LOTT (5750)
Assistant Utah Attorneys General
Utah Attorney General
160 East 300 South, Sixth Floor
P.O. Box 140856
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0856
Telephone: (801) 366-0100
Facsimile: (801) 366-0101
Attorneys for Defendants Gary R. Herbert and John E. Swallow


DEREK KITCHEN, individually; MOUDI
SBEITY, individually; KAREN ARCHER,
individually; KATE CALL, individually;
LAURIE WOOD, individually; and
KODY PARTRIDGE, individually,



GARY R. HERBERT, in his official capacity
as Governor of Utah; J OHN SWALLOW, in
his official capacity as Attorney General of
Utah; and SHERRIE SWENSEN, in her
official capacity as Clerk of Salt Lake



Civil Case No. 2:13-cv-00217-RJ S

J udge Robert J . Shelby

TABS 21b TO 27a
(181 - 241)
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 2 of 68
Don't Amend Alliance:
zip code
Amendment Text
Legal Implications
Talking Points
Press Coverage
Alliance Partners
Action Center
Sign the Petition
House Parties
Tell a Friend
Register to Vote
Lawn Signs
Speaker Requests
Important Dates
Contact Us
Press Coverage
For Immediate Release
Friday, August 6, 2004
Page 1 of 1
Attorney General Candidates Agree on One Thing: Amendment 3
Goes Too Far
In joint statement, Shurtleff, Skordas, and McCullough oppose proposed
constitutional amendment because Part 2 is bad law.
Salt Lake City - The Don't Amend Alliance today announced that the three candidates for
Attorney General of Utah have agreed to issue a joint statement opposing Amendment 3,
the marriage and legal rights amendment that will be on Utah's ballot in November. The
candidates realize that the amendment is overly broad and will have unintended
consequences that will hurt real Utahns and their families.
Joint Statement Regarding Proposed Amendment # 3
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, Greg Skordas, Andrew McCullough
Utahns of good faith disagree over whether the state constitution should be amended to
define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. We respect each citizen's views on
this complex issue. However, because proposed Amendment 3 goes far beyond simply
defining marriage, and would prove unnecessarily hurtful to many Utahns and their
families, we oppose the amendment.
As written, Part Two of the proposed amendment would prohibit the Utah Legislature
from ever extending even the most basic partnership rights to an unmarried couple, such
as rights to hospital visitation, to emergency medical decision-making, and to
inheritance. Moreover, Part Two's overly broad language could lead private employers in
Utah to question the legality of their desire to extend certain benefits (such as
healthcare) to unmarried partners of employees.
Furthermore, proposed constitutional amendments, such as Amendment 3, ought to be
given the careful scrutiny of the Utah Constitutional Revision Commission.
For these reasons, we oppose adoption of Amendment 3.
Don't Amend Alliance
175 West 200 South "' Suite 2006, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101
Office (801) 746-1314 Fax (801) 746-1319
Contact Us
http://www .dontamendalliance.cornlsite/PageServer?pagename=prc _ 080604 9/112004
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 3 of 68

TAB 22

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 4 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 5 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 6 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 7 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 8 of 68
1011/13 AG. caroidates unite against gay1T9rriage a .. J The Salt l.aJie Trlbure
Utht fnkt
A. G. candidates unite against gay marriage amendment
Utah ballot: McCulbugh, Shurtleff and SkoiOas all agree the rreasure \IIIOUid have negative consequences
TI-E SAlT lAKE mBt.H::
FU!I..ISI£) AOOUST 7. 200ol1 !50 AM
This is an archived article that was published on in 2004, and infonnation in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for
personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Legal training trumped political self-interest when three candidates for attorney general issued a rare joint statement Friday against a
proposed amendment to the Utah Constitution meant to block gay marriage.
Libertarian Andrew McCullough, Republican Mark Shurtleff and Democrat Greg Skordas say the potential ramifications of the ballot
question forced them to issue the unusual news release. Although Shurtleff opposes gay marriage, McCullough does not and Skordas wnt
not say where he stands on the fundamental question, the three candidates came together- on paper at least.
