The Draper Republican's "Constitutional Amendment on Marriage" was right there on the agenda, in between a "resolution amending the recall of elected officials" and a property-tax exemption for charter schools.

But while the recall idea was sent into interim study and commission members suggested clarifications to the property-tax bill, Christensen's amendment was not discussed.

Seems the legislation hadn't been written yet, or the sponsor skipped the meeting. Either way, the controversial amendment blocking recognition of gay unions went on its way - without the scrutiny of the group of experts that lawmakers have assembled to review legislation and proposed changes to Utah's Constitution.

With some now questioning the legal foundation of the amendment, that meeting in February has been put under the microscope, highlighting gaps in the state's nonbinding constitutional-review process. Some - even members of the commission - question legislators' commitment to ensuring that the laws and amendments they make pass constitutional muster.

"Legislators were in such a rush to get it onto the ballot, they just thought they'd skip the process," says Scott McCoy, director of the Don't Amend Alliance, which opposes the marriage amendment. "It shows a sense of arrogance. They think that they know best."

Christensen did not return phone calls seeking comment. But his partner in crafting the amendment, West Jordan Republican Sen. Chris Buttars, scoffs at the notion the Constitutional Revision Commission should have reviewed the draft before Utahns vote Nov. 2.

"If you try to run every bill through the Constitutional Revision Commission every year, you'd never get anything done," Buttars says.

Buttars' and Christensen's amendment defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. A second section prohibits recognition of heterosexual common-law marriages and same-sex civil unions. The three candidates for attorney general have warned that clause will hurt existing Utah families, could cut off their access to the political process and will inevitably result in litigation.

Despite those concerns, the sponsors and two political-issues committees backing the state amendment dismiss the constitutional questions.

Buttars rejects the suggestion that a review by legal experts - including Brigham Young University Law School Dean Kevin Worthen, Utah Supreme Court Justice Christine Durham and Utah State University President Kermit Hall - might have caught potential problems. And, he insists, the commission has not reviewed every amendment to Utah's Constitution.

In 1998, Moroni Republican Sen. Leonard Blackham sponsored a constitutional amendment to require a "supermajority," or two-thirds of voters, to change any wildlife laws. Minutes show Blackham was not able to meet with the commission at its only meeting during the legislative session. That amendment also was sent on and ultimately approved by voters. Now, it is tied up in a lawsuit at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

After that apparent oversight, some lawmakers complained and state law was changed to require additional scrutiny by the commission. Established more than 20 years ago, the 16-member commission is made up of legislators, attorneys and former and current judges.

Commission members reviewed two other amendments on the Nov. 2 ballot - one dealing with state investment in technology spin-offs from public universities and another allowing lawmakers to call themselves into session for an impeachment.

"We typically improve legislation as it goes through," says Worthen, the commission's chairman.

Sen. Patrice Arent, D-Murray, agrees. A former member of the commission, she said the sometimes time-consuming constitutional review process is intentional.

"Even if we just made a little mistake that we need to clean up, any little change has to be approved by the public," Arent said. "Once the constitution is changed, it is very difficult to change it back."

Worthen acknowledges sensing at times - not necessarily this time - that lawmakers are avoiding a constitutional review.

"These are people who know how the system works," he said. "It's certainly very possible they could bypass the commission because they don't want the input - because they know what the input is going to be."

Another commission member put it more bluntly: "The Legislature just sidestepped the commission."

McCoy says that February meeting is a sad commentary on Utah lawmakers' methods for making law.

"We've fully scrutinized whether the University of Utah can hold a stock subscription in a private company. But we haven't given any scrutiny to a measure that denies fundamental rights to Utah families," McCoy says.

"Where are our priorities?"

walsh@sltrib.com