel
-.he had 1\utthl .. . ,., .oor\ '" l.t \\
nMktr-. hall,.t'tl .11 t Hw
.HnrHlmtnl tn ont rnan
.tnrlutw \4om.m ..
Ttw ,,m-....thlf\" nf ttw .mt!
ttw
amt>ndnwnt'., -.t't''und , ..
l't,th .. t 'n .nl
rnmu'ft \1orTIHt.'t' '-tiliUtl to tn
IJnlYI!IUnJ"'I Tmn <;n-..n for
Ul\ ('rUu., .. ay ttl. umndmtnt
lhf''\IW' that ;,tilflltt ' lnfO\II.)("'>liOH
Hut furmt't .Jv.th ('nunlv ,\t
l1ti1W\ 1),1\ HIJ A'r1Vllt whu pnN
'utt'(l ;n .. n. l.it't'" thtN' II'
.. ,th
\\ twn ,\rnrondnH nt :i h
p.u1 of th( l 1.1h l'on ... lltu
finn. Jll'l ,......, ut 111n uf poiYtt.nn
"111 tlll :t.,lf'r. r\ol h.tn1tr."
1.t:nll1 -..wl tn .t nh':\""'
from y,.,._ tlfl :t ,, n&ahlann nl
mwn1tnwnt bit("'''"
\ nunfhntnt .. upput ttr Montt
f\h\\,lf1 ho t-. 'IJlpnlllh'tJ .t._ \
.. t.tl \lhll In llw ( orl"''t\
1 ;,.... ....wt Jkll\ ...:amht" k '
1 lo Cil\
rn.rrl.ilt,.:t'
'l'niHUUIII'-h 'A lllf nnthUU!
mon lh1111 h1:..l ,Jnf
,lfrtl ''""' "-4"t t 1\'tl
IIIHtlT\" (ll'(',tll .... ' th,ll \\tit IIJII'fl
llH' t11lnr tu
!'ltf'\\;tll "''"'
f)nn t 1\nwntl ,, lhanu Oin-t
'"r \11 Co\ "WI't"' S:t\A H 1
.mtt l.t':\\ llf\ t'\.\ltrlUI('i"i I h;tl
nnthlnt! 'o\tll .\" nnt
tnou t.th I hP v-,
ttnHal for untnh'nh"l
cHn-.t'qUln-.' IS too
ror 'ot"" to rlro.k t th
l ' t.nh t 'nn,lllutlm
1 nu-.,t.tkt wt'n' tu
hn\ I to Hw "'llh ra)r n IHnP
\k( o\' ..,utl 11tl'l'l nu t{lllt to
nu r twa! ,\ nc t' \ nh lf\l'illl'- t tw
l1" I II l't.l h 't.l "- P\:,U. tl) '" It h
fll t "A llli'ITIll..'t"' an'
rtnl umun-, an we 'o\lltl t
rrnm nHwr
-.t.ttf..., Hut \Al IM\'t' .,.1t,,.
n . "t'tt .mwnctnwnt u.tf
had th tun'' tu thtnk t.,ul
000200
Artlcle Ulst Updated: 9/27/2004 01:45AM
Ask the Candidates
Salt Ulke Tribune
Q: Jon Huntsman Jr. says he
1
11 support passing laws to protect people with "mutual economic Interest!!." Are
such laws viable In light of the language of Amendment 3, which would define marriage but also appears to ban
lmy other type of domestic union?
Mollie McDonald Salt Lake City
JON HUNTSMAN JR. RESPONSE
A: Amendment 3 preserves traditional marriage as between one man and one woman. It also precludes other
aJTBngements that are merely "marriage" by another name and typically described as domestic or civil "unions".
AJTBngements based on economic or mutual dependance are not based on a sexual relationship or "union". A
broad range of Utahns would benefit from dependant relationship legislation, such as, an elderly parent living
with an adult child, widows sharing a home and other property, "life-partners" In platonic relationships, as wen
as, homosexual partners. Just as powerofattomeys, wills, trusts and other private contracts are not typically
confused as the equvalent of marriage, a new contract based on economic dependance would not reasonably be
Interpreted as the substantial equivalent of traditional marriage, and therefore, would remain viable under
Amendment ~
SCOTT MATHESON JR. RESPONSE
A: Ulce most Utahns, I support tradltlonal marriage. The second sentence of Amendment 3, however, goes
beyond defining marriage and threatens rights of other domestic relationships, such as hospital visitation. That
1
s
why Utahts attorney general, the past two attorneys general, and all of Utah
1
s attorney general candidates
oppose Amendment 3. Governor Welker also has expressed concerns. The second sentence of Amendment 3 Is
ambiguous. It was hastily considered In the final days of the Legislature. The process of study and review by the
Utah Constltutlonal Revision Commission, on which I served fur several years, was entlrely Ignored. Mr.
Huntsman's notion of "reclpnx:al beneficiary" laws fails to remedy Amendment 3's ambiguity. Moreover, It falls
to recognize a fundamental element of constltu\fonal government: constitutions trump statutes. Sentence two
may very well set up a constitutional roadblock to Mr. Huntsman
1
s proposal. At the very least, his proposal would
result In expensive and prolonged litigation.
If you'd like to ask a question to candidates In major Utah political reces -governor, u.s. Senate, u.s. House
of Rt!presentatlves, attorney general or Salt l:llke County mayor - send your question, along with your name,
mailing address, dayttme telphone number and whether you
1
re ammated with any political part:y to
tharvey@sltrlb.com or:
Tom Harvey
The Salt Lake Tr1bune
143 s. Main St.
Salt l:lllce City, UT 84111
000202
Amendment 3 ad wars under way
Down the stretch: llt 1lh
sitk-; arc :-.pending
thousamb on tJ1c is.c;uc of
defining marri<l).,'l' in Utah
lh Rl-lll LCA WAI .'>Il
1 h' 'vlit 1 <lk I rJrwv
", ltoJl:tnly" ttnd
'"Whr.'C'I of Fnr1unc." iJJC liri.l
s:tlm in Utah's
"''ilr over aired thb
wr.ck.
Ut;thns for a Bdtcr Tomnr
mw. mw of:J Ctl;lliiinn nffonr JW
litit.:tl nn,ra
n i7.:-ol in suppor1 of
:1. p:t icl $1.AiXJ fnr a tlozcm :11'1
slnts tn n111 Wt!(lllcS{In}
toni).':ht in the
sht>W htlur un Ch.1111WIIol
With 1 he Sim
Truth :\O.ut a SinlJllf'
AmmHinH!llt ... 1 he adve11 iS(!llH:-111
t wn cnuples one en
I he nther m:mit!(l. The
woman stands In frnni nfa
hm: kfUlllltHI. the tlf
the amc!n!lmcnt.
Tlw !irst S()ntence define::
marriagt as the u11itm of a
lllllll and a worn an. :\
cl:lust.! st:ttes that "no other rlo-
11nion. however dcnomi
may tM! il<l<l as a
maniaJ.!e or the .s:tmc or
legal
dl'e<:t."
llll1el1<l
m1.mi."'
1ll'n a man walk-: in hlhinll
her "II\ '-I'IJ1JitU11llA .\lllL'ntlmcnt
:l, }'1111'1'1
t ht w:n ) ou'\ c ah\ ).. no\\ n
it: lw
"SunpJc: -.Jw clllu huh.,
On lht rlllwr t!w llon'f
,\nwncl \lli:mce 1111\rth'il ti111r
.u11l four r:uhn :ul ..
Don't Amend Alliance ads fHture from
two Utab coupJes with gay chl!dren. Gary and Millie
watts and Ed and Bobbie Butterfltld wy the
amendment wlll hurt their fl!milles.