The statement said "because proposed Amendment 3 goes far beyond simply defining marriage. and would prove unnecessarily hurtful to
many Utahns and their families, we oppose the amendment."
"'ritten by Draper Republican Rep. LaVar Christensen for the 2004 Legislature, Amendment 3 has two parts. Like proposed
constitutional changes on the ballot in at least 10 states this yea a·, Utah's amendment would define marriage as the union between a man
and a woman. A second clause prohibits re<:ognition of tummon law marriages and civil unions: "No other domestic union, hmvever
denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equh·alent effect."
The candidates say that second section would block lawmakers from extending basic partnership rights of hospital visitation, emE"rgency
medical decision-making and inheritance to thousands of unmarried Utah couples- gay and straight. Tltey worry if voters approve the
amendment, the change could throw· some Utah employers' benefits packages into chaos. And they note the amendment was not
reviewed by the state's Constitutional Revision Commission.
Since 1987, Utah has recognized so-called "common Ia\\'" marriages for couples who have lived together and acted like husband and \\-ife.
The state is home to about 24,000 unmarried, heterosexual partners, according to 2000 census figures. Another 3.400 same-sex couples
live in Utah.
Utah's amendment simply invites litigation on their behalf, the attorneys say. Gay rights groups challenged similar language in a 2000
Nebraska initiative on constitutional grounds. That rose is pending in federal court.
ShurtlE'ff says Utah's amendment is equally problematic. "It potentially deprives a bunch of Utahns - not just same-sex couples, but
heterosexual wmmon-law couples as well as their children- a set of basic. fundamental rights," he said. "It wuld forever deny to a group
of citizens the right to approach its legislature to seek benefits and protections."
McCullough's campaign manager and Jaw firm partner Rob Latham added: "This thing is so flawed, it's difficult to find an attorney
pa·acticing in Utah who thinks it's a good thing. It just creates a mess."
And Skordas says the amendment is unne<:essary, given lawmakE-rs' repeated efforts to pepper state statutE's with traditional definitions
of marriage.
''Anytime you have a constitutional amendment, you can count on decades of challenges and thousands and thousands of dollars trying to
interpret what the amendment means," Slwrdas said. "We spend a lot of time and money trying to define the Constitution. This isn't an
issue that needs to go down that road."
The amendment is unquestionably popular in conservath·e Utah. Last month, The Church of ,resus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a
statement supporting amending both the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions to block gay marriage. A Salt LL1ke Tribune poll in May
showed most Utahns would vote for such au amendmeut.
The amendment co-sponsor, Sen. Chris Buttars, R- West Jordan, disagrees with aU three attomeys' interpretation of the language.
Buttars argues both parts of the amendment ure necessary; the second paragraph the first. He believes Utahns still will vote
for the amendment, despite the attorney general candidates' concerns.
"They're going to give the homosexual community some help causing confusion," Buttars said. "But Utahns still "'ill vote in favor of the
But Don't Amend Alliance director Scott McCoy, whose group is leading the fight against the amendment, figures the candidates'
agreement ·will neutralize a sensitive issue - at least in the race to be attorney generaL McCoy talked to each candidatE' individuatiy,
discovert'd their common thinking and suggested the collective statement.
"This was meant to be a political wedge issue," he said. "By bringing all the candidates together, we're trying to neutralize this, making it a
non-issue. It can neither hurt anyone nor help anyone when they all come out together in a statement."
While the joint statement "'ith Skordas and McCullough provides all three candidates with political cover, Republican Shurtleff has the
archhe.sltrlb.coi1Vprlntfriendly.php?ld=2389508&itype:=ngpsid 112
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 9 of 68
1G'1/13 AG. candidates unite against gaymmlage a .. I The Salt Tritule
most tolwe.
The attorne)' general acknowledged worrying about alienating his consen·ative base and lawmakers.
