The Pivotal Case of Utah’s Amendment 3

Throughout much of American history, the gay community has suffered from social stigmatization and legal discrimination by the intolerant attitudes of society. However, in the recent decades, many different forces have facilitated a shift in the public perception and legal developments regarding same-sex relations, including forces such as the media portraying homosexuals in a more favorable perspective, gay people more frequently expressing their sexual preferences, and civil rights organizations advocating for gay rights. Each state in the US develops and establishes its own policies regarding whether or not to officially permit same-sex marriage licenses, with some states allowing gay marriage unions and other states prohibiting such marriages. However, one of the most recent controversial developments pertaining to gay marriage is occurring in Utah, for the state of Utah incorporated an amendment into the state constitution that effectively banned gay marriages but was then struck down and declared unconstitutional by a federal district court ruling. Although the ruling is currently being appealed, the 10th Circuit Appellate Court will most likely uphold the ruling that the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because the ban is a discriminatory violation of the rights of gay citizens and because recent legal precedence has established support for gay marital rights.

Utah has consistently maintained conservative political and social positions throughout the state’s history. The citizens of a given state have the right to determine the particular values that the communities appreciate and the preferred behavior that the people are expected to display. In Utah, the general population is typically very devoted to religious values, consists of an abundance of devout Mormons, and tends to possess and vote according to conservative values. As a result, the general attitude of Utah has consistently condemned gay relationships and has disapproved of gay marriage. For instance, in 1977 the Utah government passed legislation to definitively prevent and nullify same-sex marriages within the state (Shelby, 2013). However, since 2004 the marriage standards of Utah have garnered a significant amount of controversy and criticism, for in 2004 the state of Utah proposed an amendment to the state constitution that banned gay marriage and that is known as Amendment 3, article 1 section 29.

Amendment 3 consists of two clauses that serve to officially solidify the prohibition of gay marriage within the state of Utah. The first clause of the amendment states, “marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman,” while the second clause asserts that, “no other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.” The Utah state government then placed Amendment 3 on the ballot for the 2004 election, and if the measure received a majority vote from the Utah citizens, the amendment would become legally binding and officially incorporated into the Utah state constitution (Constitution Article I Section 29). Thus, Amendment 3 established that marriage licenses in Utah can only be issued to opposite-sex couples, prohibited gays from becoming married, restricted the state from legally recognizing any unions between same-sex couples, and prevented gay couples from utilizing the many legal rights and financial benefits that are associated with marriage and that are enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.

The placement of Amendment 3 on the 2004 election ballot generated significant public attention. The media provided extensive coverage regarding the amendment, legislators debated the issue and legitimacy of gay marriage, and vast amounts of money were injected into both sides of the issue to campaign for and against the proposed marriage ban. However, the voting patterns, religious values and conservative attitudes of the general Utah public indicated that the gay marriage ban was most likely going to pass, and on the election day of 2004 Amendment 3 officially passed by receiving a 66 percent majority vote (Utah voters pass gay marriage ban amendment). Therefore, the gay marriage ban received a convincing majority vote, the amendment was incorporated into the state constitution, and gay couples in Utah were officially prohibited from getting married or from obtaining standard marital rights.

However, over the years the ruling frequently stimulated controversy regarding the validity and legality of the gay marriage ban in Utah. Many gay rights advocates constantly challenged the amendment while groups opposed to gay marriages were often required to defend the merit of the new law. On March 25, 2013, the controversial issue was addressed by the court system as three same-sex couples filed a joint lawsuit against the state of Utah, arguing that the law prohibiting same-sex marriages was an unconstitutional violation of the United States Constitution. After months of preliminary proceedings, on December 4th of 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Utah heard and considered the arguments regarding the constitutionality of the gay marriage ban. During this contentious debate, many different arguments were developed and perpetuated by both supporters and opponents of the gay marriage ban.

One of the arguments used to defend the Utah marriage ban was the common argument that gay marriage violates traditional religious morals. For example, in the Leviticus section of the Old Testament Bible, the Ancient Israelites are instructed that having sexual intercourse with a same-sex partner was an abomination. Although scholars assert that this law was established because the Israelites desperately needed to reproduce and expand their small population, the selection of anti-homosexuality passages in the Old Testament has caused several religious groups that interpret the Bible as literal to contend that it is immoral to perform sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex (Shelby, 2013). Thus, supporters of Amendment 3 often cite traditional and religious moral values as the reason to forbid same-sex marriage unions.