Yes on 3 ads fNture 11 woman rHdlnq the ted of a
proposed amendment to prove fts
simplicity. "Y011're owylnc ys to marrtaQe the ay
you''le always known lt." her flaMe HJS.
ti, .. \\l'l'k th:.t "til .Hr {kt JH
lhr N>v. 1. The Alltant't'
\\ til ntr
tht ;ul" on all maJor hmarlt .t'-1
'-t<ttum-. thm' nr four 111111''- ,1
day
The Alhanre ads re.\1\lr(! twr'J
I t,lh fanllli<..; Gary ancl
\\ .Itt!', ;\ l''rovo couple with six
chtldn::n. t"'v who arc g.l}'. :tlltl
anrl 1\l.lhhtc thHn
Sandy. "'ho have a .,.m.
lntcr.-I)(!I":'.NJ wuh hl.tt:kiiiHI
"ht1(' uttmly phcHos. lh1 l:'<lll[llr:s
tell lhmr stones. Wtptn).: away
Mtllt<' Wa tt--; admit:-: twr
cwm . stw
thOili:ht J;iiY ()(..'()J\Ie only liwd in
Sr.n F'ranrt-,.ccl until one of ht!r
<:h tldrrn r::mc out. Gal)
i\nJC'rit:.-.'s tli
vtdc .md the is li\'
inA by the Culrlcn Hulc
"Out atb ha\t' tradi
tional Ut:1h "ho \\ tlllw
huri hy ,\mcncltmnt .t .. .'\1
I i:HH'(' rlln.,.tnr St'ntt :-.1ti
Un nfl muummi
<'.11 ion:-. prl)fe ..... Hr 1-\c.>n
the cmotulll.tl pull ''' the
:\I I t.'tllt'c''> ac b llll):!ht HJIIIt'i tlmnn'
Ill
But t."k m
'111\l' I 'tah llllt.:hl I'll I till
tl:l\lllllllJ.:
''An emol ionat is f:1r
ll\01"{' likely to') ha\'1! an
a r.'clmnal aJlJX':II. Hut it only gn<'"
f.1r .. Fnslt!r s:tys. "In this eM''
it tn dliltlgl! That
isn't ltkr.ly to ltiiJIIK!n."
In four tatlio
;ub. tlarr.1tnr.-o rifT nn
Ea11,lc Forum l'n!Shlcnt (;ayh'
ail ir.ism of Attnmcy
< ;t!twr;tl C\ln
.thulll Jht' amcnlmcnl. An
nther t:tlll!<l ncxlr dl'!h.1tC'
from ilw of I he 2fk).1
I Orem He
llllhlil'.m HPp . . Jim 1-\'tTin.
Davit) 1111!, a frum
.... ;mel Salt City 1.'1\!m
r>t:r:1t i(' lkp. ,<;l'tllt llanids all
caution when
tllf' li l:th Ctlll!'til\ltion.
"'llw 1 v:r Hers
only me:mthl h1111 and les.
hians." a narrator s.ys.
"But thrir shol t):.'llll :tpprn:ll:h will
hu11 thouJ.nnds of he>tcmse><u;ll
thc tr rhtldrcn None of
.,.ant tn hurt pcoplc, uur
rrlt'lld!. anti rel:lt iVC'> with a _ptr
rnatlcnt. Onwrd amcndnumt "
Allnfthl' ad& rnd with I he AI
lianee tnllntrn: "It too r.1r"
Tn to the ads befn.n
llwy nn to http://www.
dontamrndalllancc.com.
.\mcndmcnl Jlo1111
$9,{01 for ar1'. running on
1-\TVX. Channel 4. Yes on 3 me
Ilia Nancy
,, irl she lltlNi not know 1f
.unenr1nwnt ath Will
air un any other Utah !>lations or
next week TM ads can be n'
ncwl"l \\eck by \H'('k
"1lwn ts no mfonna
tinn 11\':lll.iblt' on the mt'(ha hm :
n!
le>aSt'fl Tlwyrc out lhcrr Wntch
;ill I ean tr.ll ) ou ahmll
them rtt::lll now."
Fo:-ter both groups \\til
ha\'t! In !>j)(' lld OOIWt.'en to
SSO.I.XXl 111 Cn'atc any
rnr.din lc\1'1<' >lnd
voters'
000205
T
10/10/04 DSRTNEWS AA02
10/10/04 Deseret News AA02
2004 WL 94999645
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Deseret Morning News
(c) 2004 Deseret News Publishing co.
Sunday, OCtober 10, 2004
Amendment 3 debate heating up: Passage is vital to protect families
By Rep. Chris Cannon
prevented us from acting decisively on the federal level. one of the most
important questions of our generation is whether one state's definition of
marriage can be imposed upon another based on the "full faith and credit" clause
of the Constitution. Equivocation in Washington has, at least in part, created the
necessity for states like ours to enact our own protections for marriage. I would
suggest that there is little or no question where the vast majority of Otahns
stand on the issue of same-sex marriage. It is critical that we not bog ourselves
down over words as we have done in Congress. Opposing Amendment 3 using sentences
beginning with: "I'm against same-sex marriage, but .. "may seem sophisticated;
but on this issue,.that answer doesn't cut it. The proposed amendment was not
written on the back of a napkin in an ice cream shop; it was carefully composed by
some of the best legal minds in the state and vetted by many more. Amendment 3
does two simple things: It protects Utah's definition of marriage as the union of
a man and a woman; and it prevents the imposition by the courts of new forms of
marriage. Lawyers will argue, but I am convinced the amendment does those things
and nothing more. And while some will conjure up the possibility of all kinds of
unintended consequences, the intent and, I am satisfied, the effect of Amendment 3
is to.,imply preserve a legal status quo so important to Utah. And those who
disagree have an obligation to be more specific and provide us with a substantive
explanation of their concerns, rather than the simple rejoinder that the proposed
amendment "goes too far." In the weeks ahead, we will be assaulted with TV ads,
radio spots and all kinds of other "messages" about 1\rnendment 3 -- by both sides.
At the end of the day (or the campaign, in this case), it is important to remember
Copr. ~ 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. u.s. Govt. Works.
http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&dataid=BOOSS80000000580000406757 ... 10/20/2004
000206
Page3 of3
10/10/04 DSRTNEWS AA02 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 2
that this has nothing to do with "gay bashing," which I condemn. lt is about the
value of protecting the nuclear family and the stability it has given us in
America. It is about the reality that our freedom and prosperity come in large
part from our religious foundations that inculcate personal responsibility in our
citizens, and that this happens largely through the family. This is a choice we,
including gays, as a society have to make. It also has nothing to do with who's
running for governor or attorney general or even for Congress. Rather, Amendment 3
has everything to do with the mos t family oriented state in the union making it
clear that we will not accept, at the hands of activist judges, definitions of
marriage conjured up in places like San Francisco. Much of rny time in Congress has
been spent dealing with the consequences of judicial activism. When we have to
depend upon liberal Supreme court Justice Breyer as the author of a minority
dissent arguing that the Constitution allows us to protect our children from
pornography, I can assure you that the Supreme Court is not predictable on these
kinds of issues and that the real risks associated with Amendment 3 lie in failing
to pass it -- thereby leaving us unprotected from arbitrary change to a sacred
institution that 1 believe must be protected. Chris Cannon represents utah 's Third
Congressional District
---- INDEX REFERENCES ----
NEWS SUBJECT: (Domestic Politics (GPOL); JUdicial Branch {GVSUP); Social
Issues (GSOC); Political/General News {GCAT); Society/Community/Work {GCOH);
Politics/International Relations {GPIR); Government Bodies (GVBOD))
Language: EN
Word count: 750
10/10/04 DSRTNEWS AA02
END OF DOCUMENT
Copr. ~ 2004 West. No Claim to Oriq. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://print. westlaw .com/delivery .btml?dest=atp&dataid=B 005 580000000 5 800004067 57... l 0/20/2004
000207
'Ill\' I ;th1 Trihww lff AH I 1d.1.'. < :21)(H
Amendment 3 foes scrap radio ads
Prominent voices: A
and radio
station cxcc-i ohjt'L"t to
r<Xordcd
lh ltt-:lH: Cc.\ WAI-"11
'fhr .'-till nl.T 'lri'Jrrmr
Opponents of Ut..1h's
m:trriagc hnvc dis-
carded twn radio ad.-:; aller a SGlte
kJ::l.,lator and ex:t:lltives from
KSI. Had io ohj<:'-ctC<I.
One ad. t:i.tllL-tl Debate.''
lhtt>t.. JilWm:t.ker:-;' J"'C
(:onlc!tl atxmt.
i\mN1dment frmn the last night
of tiH: J.cgislnture.
t\ Cill1Ci1 .. Choms ()f
Opposition." lists public
whn ha\'c expressed concern
ahuul the amendment's ial
U n llliCIHlcd l:UI\St.'(JIICilCt'S ill
chultng riSL H:trfio talk sh11 w
host DOUJ.!
Tht: acls Ill stan airing un
st:rt ions
Hut when Utah C:ounty Hep.
.Jim Ferrin ohjcctCi.lto the usc of
his and KSL Hadit)
tlin.!cl)r Anzuet1e in
sisu.:d the stat inn's call lctter.i
and Wright' . .; name couJd not be
used. the :lllianec clmppcd the
ads.
t\lliance Director &on Mc-
Coy says the allianec's executive
comrn ittt-c decided to soothe ruf.
Oro and withdrdw the
:ul<;.
"We've hccn try!ng to nm the
as honcstJy and
ahovcboanl and as
said MeCoy. "We
have plenty of ads."
Arquette and riSL
slat ion lll<lllil!-:Cr Chris vc
did not return phone calls Wcd-

