The latest evidence of this ostensibly unintended consequence of the amendment is the 5-4 decision of the Salt Lake County Council to unfairly deny cohabiting county employees - gay and straight - the same insurance and family leave benefits as married couples.
Utah State University earlier this year also decided against granting benefits to domestic partners, citing a potential legal battle over Part 2 of the amendment.
The amendment states: (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 amendment passed by a huge margin last November, even though polls showed only about half of Utahns would favor refusing marriage-like rights to cohabiting adults, gay or otherwise. The other half were convinced by amendment supporters, including the conservative "Yes on 3" group, that Part 2 would not prohibit governments or private companies from offering benefits like health, dental and life insurance and funeral leave to unmarried couples.
They were duped.
Wednesday's party-line vote clearly demonstrates how Amendment 3 neatly, and insidiously, links the specter of gay marriage to the fair-minded recognition that domestic couples who decide to make a life together deserve legal protections and benefits.
The Tribune does not support gay marriage but favors legal rights for domestic partnerships. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., as a candidate last year, supported Amendment 3 but also backed legislation that would have made it possible for unmarried adults who live together to contractually grant each other some of the rights afforded married couples.
That proposal was voted down in the Utah Senate 18-10. Though some legislators denied they were influenced by the amendment, it clearly gave them political cover to deny equal rights to all Utah citizens.
Some of the five Republicans on the Salt Lake County Council cited Amendment 3 as justification for their negative votes, affirming yet again Part 2's utility as political cover for what is morally indefensible.
