Accountability Utah members have posted a position paper opposing Amendment 3 on the group's Web site, unifying them - philosophically at least - with liberal Alliance members, including Planned Parenthood and the Unitarian Church. Conservative Accountability Utah activists are pro-life, support limited government and, at times, overtly religious.

So the group's statement against Amendment 3 might seem surprising. But the unusual agreement may simply be a function of right meeting left in the political debate of civil rights.

"This is an example of the libertarian argument about why the really conservative position on this amendment is a 'no' vote. It's kind of like the political spectrum not being a straight line, but a circle," said Don't Amend Alliance Director Scott McCoy. "The libertarian right and the left can meet at some point."

The analysis at http://www. accountabilityutah.org, states: "Government proponents feverishly sell this amendment as a way to protect the traditional family. This is a farce and a smoke screen. This amendment represents unjust government force, the suppression of 'unsanctioned' citizens - polygamists, fornicators, and especially homosexuals - who are deemed to be 'undesirable,' and the effort to increase the size of government in the name of God."

Amendment 3 is written in two parts. The first sentence defines marriage as the "legal union between a man and a woman." Part two continues, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect."

Critics say the second section targets not only gay couples, but heterosexual couples in common-law marriages and would throw their rights of inheritance, medical decision-making, protective orders and even joint bank accounts into question. Voters will decide whether to amend Utah's Constitution on Nov. 2.

"The amendment is poorly worded and goes farther than it should," said Daniel Newby, an Accountability Utah member. "Anyone who believes in limited government should be able to arrive at the same position."

One of the amendment's sponsors, West Jordan Republican Sen. Chris Buttars, dismisses Accountability Utah members and their arguments against the amendment. Buttars was at odds with Accountability Utah during the 2004 Legislature over controversial legislation that reversed a citizen initiative blocking law enforcement agencies from seizing assets in drug cases.

"They're a right-wing, wacko joke," Buttars said. "It gives me a laugh for the day."

Other Utah lawmakers have called Accountability Utah members extremists.

But McCoy says Accountability Utah legitimately represents a conservative perspective. "If people go through a reasoned, thoughtful analysis and arrive at a decision that this is a bad amendment, I don't care where they are on the political spectrum," McCoy said.

Three candidates for attorney general have issued a joint statement opposing the amendment. And Gov. Olene Walker says she would prefer a "simpler" approach.

On the other side, members of the Yes for Marriage Political Action Committee staged a news conference and released a letter recently from former Gov. Norm Bangerter urging Utahns to stem the disintegration of the family and "protect the social order which has created a good environment for the growth of our children" by voting for the amendment.

And, introducing a new argument for the amendment, conservative attorney Frank Mylar, who challenged Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff four years ago, insists Utah needs a constitutional amendment defining traditional marriage to protect "natural and adoptive" parents' rights. Mylar says everyone from day-care providers to neighbors could claim parental rights if marriage - and resulting family relationships - are not defined in Utah's Constitution.

Yes for Marriage President Susan Roylance acknowledged amendment supporters are worried.

"There are a lot of people who are confused. They've been fed a lot of misinformation," Roylance said.

McCoy counters that amendment supporters are presenting a "list of horribles" to confuse and scare voters. "If we're spreading misinformation, the governor is guilty of spreading misinformation, the attorney general, the list of people that would be complicit in this grand scheme to spread misinformation makes that assertion silly," he said.