In a letter to McCoy this week.
Ferrin insists his quote was
taken out of cnntext and c:L"t as
an argument. against the amend
mt:nt in a "severe distortion."
McCoy counters thilt Ferrin's
comment wa-. taken in context
rmm an OJICil who:ie
arc available to any
member of the pub\ ic.
"If we could hav( quoted tbc
whole .st:ttcment. it wouJd have
hccn cven hctter." he saicL
KSI. exccuth:cs also took
sue with an allianee ad in which
Wright was mcntiont'fl along
the Family Law Section of
the Utah State Bar. t\ttorney
Gcncrnl Mark Shunleff, the
Group of religious leaders
backs tl1e initiative
l\ of loud religious
lcath!r.i hm; announced
fCJr Amendment :J.
In a news confcrcm:c thts
the Yes on 3 coalition
brought together a few of
local and
a list of more than 60 ecclesiasti -
ca I I cad en; hack the const it u
tiona I :tmcndnll'nt. derin tnl!
marriaJ,:e.
Mike Gray. pastor of South-
east Bnptisr Church, Oishop
Willie Dunn of the WorllJwlctc
Gospel Church and tllc Re\'. Greg
or St;mding
announCC<I the
OpdC'n StnndnrdK-.:aminer and
f>rot.:o /Jaily Urrald.
riSL ch:mgeu iL" JlUI icy on
cmplnyl"Cs doinl:! commercials
after Utah bank cxecut ivcs com-
plainL)(J (]bout Wright's tl!lcvi
sion cmnrnercials for Arncric:t
1-'irst Crt't'Jit Union. The cvol\'ing
pol icy aUows pcrsunal it ies
interfaith agreement.
"Mardage is being abuse.
right now. The Dihlc and trad'
t ional c.Jcfin itjon of marriage i.
between a mnn and a W'Jrnan
Th<tt's what's best for
best for kids," Gray said. "Th1
Bible says we arc to honor mar
ri11gc. That's c..xnctly what l'n
rJoing."
Grny said concerns rniS(.'<
.1b4mt tJ1c second section of th
;uncndmcnt are not rc:tsor
tn vote against
Utah's Constitution. He
thl' 60 churches repn...--scnt abou
IS.<XXJ Ut:thn.-. .
to do voiL"c-<>vcrs in TV and mdit
as long as they avoid pcrsonai
testimonials.
Wright routinely
conccm about the amcndmcn1
on the air and gave the alliance
tlCnn ission to use his name.
but was not rt.'<...'t)rdOO for the
arJs.
000210
Attorney group pans
Amendment 3 issue
,\group f2l2 ;tltorney"
ran fu ads in The S11ll
I .a Tribune and
on Tuesday
,\ n1endnu:n1 :.1.
l 'lah LaWyt!rs for Snund
< 'onst itut ionaJ,\mendnu:nt-.
.ut ...ay:-; the two-1mr1 armmcl
ment is tlawNI. The
NIY "Part 2 is an unsound con
"tltutional It b
demonstrably and unaccept-
ably will produce con
t i nuous I it wn at the t!X-
nf Ut;th ta.x payers. and
proposed by the Slate Leg-
t:,lat urc without the st:nll i 11y
or thP Utah Jtut ion a I Hf'
\ tc,ron Commi!-.'\1011- a Com
ml.,.,ltJn that Lhis
!'!l<ttc wen f'or many years."
The list ofattornt!YS in
dudes Un i ver,..,Jty of Utah Law
School Profe::.!-.or .John Flynn.
fm mer U. Law School Dean Eel
;u111six former State
Har presidents.
"If we collect more money,
\W'llnm the ads again," said
( 'lah l.awyers finandal Offit'CJ"
Dan Berman.
Yes on 3 ads
The Yes on a cnalit inn
!->liuietl airing television com-
mf'n.: ials backing Uiah 's pro-
po-.c.d marriage amcndmcnr
on !.:; pan ish Ian gun -.t:t t inn:-.
hklUnivision and Tel('nlUndo
thl!'! week.
The His pan It mmmun il y
1.., a:d in a farm J y
centric eu.\ture."' Yvette
Dlili', co-chair\\- man of
Utahns for a Better 'I
"We that chtldnm <Ill'.,
gin and rhal the iralli-
lton.IJ family untt led by a
m.m anti a woman unrtcd in
pro\' those
ON Tl-IE STUMP
Po!tt ic11l mm pilnl h,11
'l'rib11 m sl 1!
children with the hP!...t po'....-.lhlc
!-.t.ui ml ife."
Chmnbcr cndorscn,cnt
.lim Matheson is one of only
cighll>crnouats in Congress
endorsetl by 1 he U.S. Cham her
tlf Ct 1mmerce.
Based on i\lathl!Sllfl 's su r1
port for nwtlical liahility re-
form. the Bush tax ull.s. en-
independence and class
act ion rcfonn. Chamber Politi
cal Jli rector Bi II J\1 iller said
the advocacy group fnr 111 iJ.
lion U.S. h11s inesst:s is hack i 111-!
Matheson in his race against
Hepuhlican challenger .John
Swallow.
"Our tmclnrsenwnts ;ue
li!Jiln pelf'>rlllilJH'(',"
Mi!IPr said. ha-;c..'<l on how
I hey ,.:ote."
Four years a[.!O. when th<'
2nd
seal \\-as open, tlw Chamber
cndor-.;(.1( I Hepuhl1c:u1 lkrek
Smith. That Mii!Pr
when the
\.w\lchccl 111
Crmt.;ress. Chamhcr .scnrP
cnnb show Matheson votes
with tlw ion 70 pcr-
t'l'lll l)f I he tin1L.
Abo week. Sen. Orrin
I lrttch Swallow. join
ing I he rest of Utall's Hepubl i
t:tlll congressional delegation
"Having .John in the House of
Heprcsent;tt i vt!s wou hi hcl p
'":r delegation push through
unpnrt:mt, Utah-friendly
lation,'' Hatch is quoted saying
m a news
000211
First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage http:/ /www.mormonnewsroom .orglldsnewsroom/englnews-releases-storie ...
1 of 1
Tl<
JESUS CHRIST
OT t.lTTI1DotoY Wll'n
Newsroom
Tho OPPICIAI. RI!.SOURCSp NEWS MEDIA, OPINION LEADERS and II PUBI.IC
tii!W3STORY- 200CTOI!R 2004
First Presidency Statement on
Same-Gender Marriage
The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has
issued the following statement:
"We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with
understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the
same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives hut there
must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.
"As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage
between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal
destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only
between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same
gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church
accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a
woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
51'\"UlGUIO NO'tl!: Wben reporting about The Church of Christ ofl..1Uerday Sa iota, please we the complete nome o( tbe Churd! in the
first nference. For more lnformatioo on lile use of the name of the Church, go to our
8128/2013 3:06PM
000212
l.JDS Cl1urc.h
\vcig-hs in
.
( >n tnarrtay;e
l'tnl imwd fnmt Hl
.: 1:-> ill 1'ull h:trlllllllY wi:h
' l:lll'il IJisilltn." ;;.aid
y,.,. 1111 :1 fn:tlithH\ t.:il lttllhllr
.\ln1111 :-:t.wm1. "It womler
1 ullr ckar "' nw."
I lppll"\'111::; noll' that the
:-:atPilll'lll 11<1! nwnt ion
.\ lwmlnwnt :( nnn't :\:nenll ,\1
!I;PH't' 1>11'1'\'101' St:{llt !\kCoy
nul till' church nclnr"SI..'i l
hy llilllll' :lmtndmetll:' anti initi-
i11 C;slllill'lll:t. llaw:tii ;ml!
,\hsl\a.
" II lt!OI\'\' S I hl.' ity
tl:at 1 . 11:-\ !'H'oplc i.'l U1:1h
,;tn l'll!lit'\'1' in the goal of pm
h:: n:lll it htll
:11 tlw I in1e. i'ltlliiSt: nollt> rlu
it 111 :t hurt flll w:1y lilw Arnenrl
'lll't\t ;l dt11:s." :'III'Coy s:litl.
"l'l:lfltlS h:l\'1'11111111!' nfth.'il 11Wr1
:11111
l l :all's ;tnuwhmnl writll'n
Ill I \\'o parts. 'l'ht :;tlltt'lli'C
dl'lilli'S lll;ll'ri:I)(P :IS lhl' Jt:g;tl
111lint1 nf :1 :ll:tll ;tlld ;1 woman.
Thl.' S.'llil'lll't which
has !)l.' t' ll :rtlit 'l/.t'l! h.\
, 1aus. f:un l:tw alloll'l\t?YS :mel
t m:n:wrhd alik\
... 1:111'.: "ll or her tlunu':ilk union.
IHI\';(\'or dt'llollll ill:thtl. lll:tY ht:
n t llglliZL'tl :ts a 111:1rriage 11r
till' S:ttnt Ill'
l'l(tl i\':tlclll lt.I:Hl o'llh!l ...
,\ Salt l.ul.'l '!'ribun, tHlll ble
!:1st 1110111 h !'mull I I hill fi2 ()I'J'<:L'Ilt
of lJ tahns plan to \'lliC Jill' Ill\'
Churcb expands on marriaCJe amendments
Tnc I trst Presidency's July 7 siJiemenl wJs more gt'nNic. ent1orsing all
lhilt lrildlltOnl1l rndrrtJQe ilS the !c9a1union ol a man
and ii woman lue)day's statement goes ttcyono IMI. mentioninQ church
li.'aders' support lor amendments th.Jt rnclutle il Sllcond claus!!
b ocktn!J eqill recoonttron for Q.JV crv11 un1ons and
aomest c part ncrshrps \)f even
J.a\11. 1004
hetf!rosexual. unmarned
I elcl!lllOShlpS
a 1\IO{\
a.,.ots \I .._
a11\\"> \ \M \ll -....
\
;) . e as - .
\ la\\et \1\aHio'i -
(, c."ns\ o e\etll\r.Q -
le>l.l- r.\. --
o\ ,J u\1\e
l\\ltc.l\ \ a'e\' 1\:'
C:\l.l\\oM
cl\s\' a ...__-
c.
\
ol Clctot.r
19
,
-- "We ot The Church or .lt!s C
"ct. out w:;h "Merstana"' hrJSt ot latt.,.day Saints
.,, Nr,J:t!'tl to those '"oct /"' 'otkvrtJu.,s
th.,emay be or .. , tonet '"me Oend., w, , .. ,,,.
must also be ''<oon,hon h.,,'"" but lher,
w t " "Qhl before fhe
0171