Supporters of the Utah gay marriage ban also consistently argue that marriage is for procreation and that homosexuals should not be allowed to get married because they cannot reproduce or have children. The opponents further this argument by asserting that, because marriage is exclusively intended for procreation, a marriage must be between a man and a woman and our entire society would be harmed by changing the institution or definition of marriage (Shelby, 2013). Additionally, Amendment 3 supporters argue that same-sex couples should not be allowed to have children because the immoral nature of the same-sex parent relationship would harm the family and inflict the children with dramatic psychological or social problems.

Opponents of the Utah gay marriage ban also use many arguments to express their reasons why same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. A common argument perpetuated by Amendment 3 opponents is that because everybody in our society is established as equal, so too homosexuals must be treated as equal and must be granted the same educational, professional and marital opportunities as all other citizens (Shelby, 2013). To prohibit marriage based on sexual preferences discriminates against same-sex couples by depriving them of equal opportunities, by attempting to delegitimize and invalidate their romantic partnerships, and by claiming that they are socially and legally inferior to straight people. Thus, because all adult citizens possess the right to get married to their partners, even prisoners, Amendment 3 opponents argue that gay adults should also have the same equal right to marry their partners.

A compelling argument that opponents of Amendment 3 express to support their positions is the fact that married couples usually benefit from numerous tax credits and that gay couples should also enjoy the tax credits that are associated with marriage unions. For example, married couples are permitted to file for joint tax returns, which allow the couples to combine their incomes and submit one tax form to pay one established income tax rate. Joint taxes can enable married couples to enter lower income tax brackets, reduce the total amount that they are obligated to pay and qualify the couples for a diverse range of tax credits (Tax Advantages). Additionally, married couples in Utah are also provided with many other advantageous tax benefits, such as the house sales tax exclusion, the gift tax exclusion, child tax credits, education tax credits, and estate tax exemptions.

Because marriage unions entail such an abundance of beneficial tax credits that only married couples can utilize, opponents of the amendment 3 gay marriage ban contend that gay couples should also be permitted to get married and attain these benefits. Furthermore, to prevent gay couples from getting married and from acquiring the same benefits as straight couples discriminates against same-sex couples and dramatically diminishes the financial stability of the couples. Opponents of Amendment 3 consistently cite statistics and research studies to demonstrate the many economic and financial advantages that gay marriage would provide for Utah and for our entire society. The research studies indicate that permitting same-sex marriage unions would improve the state and national economies in several ways, as gay marriages would increase the tax revenues being collected, decrease the number of welfare checks that are distributed and enhance the amount of spending money being injected into the economy (Tax Advantages). Enabling gay couples to get married would also generate a significant amount of money for Utah because more couples would be allowed to purchase marriage licenses and fulfill wedding ceremonies. Thus, Amendment 3 opponents argue that gay marriage should be legalized in Utah because same-sex marriage unions would be beneficial for the couples, the state economy, and the national economy.

Opponents of the Utah gay marriage ban also cite business as a reason for eliminating the amendment from the constitution. Several prominent businesses and powerful corporations vocalized their disapproval of the Utah gay marriage ban and advocated for Amendment 3 to be eradicated because such anti-gay sentiments are detrimental to business endeavors. Although some companies publicly express their disapproval of homosexual relationships, which is their right, the overwhelming majority of businesses diligently refrain from associating with anti-gay organizations and express fervent support regarding equal rights for gay people. Businesses avoid being connected to anti-gay sentiments because there are naturally many gay citizens in our society, and as a result condemning gay relationships could dramatically damage the reputation of the business, isolate and exclude potential customers, and discourage gay people and gay rights supporters from utilizing the services or products of the business (Winslow, 2014). Thus, the Utah gay marriage amendment would make businesses reluctant to open store locations or manufacturing facilities in Utah because the connection to anti-gay sentiments would be harmful to the reputation and profit margins of the businesses. As a result, many major companies and businesses adamantly vocalized their opposition to Amendment 3 and expressed their desire to have the amendment defeated, including Google, Facebook, Intel, Starbucks, Pfizer, and eBay.