"If I were making a strictly political decision, 1 wouldn't say a word. The right wing is not that forgiving," Shurtleff said. "But once it
passes, it's passed. I don't think we can go bacl\.1 just felt like I couldn't l<eep quiet on it."
Brigham Young University Political Science Department d1airman Kelly Patterson said Shurtleff will have to explain his position to
conservative voters. That explanation could be tricky.
"It's a complex legal argument that ultimately he'll have to make to voters. And the more you have to explain yourself to voters, the more
likely you are to get into trouble," Patterson said.
At the same time, Patterson said, most Utah voters are staunchly conservath·e. They have no alternatiYe to Shurtleff. "1 doubt this issue-
.,..iJll>e the cutting point on most voters make their decisions about Shurtleff and S'kordas," he said.
Joint Statement Regarding Proposed Amendment No. 3
Utahns of good faith disagree over whether the state constitution should be amended to define marriage as the union of a man and a
\\"'man. We respect each citizen's views on this complex issue.
However, because proposed Amendment 3 goes far beyond simply defining marriage, and would prO\'e unnecessarily hurtful to many
Utahns and their families, we oppose the amendment.
As ''Titten, Part Two of the proposed amendment would prohibit the Utah Legislature from ever ex tending even the mast basic
partnership rights to an unmarried couple, such as rights to hospital visitation, to emergency mediCI! I decision-making, and to inheritance.
Moreover, Part Two's overly brond language could lead private employers in Utah to question the legality of their desire to extend certain
benefits (such as health care) to unma1·ried partne-rs of employees.
Furthermore, proposed constitutional amendments, such as Amendment 3, ought to be given the careful scrutiny of the Utah
O:lnstitutional Revision Commission.
For these reasons, we oppose adoption of Amendment J.
- Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, Greg Skordas, Andrew McCullough
C> Copyrighl2013 The Seh I.Jii01 Tribune. AI Resarveo. Thi$ Mot9(1aJ Way 89 Raw ri!lan Or RIJ<!isuib<Jied.'!rinlfrierJlly.php?id== 2389506&l l)pe=ng psid
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 10 of 68
1011/13 Atnefldl'l'ent 3 ad wars undef way I The Salt LaJ!e Trlbure
$bt inlt tnkt mnbunt
Amendment 3 ad wars under way
Down the stretch: Both sides are gearing for battle on the issue of defining marriage in Utah Dawn the stretch: Both sides are spending
thousands on the issue of defining rrarriage in Utah
1'\.l!USI-ED OCTOBER 8 2004 1 28 AM
This is an archived article that was published on in 2004, and information in the article may be outdatEd. It is pro\'ided only for
personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Between "Jeopardy" and "Wheel of Fortune," the first televised sal\'o in Utah's culture war over gar marriage aired this week.
Utahns for a Better Tomorrow, one of a walition of four political issues committees organized in support of Amendment 3, paid S4,8oo for
a da.z:en 30-second slots to run Wednesday through tonight in the game show hour on KJZZ, Channel14.
With the headline "The Simple Truth About a Simple Amendment," the advertisement features two couples- one engaged, the other
married. The woman stands in front of a green background, reading the text of the two-part amendment.
The first sentence defines marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman. A second clause states that "no other domestic union,
however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."
"That's the entire amendment," she says.
Then a man wnlks in behind her. "By supporting Amendment 3, you're saying yes to marriage the wny yon\:e always knm"11 it,'' he says.
"Simple," she concludes.
On the other side, the Don't Amend Alliance unveiled four television ads and four radio ads this week that will air Oct. 18 through Nov. 1.
The Alliance will pay $2oo,ooo to $220,000 to air the ads on all major broadcast stations three or four times a day.
The Alliance ads feature two Utah families: Gary and Millie Watts, a Provo couple \\ith six children, two who are gay, and Ed and Bobbie
Butterfield from Sandy, who have a gay son.
Interspersed with black-and-white family photos, the couples tell their stories. Wiping away tears Millie Watts admits her 0\"'11
misconceptions- she thought gay people only lived in San Francisco until one of her children C<Jme out. Gary Watts laments America's
cultural divide and says the solution is living by the Golden Rule.