s doctr,ndt fJrincifJte b .
attirm I hac ""'rriaq, b;,::d o, ""ed ""Piure.
.,,,.,,.,to,,. c,..,"'. '" .,., dnd. is
HIS Childree. lor the destiny ot
'XPrriscd nty betw
0
'"'"'
1100
.,, to be
W!'tfd('d ,, husb.Jnd woman r. .. tutty
"A
ny Other refatt .
Person, ot tho "me ns. '"""dmq I hose botw.,n
created institution ot I he
'"nrs "''"'ures /hat define Y. The Church ccordinqty
. "'"" OOd "'man nd that d:""o as lhe ""'"" ota
\ nv "'"I 'ltonshlp" not conr., teqt sttus on
fh, ( /u n-/Jt/ !tn<J I .1.111 ..;.,,,,
-.
,
/1..-. .;.th t.rJ., I"""""
:11111 mluwnl. :Ul\11111.!
!.D. \II(C'I'- \'\I'll hiJ!ht'l' 'j;\
pt'l'l\!nt ... \\ II \Ott. 111
Utah Ct ln:-tilllthm
<; n en that h:wk tn 1 he 1-'sr ... t
:-.tall:nwnt
ion.; Ill' I im ing.
I 'htt rch i!'S\lL'(I a nmn
J.!tnt ral s rattnlenr .luly i
Jl ,g ant.'llthiH:nts ju:;t
bL'I'un. of Congre:-:s
\tHt.'fl on a fl'<kr:tlmar

I \e:-. irlts Ut:1 h. i m i l:u
m . rrt.ll!l' .lllll'l ldllh'llb an 1111
till in II
llt:-;lult tlw t
:i111:nt 1 .n;-;
\ 'hurl'lt .l:tn Sh:JIIlS
tltt l:tl'k t1f:111
,, ch11in. Thl
em
r,;acl tl\or the p1tlpit in
111 Obit> :1111\ ltlahu intcr
1111 f1nlir
k:d i11 rlwir
:<l:t!ts. Sllll\1' l\lonllPII:-. lll:ry in
h'l'Jil'l': it as an tntlllf'.SI'IIICnl uf
the :tllll!lll!rlll'llt.S. 111:1y llt'
li e\'1.' thl! s tah'llll'll l is :s
.;faiCIIWJ\1 of COIISt!l'\':11 ii'L'

