Emotional issue: Opponents of the marriage measure ask for compassion; Proponents say they just want to preserve their lifestyle
By Rebecca Walsh The Salt Lake Tribune 10/30/2004

Tony Butterfield and Paul Redd-Butterfield have come as close to marriage as they can.
    Together for 12 years, the two men have created trusts and wills and life insurance policies listing each other as beneficiaries. Their 2-year-old twins were born to a surrogate mother in California so both men could be listed on their birth certificates. Paul stays home with the kids. Tony works and goes to school.
    "We've done everything that the law provides. Hopefully everything is as airtight as it can be," said the 30-year-old Butterfield. "But our lawyer keeps telling us this is not a marriage."
    That's why the prospect of Amendment 3 looms over the couple and their children.
    Utah's proposed constitutional amendment goes beyond defining marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman. It also blocks the state from recognizing any other relationships as "substantially equivalent" to marriage.
    The Butterfields aren't sure if that clause could apply to any of their pile of contracts. But the fear is in the back of their minds.
    Joy Lundberg, on the other hand, worries about what will happen to Utah society if voters reject the amendment. The 68-year-old Provo grandmother and her husband Gary have written two books and teach seminars on making marriage work. Lundberg believes the future of humanity hinges on constitutionally protecting heterosexual marriage. She points to Scandinavia's declining marriage rate and anecdotally dates it to when countries like Denmark started allowing gay couples to marry.
    "Marriage has become almost extinct. Young people look at it and see no need for it. There is no commitment to keep the family together," Lundberg said. "Marriage provides that commitment. When there is no marriage, all society suffers."
    Lawyers on both sides have argued the Butterfields' and Lundbergs' points.
    Three candidates for attorney general, the Utah AARP, the   Family Law Section of the Utah State Bar, dozens of Episcopal, Islamic, Jewish, Lutheran and Catholic church leaders and even former polygamist wives worry about the amendment's compound language. They argue the amendment will invite expensive litigation and could disenfranchise whole segments of Utah society, not just gay couples and their children, but unmarried heterosexual couples as well.
    Gubernatorial frontrunner Jon Huntsman Jr., a score of state legislators, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency and evangelical preachers argue the two-part amendment is timely and necessary to stop gay couples from forcing Utah to recognize Vermont civil unions and California's domestic partnerships. They dispute the doomsday scenarios and insist the second clause will not undermine contracts like the Butterfields'.
    Recent polls show nearly 60 percent of traditionally conservative Utah voters probably will vote for the amendment. The conclusion of Tuesday's election may already be set.
    But Don't Amend Alliance Director Scott McCoy still holds out some hope that the legal questions and emotional appeal of families like the Butterfields will persuade Utahns to be compassionate.
    "The legal doubts and those issues are weighing heavily on people. When you add to that the emotional component, that might be reason for people to decide maybe we shouldn't do this," McCoy said. "There's a right way and a wrong way to amend the Constitution to define marriage. And Amendment 3 is the wrong way."
    Yes on 3 co-chairman Monte Stewart, however, calls the amendment language "elegant and efficient."
    "It was written, rewritten, carefully gone over," he said at a recent debate. "A vote 'yes' on 3 keeps things the way they are. 'No' on 3 is a vote for radical change."
    After all the rhetoric fades away and the ballots are cast, Butterfield   and Lundberg and others will be left to interpret the results in a very personal way.
    Butterfield has an appointment with his attorney on Nov. 3. "If our family is at risk, we'll have to move," he said. "It would just kill us. Our family is here. This is a great place to raise kids. But you can't threaten to tear up our family and not expect us to move."
    Lundberg believes gay families will be "fine" if Amendment 3 passes. But traditional marriage in Utah will have been saved.
    "This is not a hurtful thing. It's a preservation of society," she said. "We don't want our society to fall. We don't want to lose what we have."
   Utah is one of 11 states with a marriage amendment on the ballot on Tuesday.