"Our ads have real, traditional Utah families who will be hurt by Amendment 3,'' says Alliance director Scott McCoy.
University of Utnh communications professor .Ken Foster says the emotional pull of the Alliance's ads might appeal more to voters.
But the Alliance's task in co11Se1vative Utah might be too daunting.
"An emotional appeal is far more liket)· to have an effect than a rational appeal. But it only goes so tar," Foster says. ''In this case, it has to
change values. That just isn't likely to happen."
In four less personnl radio ads, Alliance narrators riff on .Eagle Forum President Gnyle Ruzicka's criticism of Attorney General Mark
Shutleffs concerns about the amendment. Another uses taped floor debate from the Lr1st night of the 2004 Legislature, quoting Orem
Republican Rep. Jim Ferrin, Rep. David Ure, a Republican from Kamas, and Salt Lake City Democratic Rep. Scott Daniels aU urging
caution when amending the Utah Constitution.
"The amendn1ent writers only meant to hurt gays and lesbians," a female narrator says. "But their shotgun will hurt thousands
of heterosexual couples, their children. None of us want to hurt people, our friends and relatives with a pennanent, flawed amendment."
All of the ads end with the Alliance mantra: "It goes too tar."
To listen to the ads before they I'Un, Jog on to http://WY¥"\V.
Amendment supporters paid $9,000 for ads also running on KTVX, Channel4. Yes on 3 consultant Nancy Pomeroy said she does
not know if amendment supporters' ads \'l'iU air on any other Utah stations o1· next week. The ads can be renewed week by week.
"There is no further information available on the media buy," Pomeroy said. "They've been released. They're out there. Wntch. That's aU
l can tell you about them right now."
Foster says both groups will have to spend between $65,000 to $8o,ooo to create any "significant media noise levels" and catch voters'
C Copyri;jhl 2013 The Sell llll<e Tribune. AI Rights Restorvea. Tl1i$ Mi!IG<!lll May 6e 1'\Jblish.,O. Broadcll$1. Rew ritlen Or Redlstrlbule<l.
2424411&it:J!Je= rg psid 1/1
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 11 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 12 of 68
Print A1ticle ...
1 of3
Huntsman proposes new partner rights
By Rebecca Walsh
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
2004-08-25 01:45:52.031
The two major-party candidates for governor have predictably different opinions
of a proposed amendment to the Utah Constitution to define marriage: Republican
Jon Huntsman Jr. supports the change and Democrat Scott Matheson does not.
But Huntsman goes one step further, pledging that if elected he will push
legislation granting "reciprocal beneficiary" rights for
two people with mutual
economic interests."
Huntsman's camp says the candidate is just being compassionate.
But critics say the Republican nominee is trying to play both sides of the issue,
appealing to conservative voters as well as those who have misgivings about the
And, they point out, if the amendment passes, lawmakers probably would not be
able to put Huntsman's idea into law anyway.
"It's the basest form of political pandering,
said Scott McCoy, director of the
Don't Amend Alliance. "He'll say anything to anybody to try to curry favor with
them to get elected.
Matheson says he supports traditional marriage, but Utah statutes already defme
marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Amending the State Constitution to
reinforce the point, he says, would be redundant and harmful.
Huntsman, on the other hand, says he intends to vote for Amendment 3, which
lawmakers placed on the Nov. 2 ballot in the waning hours of the 2004
Legislature. If the amendment passes, Huntsman said he would defend it; if not,
he would work to craft another marriage amendment for voters to consider.
"I strongly support a Constitutional Amendment preserving this definition of
traditional marriage/' Huntsman said in a statement released this week.
At the same time, Huntsman said he would lobby for new laws granting rights
typically reserved for married couples - decision-making on medical matters and
hospital visitation rights, for example - to cohabitants.
08/25/2004 9:07 AM
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 13 of 68
Print .M:ticle http://www ...