In December of 2013, the issue received an abundance of media attention as the federal district court in Utah heard all of the arguments from attorneys on both sides. On December 20th, US District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby, 2013 struck down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban and ruled that Amendment 3 was unconstitutional. The pivotal ruling officially eliminated the gay marriage ban from the state constitution and provided gay couples in Utah with the right to get married. Judge Shelby, 2013 elaborated on the many reasons why the Court ruled against the marriage ban. Judge Shelby, 2013 asserted that the law was an illegal violation of the US constitution because the ban violated the due process clause guaranteed in the 14th amendment of the constitution. According to the 14th amendment, every state is required to respect and allow its citizens to experience all of their legal rights. Because marriage is a fundamental right and every citizen has the right to marry his or her romantic partner, gay citizens must also be provided with the basic right to marry their particular romantic partners (Shelby, 2013). Additionally, Judge Shelby, 2013 also asserted that the Utah gay marriage ban was an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause established in the 14th amendment, for a state is prohibited from restricting the rights of citizens based on arbitrary and discriminatory characteristics, such as race, ethnicity or sexual preferences. Thus, denying same-sex couples from enjoying the fundamental right of marriage was a violation of the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which allowed the federal court system to supersede any claims to states’ rights.

Judge Shelby, 2013 also refuted the arguments delivered by the state of Utah, for the arguments did not sufficiently justify the deprivation of citizens’ rights and were not compelling enough to withstand even a minimal level of constitutional scrutiny. For instance, a primary argument consistently perpetuated by Utah to defend the gay marriage ban was that marriage serves the purpose of procreation, gay couples cannot naturally procreate, and thus they should not be allowed to get married. Supporters of the gay marriage ban further argued that allowing gay couples that cannot procreate to get married would permeate immorality through society, would discourage citizens from reproducing, and would impair the balance of the population and demographics of the state. However, the premise of this argument is dramatically flawed. Utah is wrong to insist that marriage is exclusively intended to facilitate procreation and to develop families, for there are no legal requirements that obligate married couples to have children and many married couples do not have any children because of biological difficulties or because of personal preferences. The marriage of a couple without any children is still perceived as legitimate, and thus marriage is not exclusively for procreation, does not need to be exclusively designated for straight couples, and our society would not suffer damage from allowing gay marriage. Judge Shelby, 2013 also refuted claims that gay couples cannot raise children effectively and that attempting to raise families would cause drastic psychological and social damage to the children in the families. This claim is also false, for no scientific studies demonstrate that gay parents inherently harm the children they raise, many straight couples prove to be inferior parents, and thus there is no correlation that makes sexual preference at all indicative of a person’s parenting abilities (Shelby, 2013). Judge Shelby, 2013 also notes that asserting the protection of children as the purpose of the discriminatory law is contradictory and inaccurate because the law fails to restrict parenting rights from violent child abusers, career criminals or sexual offenders. Additionally, many same-sex couples currently raise children and develop families in our society. Thus, justifying a discriminatory law that prohibits gay marriage on the grounds that such families are harmful stigmatizes the families and sends a detrimental message to children of same-sex parents by insisting that their parents are illegitimate and that their families are inferior. As a result, the excessive flaws in the procreation argument prevented the argument from justifying a law that violates the constitution and discriminates against citizens.

Judge Shelby, 2013 also maintained that religious or traditional values cannot be used to validate the discriminatory gay marriage ban established by Utah. Supporters of Amendment 3 argue that gay marriage should be illegal because it is against their religious laws and their traditional conception of morality. However, because many other people do not agree or adhere to this religious conception of morality, it is unjust and illegitimate to compel other people to follow a religious code that they do not accept (Shelby, 2013). Furthermore, because the separation of church and state clause in the 1st amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing one religion as being the official state religion or legally superior to other religious and secular attitudes, it is unconstitutional for the government to use a religious code as justification for a law banning gay marriage.

The decision of the District Court to strike down Utah’s Amendment 3 and declare that the gay marriage ban was unconstitutional generated a pivotal development in which gay couples in Utah suddenly possessed the right to legally receive marriage licenses. As a result, immediately following the decision a vast multitude of same-sex couples and Utah citizens began exchanging their vows to officially get married. Meanwhile, the state of Utah quickly began filing to appeal the decision of the district court. Although after 17 days the US Supreme Court halted the same-sex marriages in Utah pending the outcome of the appellate process, by then more than 1,300 gay couples had already received their marriage licenses (Liptak, 2013). However, the outcome of those legal marriages and the future of gay marriage in Utah is largely going to be decided by the 10th District Court of Appeals.

