AMENDMENT 3
By Rep. Mike Morley
The general election is now less than a month away, presenting us with yet another opportunity to exercise our right and responsibility to cast a vote. There are many candidates and many issues, but one of the most hotly debated certainly has to be Amendment 3, a proposed amendment to the Utah Constitution which, if passed, would define and reaffirm the timeless meaning of marriage as a “legal union between a man and a woman”. The supposed controversy seems to lie with the second sentence which states “No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or equivalent legal effect”. That’s the entire amendment. Two-thirds of our state legislature approved it and the vast majority of Utah citizens support it.
The Constitutional Defense of Marriage Alliance, in discussing Amendment Three, states that it, “does not diminish, compromise or take away any existing legal rights for any citizen. It has no effect on wills, insurability or hospital visitation rights. It has no effect on common-law marriage or co-habitation.” In other states, citizens have voted overwhelmingly to limit marriage to the legal union of a man and a woman. But, through persistent legal wrangling, domestic partnerships have been instituted to publicly sanction and endorse same-sex unions and give them the same rights and benefits as marriage, only under another name.
There is sound public policy in defining marriage in our state, carefully and narrowly, as a union between a man and a woman. Some have characterized this amendment as outlawing homosexuality. I don’t believe it addresses its legality. In fact, under current statute, sodomy and adultery are both Class B misdemeanors. This amendment addresses only way in which government recognizes and incentivizes marriage.
Historically, government has provided incentives for those things which it values. For example, government has determined that home ownership promotes a stable society. Therefore, public policy has created a home mortgage interest deduction for those who own their own homes and many have taken advantage of this deduction. Likewise, incentives are provided to those who make charitable contributions to their church and other charitable, non-profit organizations. These contributions are tax deductible which, hopefully, will encourage more generous giving. Similar benefits have been given to promote numerous other activities in society such as small businesses ownership and the use of energy-saving devices.
Marriage, which has throughout man’s history been defined as the union of a man and a woman, has been given special statutory status as well as favorable tax treatment to promote its continued vitality. Why? A union of a man and a woman is the only way to bring offspring into the world. Children are our most valuable resource. They grow our economy; they stabilize our country; they strengthen our society. Countless studies over the past half-century have shown that a two-parent household consisting of a husband, a wife, and children is the ideal environment in which to raise well-adjusted, law-abiding, contributing adults. Marriage promotes stability, longevity, and even improved health and life expectancy. So, in our society, we have given special status to marriage.
Is it wise public policy to expand those incentives to same-sex relations? I think not. In reviewing same-sex relations, one of the obvious differences to marriage is that they cannot produce offspring, which is one of the primary reasons for promoting marriage in the first place. Same-sex couples, according to studies, are generally more mobile and less healthy which begs the question: Why should we as a government support or provide incentives for same-sex unions which cannot provide the same societal benefits as traditional marriage? I believe that sound public policy would dictate to the contrary.
There is concern about the legal challenges should this amendment be passed. I have spoken at length with many legal resources including Dr. Richard Wilkins of Brigham Young University’s law department. He indicates that while legal challenges are likely because of strong emotions on both sides of this issue, Amendment 3 is both legal and appropriate.
It is my belief that Amendment 3 must be passed and that both portions are vital to preserve our way of life in Utah. I would encourage you to join me in support of Amendment 3.
|
|