'"l'ht:y a lrc:1dy h;ul :1 po:'il ion.
Tins d:ll' ifyin!! :nul
mort l:llllM:r\':tli\'t :Ill' pu:: it inn
th .. t tht\ had. Tlwy rc!:slly !H"t'
1.1 "llll. 1 h>llgh st:1nd 1111
'-t'\11:1111\ ::::1i1l Shipps. :Ill
p l')li ssor uf h l:i t
.md nl1gltl\IS stwlir:s at l'ul'd\Jt
l'niH'I'!<IIY in lnrlian:q11tlis. "If
llwy had mcntimted Utah'::
anu!nt hllcl ll hy n:um. thi!' wnultl
l1:1ve htfm an inflil:al it;n that thi:-;
is :tJll'm'illt:ial t:hun:h."
Wh:ttt: \'t'l' l'l'itsnn tior lht
1 \udng. llri!:h:1m YPIIIII.! !'11 ivt.r
:'I y llllil'l':tl st:it;IU:I' pnft:S$111'
1\t l'. tttlr:-itlll tlw :;I:IIP
1111'111 \\' t" :eln:ltlt!r nl'r inriu,.
'\n\\ j.., llw 1 ill\" wlwn \'Ott'
..,!:11'1 ]1:1\'lllg li'
and atwnr inti to
t:unp;ti i!IIS," l'al:l'l':-.111'1 saitl.
" Sratt!metl!s likt this fmru
1 rusted i ns I itut ;r nri
1'111 d i l ts nJ;IIf!'!' in hallot t':tltl
l 't1 '''''' don't h;t Vl' il:J.P:y
:tnili:ll io11 111 guilk wlll'll
:n:1k ing lht JS!' knsions ...
llf
000214
IH
Both sides in debate shaq1ly
split over \vhat 1narriage is
J\t U. of U.: \111111'\'- ,,\nd'''
It:,.., Ill 111 llt; ll tl.tll lllillll
1;, , \\\ , ......
I ,It . rf: , ,t) t j I J 11
1 tp l! Ill .. , ... , "n! I a t! JI t .; f ' . , j : ,. I tf
..._:ninl' at! '-1 . cl"tll u " ' "'
.,., lie. II 'I !u: ..
"
., . .,t )t
;i1111J.thh _._,,q)d .:11 H tt I llh tf t 1 11 (1 :
II'"-" tJtil lh l"f, ,:,: t I 1 .... I .fh It: , : ! l ui
.\t rJ ... ' ,,, .. .. ,, ,. ' , ':.ah I I .. \.. !IM: t l lt:l
f!11JI ..d , f\ tip = ,l.tjl 'lli'tl ' llli! Itt'
I!Uftt.tt:e)tft ,: rl1 t II",' : ''1 :d 1!,1 ' d t ii P I
l:tfr'I,JI!t .. Itt! .. !!cl' t 'fl' h 11 tllti II P
\to I Ill" olt,lo.tltl '" 1!11 \ 1 1:111,
:\lltt'lltlrnrtl .: ',:. i n l
.11111'1111111' ll' llh .I 'lot! ..o,l.t hi"'!- .,;;!11
II .,, ,,, i'l\ lt!tlHtl
Fr dtlh 1 .. \1. ,: 1 l .t.t. I': 1: . .-H It
I ll l"ll!hh 111 wllll .. ll ' oil .. , 'Ill.!. llllit;t "''
..IJ;If lo:tpJloll'lll fl,t ',,.. I 1 !11111 IIIII l it,ol \\"Ill
1111 I 11\1' old "I ;o. !11.111" 1 II'' \'.OJihlll .,; oll
I 1111 l ollll ll ' h 111 ,, .. I I h'lol' IIIIW Iii f 1\ d
l 11!111" HHtl(lt':ll :11'1 J\otl 11 ,t,l\ 11! .1 d.1.
:111\ 1!11111111 .oil :o l!l"'
i h tl' lt' ltctft I ll".l.al ' ';,ltlP- - P\ tri,U t t.ti',t' t. .. lllt
"'or 1 11 , .. ,.. nd .. : rill' .,. , 11.11 f',lllllllll . ..
IHUac .u: ,.ul i"!c t,, . ,n .. u J , 1[ ...
I lldflr' dt .-,..,111 t t'l' II r ''' ,'l '""''
\ '/t l h th' et lllll' I 11 ... tlll'll .....
1 I h:nl,. ,.,hlt Ia ' til dla . l'41 ,:lral
lUi II'' t.IJ'" '"' tl' I' \'. '. : \Ju a' II :n '' f'." :uul
,,htt.!J;,UI11ft 11J1:11 \fitll"1 1trt n:.tt: l,fl!t Jttfli'ln,
.lttrtth:: .\ll.' ,111-l 1 ut ..... ,,, H,,l:h:uu
, . ,,n:: 1 nl\t t. J., , "' .. ,,h,.,.,, 1 '.\'an!l
.uul lhlllo;lll' 11;:11" I l!l'l':oll"l : llhll ,,,w,:.ol
L . :"'I .v . t l :t ..
\\oollll' "11\"11'11 lot d t.utll;" ltridt l l'"ll
1
l'J''' lftu::ti.,O'" t:J l l !t I 'JI ',t,Ji ,jdnpllliU of
''" 1111 dt\'''''' 1: ..... ,,,.. l n .. r!nu. ,,J upl"' 'H
I I " . I I" I I' fl I I' .,
,,, ..
"'
11111rr r 1.1: lll: ut 1<1: n111 llll( h :o11tl till lil!HI
11 11lll 1:11"1 itd \',otllll II I llt:IITI:I\!1 '.
'ill"l.oit'.i :onn l' l!ltldtllol lllt lu"'ll l
',\ h:d ,.,.;, ... :1 I" tl\1 l!lo\"of"lllllt'tol lt:ol"l ior
It ::.lfi\' 111'1 . oir:ul'. tllllr;,, r\ lll'r"k 111
t!! n r i.t/'' ':triiH' lot pitn ut, . fetl'"-11\l'
lltlf ltitolnn. 11\'r 11"1111 IIlii rill'
u!l:t: tllolq;d and tlw
;,,, ol!oow,Jo,r toll I i"'' \\"toft".;lo!l
\\.o11ll ,.,.,llrllrrl tlt:ot marri:1: "thl' t"ll!i
1 1 111'11111!11111 ddt!t ifl!: lollJ>'oi'I:JII! :-ll "l,d I oii.'S .
th. IH"-.1 pl:u w llh'll lt:ullqtl;illl"lllttl l" tglllh .
llr . .; . J, t!11111: olll .,fildl'l 11'-1':\ 11:0 I I "Jillfh':. I It' 1"11111
1
;:a;,n Jfl" 11\11}: till u-..- ''' ' "
r.,t:l!n: l:al linll"'''' ro lt;orlti:-. 1,,.111111: l;il\
I t I' Ill \\ lt11 I h\ w:ll l lo .. ,_ltll'.\'
I ho ...:ottl
;q,,r: . ! i ,.;,r
l!ut \ ltW: III IJWIIIlh"rl t llll l til l fllill'llfd \1'111111'11
hl 'lllllt !I'' \\.1"11' nd lht II'"IWI"I\' .. r
tllt'll loll;,lo:tllli. : \ntJ .'idl\1':11"1/. :-;old ".,f
I 11"'''' .. ,.,,,"l'ari:-,toll .. r, .. .:' :odulh 111
r . n. 1 ;,,.,.11 ;ottl prrl"l tvil\" I II' ltlrl "lll"l llr-..
\'.,1:-:t ll allrllj;l ;ol
1'- n., ll"ll llol loy 1!'. lanll l.\ l'ol .tlhll,htjl illlll lw
r11:r11hl'i I l"'' l'h' ill\lhrl r'll"''"illl! 1!.1\ ll lill"
r1:::r """"itllll l lt:tm:lh:tl
. \.lnrl'l;oli",:ollll:tulllh'lil. 1\.lllll'd 1111'
l: ot ll!'"t.:
;,11.1 ,nlr:. In Jtl"tt\ tdo l"i):ln' I -.;11111' 'I'\ o'lllljlh"
I I olt :-.JoiJtool lh1 SllJI JI"'>I'Itl y ,.,.11,.'1"\ : llll"o llildll
jlllll11111:s 11ll ho lo:rlltt l
""T iot l 'l:th f' II I'l l l"ll !'' :o f" Jlo\ I' ll I
11" :otltinw till' 1:-lull nl :111 \' thtt l"ll'ilt....""lt
;-.;till "'TIItll' is 1111111111..: llll:o.ol'\;lti\"o' .!1 111111 I, ',1111'
lolllo'lh :-,l;oto.":. h; ot ub :t:lll altlllllll"l' 't'lll't.olhlll :.
''"II II,., 11:-.lllllllllll:tl hnt h : llll"t'
IIIII W: o n II ill:-1:.1:- 'ho '"IIIli! "' or:-. 1;11 l:lltl:ll.l':
1\\"q Jlill'l :llll:llolllh'lol b l'toiiiJIotll !11,11 \
:111l 1\1 o:o:-.-.:11";."
"'\\' :outo tlolllii'IH I Jll , ot 1
"'""'' tllllll::-. ,,_.,, 1:.111' :nol lh" t!tillJ', "'' 11t111k
:or ihn:tln l. " \ \ ':cnilo "nol 'iUI' lwl""" tt.o\\
ll:o:, it 111'''11 lll'l'"!'t.":t n ll o oll'lilll lll.ll"l"o: o
I
l __
Srn:nhs-fs on