2 of3
"It is something all Utalms could benefit from, from grandmothers to
roommates," said Jason Chaffetz, Huntsman spokesman. "It could cover a whole
myriad of relationships."
Including gay couples.
And that's what chafes at McCoy. Besides being on shaky legal ground, he said,
Huntsman is being hypocritical, appeasing the "extreme right wing of the
Republican Party" while also trying to appeal to those who have misgivings about
the amendment's potential unintended consequences.
Amendment 3 is written in two parts. The first paragraph defines marriage as
the union of a man and a woman.
The second part adds, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be
recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal
McCoy, Matheson and others - including the three candidates for Utah attorney
general- say the second part poses constitutional problems by actually denying
rights to existing families. In Nebraska, where voters approved an amendment
with similar language in 2000, lawmakers were later blocked from enacting
legislation granting organ donation and funeral plaiming rights to domestic
Huntsman's idea for beneficiary benefits likely would conflict with the
amendment in much the same way, McCoy said.
"It doesn't take a legal mind to read Part 2 and realize you can't grant any other
relationship the status of marriage. Last time I heard, the Constitution trumps
statute," McCoy said. "Huntsman is trying to have his cake and eat it too. And he
can't have it both ways."
And Matheson, dean of the University of Utah law school and a former member
of the State Constitutional Revision Commission, says Huntsman's proposal is
"problematic and contradictory."
"A basic understanding of what it means to adopt a constitutional amendment is
necessary to understand the implications of proposing legislation after the fact,"
Matheson said.
Chaffetz says before releasing his statement Huntsman got legal advice from
both sides, including Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, state legislators, Salt Lake
County Councilman Russell Skousen and attorneys at the Sutherland Institute.
"We believe we could pass it with or without the amendment," said Chaffetz.
State Sen. Chris Buttars, one of the amendment's sponsors, believes legislators
would consider a bill defining rights for other unmarried, cohabiting adults. The
West Jordan Republican used himself as an example of someone who would
benefit from such a law: His mother lives with him after suffering a stroke.
"I have trouble with gays trying to create a new definition like 'civil union'
08/25/2004 9:07AM
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 14 of 68
Print Article ...
3 of3
equal to marriage," Buttars said. But [Huntsman's proposal] "is not a sexual issue.
It could affect a lot of people. I'd certainly be willing to look at it."
08/25/2004 9:07AM
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 15 of 68
Print J rticle ...
1 nt?
The impossible dream
Salt Lake Tribune
2004-08-29 23:04:04.283
"Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
LEWIS CARROLL, Through the Looking Glass
Perhaps Jon Huntsman Jr. wants us to believe that his position favoring certain
benefits for same-sex couples- just as he favors a proposed amendment to the
Utah Constitution that would ban certain benefits for same-sex couples - is an
example of his outside-the-box thinking.
The stand assumed by the Republican candidate for governor certainly is
different than that held by all those starched-collar lawyers who say it can't be
And these aren't just any lawyers. Those who say that Huntsman is holding two
mutually exclusive positions on the matter include not only Huntsman's
Democratic opponent- and dean of the University of Utah law school- Scott
Matheson Jr., but also the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian candidates for
Utah attorney generaL
Huntsman and Matheson, like nearly every other non-suicidal politician in Utah,
agree that marriage is something for a man and a woman. But the words that are
being offered for Utah voters to say that Nov. 2, Amendment 3, don't stop there.
The amendment goes on to say, No other domestic union, however
denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially
equivalent legal effect.
What that means, apparently, according to any lawyer worth his billable hours,
is that the state may neither offer nor allow any sort of alternative to marriage for
gay partners or unmarried straight couples. That means no law, and perhaps even
no employment-based or private deal, extending health coverage, hospital visits
and decision-making, joint ownership or anything else like marriage to any union
other than legally recognized boy-girl matrimony.
0 ~ / ~ 0 / ? 0 0 4 1 0·17 AM
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 16 of 68
Prim ;\.rticle http://www .sltrib.corn/portlet/article!htmVfragments/prin ...
