Four attorneys on both sides of the issue probably would agree that neither the pop princess nor the polygamist set an ideal example for marital union. But all agreement ended there.

At the University of Utah Law School on Thursday, the attorneys were indulging in a philosophical discussion about the nature of marriage and who has the right to such unions. And the elephant in the room was Utah's Amendment 3 - and 10 other state constitutional amendments like it - that would block recognition of gay unions.

Freedom to Marry founder Evan Wolfson said the rights of millions of gay couples hinge on what happens in the Nov. 2 election. But that will not be the end of gay marriage, Wolfson said. "Our country is in a civil rights moment. Civil rights moments are not resolved in a day."

Sutherland Institute fellow Bill Duncan agrees the election is pivotal. "Same-sex marriage is the great leap forward of the sexual revolution," Duncan said. "The question is: Is it progress? Change doesn't equate to progress."

With analogies that ranged from women's rights to barbershops, the four debated what marriage is, its power over American society and who should be able to apply for marriage licenses. Joining Wolfson and Duncan were Brigham Young University law professor Lynn Wardle and Humans Rights Campaign Senior Counsel Lara Schwartz.

Wolfson argued marriage has undergone four transformations in the past 50 years: adoption of no-fault divorce laws, the freedom of couples to choose contraception, the lifting of interracial-marriage restrictions and the legal subordination of married women. Gay marriage, in relative terms, is little different, he said.

"What reason does the government have for denying couples already doing the hard work of marriage - caring for aging parents, raising their children, fighting over who takes out the garbage - the legal and equal commitment the law allows for others?" Wolfson asked.

Wardle countered that marriage is the original institution defining important social roles, the first place women had equality and, rightly, the sole domain of heterosexual couples. He compared opening up marriage to gay couples to granting legal licenses to barbers. Letting gay couples choose to marry who they want to "show respect," he said, would be like letting Tom Green marry a 13-year-old.

But Schwartz pointed out that married women for centuries were considered the property of their husbands. And Schwartz said Wardle's "offensive" comparison of consenting gay adults to Green and his proclivity for child "brides" was an attempt at distraction. Marriage, she said, is restricted by age, family relationship and the number of people involved. Allowing gay marriage would not change that.

As for Utah's amendment, Wolfson warned the language will bind the hands of future legislators and voters to provide rights to same-sex couples. He disputed the supposedly conservative underpinnings of the ballot measure.

"The Utah language is written so as to prevent for all time the provision of any other rights," he said. "There is nothing conservative about trying to tie the state's hands and all future generations with constitutional brute force."

But Wardle insists the controversial language of Utah's two-part amendment is complementary and necessary.

"We use constitutional amendments to protect those things we value and those things we think are threatened," Wardle said. "Never before now has it been necessary to define marriage."