t!'.'
>,
t'illlll:if:llnl;;un ll w l ltt '. l jl
... tn 1 I :wh ', 11, """ r . tlll'
nuoi nlto''' In p1 1 r.lll\1'
1 anrl ul:t ll ..,
'>11\ o Tlr .. u t p'-'111 null\la11
1\.d ok;s :11,. ;"oh 1111: ollllli IIIII I'
II l ,111!1 \\111'tl 111 l llllllllt IH 'lli'o;ul
ll u1r l"hlw:olllil''"'il!''
"JltJIIIIJI!-''" ol l.1r.111 1 tl\
I'IIIJIII"il ll)!lll l'lllllllllt.! :w:1111 ....1 f(t
l'lll>lll':lll Httlo 1\l:ll lfi, JIOIId ;til
:11 11'1 I llht'-11":111' .t p11lillc';tl 'ill"
IIIHt lhat h;oo tn:lilof 1 ..
1'1 ' .. 1111 ' 111 (to,. lllilll l\\"11
fttllrl'-. !IIIII '"'IL Tlh'l' :ll"l""ll
;11 'tap.,, . .,.;, l;ul !-d
l'lllhl Ill l!t'illl"ill'l:.illlllll' .
rnu J,:tr h"" rlln! :--:dt' .. :a!:;iu:-t :\
;11"11 :II III\' Joi"IH"I:nlll
til: ll o ,;,nw .. JI \':11':, l;lt r.
llolll-.:1 .tfo.co I' 111:111 111
ll..,lrlllll llhl rllon'h :111-:
,I ollllllil ll' Ill, IIJ'JIIIIlt'lll l(o'llilft
l l! 'otll! l11 1:. I .lllll n. li .1f:tt I{ I
lo,Hhr;.,Jttp :ttu! I'IIIISbltlJI'\' 1111
11htt'.tll11tt. Sox w: im
o!lll!l Itt II\ .IIIIi j11lt I >111!'.11111"1 i111:
Tho' ;ub c.11l" , .. utili :ct u . !l
\\'h !.II: hlt)l:l;
\\\\ w.lu; uthahk:l.'lllll .
K IJ!Y of :1cl
000216
lho -.:.dt liT.\H .. .,
If.:!
Backers, foes of Amendment 3 make last appeals
Emotional issue: Opp111ll'nt' uf
!Ill' rnarriagl' mt;l.."lll"\' :L"k f, lr
rornp;to;,.;iun; propc tntnt. .... '-'l_\'
just want tu pn..;crw tl!l'ir lifi. ...;tyk
l h '\\
.. ,J: J.J.,., Jt,i'ffw
Tttny l!uul'r1'hld and l';u;l
:Lc;, iii r:1ar
riaJ:{: a' cht!::
T'l!rh,r ror 1:! !111: 1'"" mtn
h;ok eniltt;l an;l wtll:. anrJ hr: in
'UriU1l'
1
! t!i\\.'11 IJlh:r H .. '
'A't't'1'
t4r a 't:rn.'l,.':tlt: CU\Hh1r tn
o..tl !l :;l t:WH t'Ul!hl t-.Ji:-.Uot' nn Chc:u h1rth
P:ntl h,,Htl with th ..
Tn:. '.'.t ... :u\t l to ....h"'l.
'"\\,.-.. t ll'HH \''<t>l". ;h:1t ttl,. l:t\.\'
pPolido I' lloo:tull;..' ,:,r:;tni;sg IS
aJrtil.!ht :L' H t :t'
llllt:c!rii,Jd. 'l lo;t !If' lo:ll
lrtf..! u!" thl.' t r\:trn:.}.!t
1 .im .. tul
fllt'nl m'lr iht <11:111 :uttl tlol'l<
<'hilclf'1.n.
,uH ....IIlutu''"'l
\-! ' ... lyun,!
n:\t:t' I!H. it!,!;t) tllll1111 til a n!4.UI ;ti UJ '
\\'olfii:L!l . ft aj,;.o ... lhr :'li tf< trulll
an:: tJ!Ill'r rd;ttJtn-htJr.> a,
otherarnendlnents
ThE:te df>:' two otner con:;llllr
lrondl amenoments on llu ballot.
e Z 'NOUid allov. Sliif'!
o .. nt?<Junt :u1cons Sll( 'las tne Unwe<slly
of Ulan 3rul Utan State Uni.,erslly tole-
IJJIIY hole an ;h1p mtefest .n pn11ate
(Omoamts whose <:Jr iQin 1s in rese.:.rch
conuucll'd ot tne scnools.
A.mendmeat 1 l'lt>uld diiO'Ii the :Jiah
ftouse to call it sell rnto b{ a ho
vote to conssder mpeachment at a
public olhct>r. lhl' Scnah.' holding iJn
ornpr.achment lnal. Currently. only the
QOvcrnor Coln call the LeQisfalurc mto
tor an impeachment
.'QUII.':Cicnl" Ill
Th.: it !h:tl
mule ;,ppl] I< ;,n: v!thtr lillc r.l
runrr.tl'L,. But f(;tr i.' m lht: .. r
HWIT
,J<.o; l.usultJIfl.:, n lht lhtr hantl.
aholll .-h:Lt will h011Jill.'ll tu UIJ'th
'o('iNy rf :.,r;:rs r''Jt'\:1 tht: ;un,.tHhnnt.
TIJ< nlr! antl
hor 1Ju,.ll:u1!l h<tv .,rt:Hn IWCt
r .. otk.., :tnd ttn rnakuu.:
m;ornat,'t lldil"''-"' tlk
rmun f hurn<mn;. un. ur'l.,.IIU
\ llm:IIY ttnltt'\1 O.:il'ftN.':<u;tl mar
Sh tu
t:l muu: rdlt: ttnll
11 h when Jilu: l'loniTlilrk
:-t.l n l1l aJIIIWll11: \II rn.'llT\
hil" lli.'CI'Inll' aJIIUr>l t"(
'in<1 Yuunf( JI'.'IPh hrk at it 1111
ll('\.'\l rtr 11 . 'llwn: 1.' 1111 cumlllltrnf.'al ll>
l;p,p th" fiJnuJy
,;ud. tJnJVId<!:i that commit
mctlt. Whl.'ll th:n: i;. ntl m;trri<I!!C. 1111

I ;ewy:n; tn booth an:ut.,.J
lh: ltnll Lund ben:.<>' point'-.
Tl1n 11 r anumcy t41mcr
11!. the Vt:lh ,\:\1<1'. the Family Law
Sl:t.1iun hfthc Ut;oh Sr.at: ll:u.llcrl.cns uf
blnmtl' .. lew1sh. l.uthcr;m
ami t;;nhnlk church and
funncr p<lnwmist Wl\'l':o woJrry ;tbout
th( ltmJ:u;IJ:t:.
They ars.:uc tht: :mh:ndment will im:te
XJIC!OSh'l' htll!:'IIJ()fl ami l'flUid
whoil Hf l :tah .'Ill' I
cty. nut JUSt CitY ;mel their dlll-
clrcn. bul h:hrusxta.;tl I'IIU-
plo:s a.' ,.dl.
t:ulllmalun:d fnmtnmncr .Jon
. lr .. a >(:Ill'!: 1 of l(.'l!ISI<t
11w t'hul'\:h ()( Christ uf
l .atu:r 11<1y S:ums Fir.;t and
Jll'I.'O>dll.'r.< .ti",.'Ul' ll ll:
("(
(" C T
.at>-
0
twr;-p:m is linwly :utrl n.
r":\.o;;:1ry to ,tn)' :::;oy frnm lhn;n1c
l't:Jh !vr>xucJ117.l' \':nnunt C:l\ol
and (';,JiliJrru;,;, tlmno'SIL!: panr11:r.h11.-.
They lht: , .. ,.n;,,,.,,
and thE: S.'<:.,nd will nut ll/1
!lcnn im I ikr lh Jluttt riil'lol ,'
l<l't'lnt shuw lltarly I'll rl'l'lnt
.. r muliliunally con,..,["\:otil:t IJt:1h '"'
crs pr11hahly wtll \'ule ti1r tlo1 '" .cnrl-
m._.nl. Ttw .:11/U:hrsiun <>I '1\u .....!:l )', cit
til,n mily ;llrc;dY ......,
liut llon't ,\ownlt ,\JIIam
ScrU .\loi'ur .,till hHhh Ill "''II"-' hrtJ
that th1: lct::tii]Ul"'>liun' ;uuJ cmuunn;tl
il!l!J!:.d tJt' ilkt thr lhlllt'rfJlr lo..
WIIJ lit!i'SU;Irlt: til I
tHn
!c.a.:;1l tlllti ..
tr: ht.'ll\'ity 1111 Wlun
yuu adtl lu that thP t:llrii J
nent. t h:J I m1s:ht b ,,_,:l" '" ltrr , .. '"''' '"
tlL..:i!.ll' ma ybl.' 1o1:1: tltt lhb.
,\II"' ,.., .... nl! rlup t. h ' .. 111
WrntH.." '1'\,t\' t!\,1-,_U'-1 Hul or\
ltiltt .\nl .\mrrlfhnIL' 1
th 'A.TffiU,: .\':1\
Yt"'''" s , ,,. tl.nn:l.ta .\lunl .. ';c"A.trt
hw.r all :tt.uu'lulrHnz i;Hl!fll, l,,
"cJ"J.!;t Uf:IJJ:t!"tt"l 'IU
.. It ''a"' H"''
11\'r'f ht '-itff :111 ... nl rfth.JII \
\'Ill!' )f"\ llfl $ thH1l! tht nw,
olr .\.;1} t"Hht,tJ h P)l!l
AHr . IJ lh t :, .. t,, 11 u:!
lht t&:ttiHI,"'o . tp f ,J-.t 'h;:lt ::i(lJ ,,Jl,!
I.BJIIIJ"'I"\! utht' '-" !H :u iPII l:ih t
ltrt :h: """'uh u1 ..,,,r-. '"""'"
h.t, ,n .qtprHHHl' n: ,. ,.,
tn" .ttiHC JlE'\ O ',l ._ H sUf l:trtJh t
a! 1 \\.II :ta\ ,, Ulo",t h ,ul l
'J;tot:ld fC!-l ktll '" t If!( t:u1111\ I luc
l'ht ... ;, l!t.tt (tr,u h ;;,,,: ... Hu
\"Uf':t:\ t :IH;If(U 1Ut IU t.(:'\
1
.ufl l !Ht ,,q.,-.t U ... *''
..... \!.C' !.rUP!lf'" "A tl
liw 11 .\mnrl:nt::r 1 "' .-.. J; ,.
trufU IIU\ltt nr;H"J t:ll
1
f' If I f Lth 'A $ft 'l,l
f"u ,,\ ... 1
'l'flh , H''t tnHtiUt :n:'' lr ....
{:, ... . . , .... ;rl u'n ,,, ,,l('!,t.. ...fit .....
11
cJ ',\ , .
11nf1 t 'A-:trll J-Ut (U \\ i
,., h" "A h tt v .. t-..:t\
I ";_;tft . ... fl<-' t l l . ....... "' tt h ,,
oUUPHthn,tU fH\ :h.o
.,.., ..... ,;..
000219