2 of2
Thus the opposition to Amendment 3, from Democrat Matheson, from the
incwnbent Republican attorney general and from the two men trying to become
attorney generaL Outgoing Gov. Olene Walker, not a lawyer but a long-time
public official, has also wondered aloud if the amendment isn't constitutional
Not only would the second part of Amendment 3 block whichever governor and
whatever Legislature from making policy on domestic benefits short of marriage,
it would also drag whoever is attorney general into court with a losing hand.
Huntsman, nevertheless, favors Amendment 3. He also proposes what he calls
some reciprocal beneficiary legislation that would allow domestic partners, gay or
otherwise, to contractually establish an intermingling of their economic, medical
and other important affairs.
By backing Amendment 3, and then proposing to do things that amendment says
he can't, Huntsman is promising something he can't logically deliver.
O R / ~ 0 / ? 0 0 4 10·17 AM
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 17 of 68
Print Article ...
1 nf1
Article Last Updated: 9/03/2004 11:06 PM
Huntsman proposal reveals flaw in attacks on
Amendment 3
By Monte Stewart
Salt Lake Tribune
Opponents of Amendment 3, the ballot measure that will protect Utah's definition of
marriage, are fond of the mantra that the amendment "goes too far." Their argument is
that Amendment 3 will block a future state legislature from offering any benefits to
anybody in any relationship other than marriage, regardless of the nature of the
Significantly, however, the opponents have not made public the legal research and
analysis supposedly supporting this "legal" conclusion, thus making it difficult for the
rest of us to understand how the simple language of Amendment 3 really could have the
effects the opponents are predicting.
Interestingly, a recent proposal by Republican gubernatorial candidate Jon Huntsman
Jr. provides a way of testing the credibility of the opponents' "goes too far" chant. That
thoughtful and carefully prepared proposal points up the flaw in their position.
Mr. Huntsman has said that he supports, and will vote for, Amendment 3. In
announcing this position, he also said he would support legislation to give specific
benefits to people who, while not married to each other, are in a dependent relationship.
So what effect would Amendment 3 have on Mr. Huntsman's proposal? None at all.
The language of the amendment is clear. It provides that no "domestic union,
whatever it is called, can be "recognized as marriage" or "given the same or
substantially equivalent legal effect" Thus, Amendment 3 preserves the rightly valued
place of man/woman marriage in Utah society by blocking counterfeit marriage. It also
makes clear what kind of legal arrangement constitutes a counterfeit marriage and is
thus beyond judicial and legislative power to sanction.
To qualify as prohibited, a legal arrangement must meet both of two requirements.
The first requirement is that the arrangement be defined as sexually based. This first
requirement appears in the phrase "domestic union," which has its usual legal meaning
of a sexually based relationship (as made clear by the use of "union" in Amendment 3's
uncontroversial first sentence). The second requirement is that the arrangement walk,
talk, and look like those man/woman marriages we have all grown up knowing.
Now here is the important point: The legal arrangement in the Huntsman proposal
meets neither of those two requirements of a counterfeit marriage. And that is not even a
OQ/07/?004 1 ?·11 PM
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 18 of 68
Print Article http://www .sltrib.cornlportlet/article/html/fragments/prin ...
2 of1
close call.
For one thing, the legislation proposed by Huntsman would address relationships that
are not defined in any way by sexuality or sexual conduct but rather are defined by
dependence. Clearly, a legal arrangement allowing a grown daughter to make medical
decisions on behalf of her aged mother does not treat them as somehow in a
"marriage-like" relationship. The same is true of an arrangement allowing reciprocal
hospital visitation rights to the two people in a relationship characterized by
dependence. And so it goes through each of the "scares" in the "parade ofhorribles"
repeatedly but not thoughtfully thrown up by Amendment 3's opponents.