The 10th District Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments regarding Amendment 3 in April of 2014. Predicting how the appellate court is going to rule on Amendment 3 is naturally a complex and speculative challenge. However, the historical trends, court rulings, and legal precedents that have been established recently and that all support gay marital rights indicate that the 10th District Court of Appeals is going to most likely uphold the ruling of Judge Shelby, 2013 that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional. The recent California gay marriage case can have a significant influence on the decision of the appellate court. In 2008, California state legislators placed an initiative to ban gay marriage on the election ballot, known as Proposition 8. Although the initiative received the majority of the votes and same-sex marriage unions were officially prohibited in California, the US District Court for the Northern District of California later ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it violated the due process and equal protection clauses guaranteed in the 14th amendment of the US constitution. As a result, the proposition was overturned and gay marriage became permissible in the state of California. The ruling was eventually solidified, as in June of 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Court could not hear the case because the state of California opted to refrain from appealing the ruling and nongovernmental supporters of Proposition 8 were not permitted to substitute for the state and appeal the case. Thus, the ruling of the District Court and the US Supreme Court established the legalization of same-sex marriages in California, which increased the number of states that allow gay marriage in the US to 13 total states. The California case indicates that the appellate court will most likely also rule in favor of gay marriage rights. Similar to California’s Prop 8, the District Court overturned Amendment 3 because it was perceived by the Court as a violation of due process and equal protection (Shelby, 2013). Therefore, the 10th District Court of Appeals can uphold the decision to overturn Amendment 3 by asserting that the gay marriage ban violates the constitution and by using the California case as legal precedence.

A recent Supreme Court decision pertaining to federal marital rights can also exert a significant influence over the decision of Amendment 3. In June of 2013, the US Supreme Court voted to strike down and overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act with a 5 to 4 decision. This Supreme Court ruling had a dramatic impact on the developments of gay marriage in the US, for prior to the ruling the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages. As a result, same-sex couples who obtained marriages in states that legalized such unions were still prohibited from acquiring marital benefits from the federal government. However, the ruling required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages and enabled gay married couples to enjoy the many legal rights and tax benefits that accompany marriage unions at the federal level (Liptak, 2013). Thus, the recent historical trend and legal precedence established by the California case and the Defense of Marriage Act case indicate that the 10th District Court of Appeals will most likely uphold the ruling of Amendment 3, assert that the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, and facilitate the legalization of same-sex marriage unions in the state of Utah.

Because momentum is a powerful and influential force in the world and among our species, it is reasonable to assert that the momentum accumulated by the gay marital rights movement will continue to progress in the future. Amendment 3 was eventually overturned as unconstitutional because it violated the due process and equal protection clauses provided in the 14th amendment of the US constitution, and the recent Court rulings in 2013 that demonstrated support of gay marriage rights suggest that the appellate court will also uphold the ruling that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional. A ruling that permits gay marriage unions in Utah would be significant because Utah is traditionally a conservative state. Most states that allow gay marriage are politically liberal and supportive of gay rights. However, because Utah is a conservative state that has been reluctant to accept gay rights, the ruling can potentially establish Utah as the first solid red conservative state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Thus, the impending April appellate court decision can be very consequential, for the Court can generate gay marriages in Utah, establish Utah as a conservative state that recognizes such unions, and can encourage and facilitate the legalization of same-sex marriages in many other states.

Works Cited

"Constitution Article I Section 29." Utah State Legislature. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. <http://le.utah.gov/~code/const/htm/00I01_002900.htm>.

Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings." The New York Times. N.p., 26 June 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&>.

Shelby, Robert. "Memorandum Decision and Order: Case No. 2:13-cv-217." The United States District Court: District of Utah. N.p., 20 Dec. 2013. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. <http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/213cv217_memdec.pdf>.

"Tax Advantages." Utah Educational Savings Plan. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. <http://www.uesp.org/About-UESP/Plan-Benefits/Tax-Advantages.aspx>.

"Utah voters pass gay marriage ban amendment." USA Today. N.p., 3 Nov. 2004. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-02-ut-initiative-gay-marriage_x.htm>.

Winslow, Ben. "Same-sex marriage supporters weigh in on Amendment 3 appeal." FOX13 News. N.p., 5 Mar. 2014. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. <http://fox13now.com/2014/03/04/same-sex-marriage-supporters-weigh-in-on-amendment-3-appeal/>.