TAB 23

SUMMARY OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES

2004 AMENDMENT 3 CAMPAIGN

Chart 1: Groups in favor of Amendment 3

Name Total contributions received Total expenditures made
Utahns for a Better Tomorrow $708,026.00 $708,026.00*
Constitutional Defense of
Marriage Alliance
$7,611.71 $7,559.92
Yes for Marriage $20,437.52 $21,592.52
Traditional Marriage Crusade $642.84 $642.84
Totals: $736.718.07 $737,821.28

Chart 2: Groups opposed to Amendment 3

Name Total contributions received Total expenditures made
Dont Amend Alliance $770,650.88 $803,107.85
Utah Lawyers for Sound
Constitutional Amendments
$7,554.24 $7,554.24

Totals: $778,205.12 $810,662.09

* See explanatory note in Tab 17, Affidavit of William C. Duncan at 18.
000222

TAB 24

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH P. PRICE
State of Utah )
County of Utah
) ss
)
I, Joseph P. Price, being first duly sworn testifY of my own personal knowledge
that:
1. I am an economist and associate professor in the Department of Economics of
Brigham Young University. My research specialties include labor, family, and
health economics. I received a Ph.D. in economics from Cornell University in
2007 (affiliations noted for identification purposes only).
2. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1, and the information contained in it is
true and accurate.
3. My testimony in the remaining paragraphs of this affidavit is provided pursuant to
Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence.
4. My research indicates that Utah is foremost among the States in the extent to
which its demographics indicate a consistent commitment to the ideal of married
households and the related ideal that children will be raised by their own married
mother and father. This is suggested by a number of measures.
5. Regarding the percentage of husband-wife households, Utah is the highest among
all States with 61.0% compared to the national average of 48.4%. The percentage
of married husband-wife households with children under 18 (31.7%) is also
000223
significantly higher than other States and the national average (20.2%).
1
Utah also
has the highest percentage among all States of residents between the ages of 24
and 70 who are married and the highest percentage of residents in that age group
who are in a first marriage.
6. Utah has the lowest percentage of households headed by cohabiting couples as a
percentage of total households (1.3% compared to 2.4% nationally)? It is seventh
among states in the wedding rate per I ,000 population (8.5 compared to 6.8
nationally) and would probably rank even closer to the top if one excluded States
with higher rates (such as Nevada and Hawaii) that are probably affected by high
rates of tourist weddings.
3
Utah's divorce rate per 1,000 population is not unusual
(3. 7 compared to 3.4 nationally); Utah is in the lower part of the top half of States,
which may be explained by its higher rate of marriages, low rates of cohabitation,
and younger population.
4
7. Utah's birthrate is the highest in the nation, 18.2 compared to the national average
of 12.7.
5
Utah has the lowest percentage of unwed births (as a percentage of all
1
Daphne Lofquist, et al., "Households and Families: 2010" 2010 Census Briefs, April2012,
C2010BR-14 at http://www.census.gov/prod/cen201 Olbtiefs/c201 Obr-14.pdf, table 4.
2
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics 2010 American Community Survey, DP-1.
3
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Marriage rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-
2010" at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/marriat!e rates 90 95 99-ll .pdt: 2010 data.
4
Divorce Rate. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Divorce rates by State:
1990, 1995, and 1999-2010" at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/divorce rates 90 95 99-
l.l.&Qf, 2010 data.
5
Brady E. Hamilton, et al., "Birth: Preliminary Data for 2011" National Vital Statistics Report,
vol. 61, no. 5, October 3, 2012 at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61 OS.pdf
Table 6.
2
000224
Lefgren, Lars; Joseph Price, and Henry Tappen. "Interracial Workplace Cooperation: Evidence from
the NBA." Economic Inq11iry, 51(1): 1026-1034, 2013.
Patterson, Rich and Joseph Price. "Pornography, Religion, and the Happiness Gap: Does
Pornography Affect the Actively Religious Differently." Joumal of the Sdentifit- St11dy of Religion, 51 (1) :
79-89, 2012.
Price,Joseph and Justin Wolfers. "Biased Referees?: Reconciling Results with the NBA's Analysis"
Contemporary Economic Polir;y, 30(3): 320-328, 2012.
Price, Joseph; Marc Remer, and Daniel Stone. "Sub-game Perfect: Profitable Biases ofNBA
Referees." Joumal ofEmnomit'S & Managemmt Strategy, 21(1): 271-300, 2012.
Price, Joseph and Jeffrey Swigert*. ''Within-Family Variation in Obesity." Economics & Human
Biology, 10(4): 333-339, 2012.
Price,Joseph and Jason Riis. "Behavioral Economics and the Psychology of Fruit and Vegetable
Consumption." jolfmal of Food Studies, 1 (1), 2012.
Just, David; Jesse Lund, and Joseph Price. "The role of variety in increasing the consumption of
fruits and vegetables among children" Agrimltural and Resoum Emnomit'S Review, 41(1): 72-81,2012.
Price,Joseph;Joshua Price, and Kosali Simon. "Educational Gaps in Medical Care and Health
Behavior: Evidence from Natality Data." EL"onomit'S of Education Revie1v, 30(5): 838-849, 2011.
"Is it Just about Love?: Factors that Influence Marriage." Handbook ofFami!J Law & Et'onomics,
Edward Elgar Publishing, (ed. Lloyd Cohen and Joshua Wright), 2011.
Price, Joseph, and Simon, D. "High School Sports and Teenage Births". In "The Economics of
Sport, Health, and Happiness: The Promotion of Well-Being through Sporting Activities" Edward
Elgar Publishing, (ed. Placido Rodriquez, Stefan Kesenne, and Brad Humphreys), 2011.
Cao, Zheng;Joseph Price, and Daniel Stone. "Performance under Pressure in the NBA" jolfmal of
Sports Economics, 12(3): 231-252, 2011.
Buckles, Kasey; Melanie Guldi, and Joseph Price. "Changing the Price of Marriage" ]oumal of Human
Reso11rces, 46(3): 539-567, 2011 .
Dew,Jeffrey and Joseph Price. "Beyond Employment and Income: The Association between Young
Adults' Finances and Marital Timing" Joumal ofFami!J and Et'OIJOt!lit' Issues, 32(2): 424-436, 2011.
Price, Joseph and Justin Wolfers. "Racial Discrimination Among NBA Referees" Q11arterfy ]o11111al of
Economics, 125(4): 1859-1887,2010.
Price, Joseph; Brian Soebbing; David Berri; and Brad Humphreys. "Tournament Incentives, League
Policy, and NBA Team Performance Revisited" Journal of Sports Economics, 11 (2): 117-135, 2010.
000227
Price, Joseph and Kosali Simon. "Education and the Response to Medical Research" (with Kosali
Simon),]o11rnal of Health Economit'S, 28(6): 1166-1174, 2009.
Wight, Suzanne; Suzanne Bianchi, Joseph Price, and Bijou Hunt. "Teenage Time Use" Social Science
Research, 38(4): 792-806, 2009.
''Parent-Child Quality Time: Does Birth Order Matter?" Journal ojHuman Reso11rces 43(1): 240-265,
2008.
"Gender Differences in the Response to Competition" Industrial and Labor Relations Rcvim;, 61 (3),
320-333, 2008.
Under Review or Revise-Resubmit:
"Sticking with What (Barely) Worked" (with Lars Lefgren and Brennan Platt).
''What Matters in Movie Ratings? Cross-country Differences in which Content Influence Mature
Movie Ratings" (with Doug Gentile and Craig Palsson*) .
"How Much More XXX is Generation X Using?" (with Rich Patterson* and Mark Regnerus)
"The Number of Children Being Raised by Gay or Lesbian Parents" (with Ryan Hill* and Corbin
Miller*)
Working Papers
"Awareness Reduces Racial Bias" (with Devin Pope and Justin Wolfers)
"The Impact ofMedical Research" (with Josh Price and Kosali Simon)
"Causes of gender differences in competition: theory and evidence" (with Chris Cotton and Frank
Mcintyre)
"Racial Bias in Coaching Changes" (with David Berti and Jason Cook*)
"Teenage Fatherhood and Educational Attainment" (with Reggie Covington, Liz Peters, and Joseph
Sabia)
"Pornography and Marriage" (with Kirk Doran)
Current Projects
"Using Technology to Improve Math Achievement during the Summer Break" (with Jaren Pope)
000228
"Habit formation in Children: Evidence from Eating Fruits and Vegetables" (with George
Loewsenstein and Kevin V olpp)
"Does the location of fruits and vegetables in the cafeteria matter? Evidence from elementary
schools (with David Just)
''Product Portfolios and Average Prices" (with Wayne Sandholtz* and Samantha Snyder)
"Ranking which Fruits and Vegetables are Most Popular among Children" (with Grant Gannaway*
and Ruidi Huang*)
"Maternal Employment and Mother-Child Interaction" (with Frank Heiland)
"Technological change, relative worker productivity, and finn-level substitution: Evidence from the
NBA" (with Grant Gannaway*, Craig Palsson*, and David Sims)
Grants:
Benjamin Miller Research Grant, ILR, Cornell ($2,500), 112007
Bronfenbrenner Life Course Center Innovative Research Project Grant (w I Kosali Simon), Cornell
($3,330), 612007
Institute for Social Science Seed Grant (wl Kosali Simon), Cornell ($6,500), 712007
Women's Research Institute, BYU ($3,000), 1112007
Family Studies Center, BYU ($6,000), 1112007
Mentored Environment Grant, BYU ($13,000), 412008
Small Grants Program in Behavioral Economics (wl David Just), USDA ERS ($30,000), 812008
Gerontology Program, BYU ($3,400), 212009
Witherspoon Institute, Princeton ($1,275), 1012009
Family Studies Center, BYU ($3,400), 1212009
Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program (w I David Just), USDA ERS ($150,000), 812010
Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Program (wl David Just), ($29,000),
712011
Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program (w I George Lowenstein, Paul Rozin, and Kevin
Volpp), USDA ERS ($250,000), 812011
Family Studies Center (wl Mike Findley and Dan Nielsen), BYU ($10,000), 112012
Education and Social Opportunity Grant (wl Chris Cotton and Thomas Dee), Spencer Foundation
($28,000), 112012
Emmaline B. Wells Grant, BYU ($9,300), 112013
Professional Activities:
Referee for:
Agricrdt11ral and Reso11rce Economirs Review, Amerifall Economit'S Review, .AE]-Poliry; AEJ-Applied, American
Jortrnal ojP11blic Health, Biodemograpf?y, Demograpi!J, Eto11omia and Hm'ltall Biology, Eronomic Inq11iry,
000229
Economica, Economic Journal, Economics B11lletin, Ewnomit's of Education Revie1v, Edm'Otional Finance and
Poliry, Health Economics, Inteifam, Jo11rnal of Human Reso1mes, Journal ofEtonomit' Behavior and
Organizations, Journal of Labor Economit:r, J oumal of Marketing Research, J o11rnal of Poliry Ana!Jsis and
Managemmt, J o11mal of Population Economit:r, J oumal of Public EtwJomit:r, Journal of Quantitative Ana!Jsis in
Sports, Jortmal of the Scientific Strt& of Religio11, Labour Eamon;ia, Managemmt Science, Oxford Etvnomic
Papers, Pediatrics, Political Research Q11arterfy, Quarter!J' J oumal of Etvllomit:r, Review of EconomicS t11dies,
Sexualities, Social Science Jo11mal, Social Sciem-e Resean-b, So11them Etvnomit'Jollmal
Discussant: SEA (2006-2007, 2009-2010, 2012), APPAM (2006), WEA (2007, 2009, 2011-2013),
AEA (2008, 2010-2011), SWEA (2008), PAA (2008), Social Costs ofPornography
(2008), WSSA (2011), ASHEcon (2010, 2012)
Conference Presentations:
American Society of Health Economists: 2008, 2010, 2012
APPAM research conference: 2005,2006,2012
Population Association of America: 2006-2010, 2013
Society ofLabor Economics: 2006 (poster), 2007, 2008 (poster)
American Economic Association: 2013
Southern Economic Association: 2006-2007, 2009-2010, 2012
Western Economic Association: 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011-2013
NBER summer institute, Children's workshop: 2005
USDA ERS conference: 2010
SIEPR Policy Forum, Sports Economics and Policy: 2011
Symposium on Behavioral Economics and Health: 2011, 2012
Food Marketing Workgroup Conference: 2011
Western Social Science Association: 2011, 2013
American Public Health Association: 2012
Child Development Conference (Norway): 2009
Incl. Association of Agricultural Economists (China): 2009
Quadrilateral Behavioural Economics Workshop: 2011
IZA Conference on Discrimination (Germany): 2011
Gijon Conference on Sports Economics (Spain): 2010
National Poverty Center Conference on Religion: 2007
American Time Use conference: 2005 (poster), 2009
Mellon Foundation Graduate Education Initiative Conference: 2005
Incl. Assoc. of Sports Economists Conference: 2005
Invited Seminars:
ANU (August 2013); UT Austin (March 2012); Texas A&M (March 2012); Iowa State (Nov. 2011);
LSU (March 2011); U. Pennsylvania (Feb. 2011); U. Miami (Feb. 2011); Michigan (Jan 2011); Notre
Dame (Nov. 2011); Case Western (Nov 2010); UC Riverside (Oct 2010); UC Denver (April2010);
Washington University (March 2010); Utah Valley University (March 2010); U. British Columbia
(Dec. 2009); U. Victoria (Dec. 2009); U. Utah (Dec. 2009); Virginia Tech (Nov. 2009); Florida State
(April2009); U. Washington (Feb 2009); Oregon State (Nov 2008); Baylor (Oct 2008); U. Miami
(Oct 2008); UT-Arlington (April2008); RAND (Nov 2007); Wharton (May 2006); Cornell (April
2006); U. of Oregon (August 2005)
000230
Brigham Young University: Sociology: (Oct 2007); Statistics (March 2008); Family Studies: (April
2008); Women's Research Institute: Qan 2009); EIME (March 2010), Nutrition (Oct 2010)
000231

TAB 25
(Reserved)

TAB 26
(Reserved)

Appendix Tabs 17-26

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Appendix Tabs 17-26

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Tab

Você também pode gostar