The oft-attacked second sentence of Amendment 3 is narrowly tailored to address a
specific legal concern. When the Vermont Supreme Court in 1999 ordered that state's
legislature to give gay and lesbian couples either marriage or the equivalent of marriage
(but without the name), the legislature gave the latter, creating "civil unions" and
providing that everywhere in Vermont law that the word "spouse" appears, the words
"or partner in a civil union" should be added. And California's legislature recently got
around the citizens' ballot initiative passed by a wide margin of the voters in 2000
(limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman) by creating a marriage
counterfeit called "domestic partnerships."
Both a Vermont "civil union" (notice use of the word "union") and a California
"domestic partnership" unquestionably constitute a counterfeit marriage, and
Amendment 3 wisely blocks them, but without blocking those beneficial legal
arrangements (including the one called for by Mr. Huntsman's proposal) that no one
except a resident of Alice's Wonderland would say walks, talks, and looks like a
genuine man/woman marriage.
Which brings me to the Tribune's editorial of Aug 30, which, invoking Lewis Carroll,
mocks the Huntsman proposal. That editorial spills so many misstatements on the
kitchen floor that quick clean-up is not easy. For now, let's go with these efforts:
1. Neither Attorney General Mark Shurtleff nor Democratic gubernatorial candidate
Scott Matheson Jr. has yet "opined" that Amendment 3 blocks legislation benefiting
those in a relationship defined by dependence (rather than sex).
2. No lawyer has yet made public anything that qualifies as "legal analysis" and
supports the editorial's "legal" conclusion that Amendment 3 and the Huntsman
proposal are inconsistent.
3. A number of highly qualified lawyers have published legal research and analysis
showing that Amendment 3 and the Huntsman proposal are clearly in harmony.
Monte Stewart has been a U.S. attorney (Nevada), a special assistant attonzey general
09/07/2004 12:31 PM
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 19 of 68
Print Article ...
(Utah) and director of the Rex E. Lee Advocacy Program at Brigham Young
University's law school. He currently practices law in Provo and lives in Orem.
Here is the text of Amendment 3:
(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.
09/07/?004 1 ?·11 PM
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 20 of 68
Anti-Amendment 3 groups: Think of consequences
Jh Ht.RH('\
"Jlw .vtl: J.U... ! nloutll'
ll<Jb IL'" ts and h pannrr
1-,'01 13 • The:
jn:1 nr.-vt.>r t-.ltht•n.oei 10 tc,lluw
UHOU ;!h.
'The aruplt> share hank ar·
counts, rent. uti.litie-; and \..'1"'(\-
rery COS\S. She is the primary
hcncfici.'lry on his life insurnnCY.'
policy. If something to
h1m . .,nc 11.1U Sllht hts
mPnt wuh lhrt'£' <'htl
t!n·n MamaJ.!(· •t•c-mt'<.l
r\nd !A.'Wl:, Ot>\'l'r Wur
rtL'<! ah•'Ut h.·a::.•hztnl!
n•lnl ip.
i'l1Jt n<1W. he wmldi•r-. The
51·)'l!dr-<•!d schml
din.'\.·fnr wll} '>'c)t!.'
JUst 10
.., dfln'f knu-..; th:U 11
ll'<"uh1 rhamw my rel"'ucms.tup
Rut tht' 1:; thl:re.-
!.I'll IS !w'\yS. "l J..."Ur.s!i thm m£'.'\0$
I "-'t\'C> a mn<x·m -
I.L•Wl.:- fJtW of 41l.ff:t) . •: h<>r
TJU\hn}. ltniTliHT'l'(1
Jj;U'l h<l;;.'fi on -.ampit..-1 dat;j
from tne Cf•mlls.
an· at the t1•mcr nr Lhc
k'g<LI 4nd ..:•mo: lol\41 :tl'!;ll.JTI('n Lo;
fur aM tht!\'f'r
:;i.1l They
tnclude itbOut
lll)tn:trril11 l'l 1\l
pies 4JOJ tt.n cY·upli'
ncarh :! 1.;no of . .,_ t111:n h 1',
Aml-r1rtnwm c p))(ml n•.. 1r
I L'lh " l on"-!st\J
ll(li1 v.•tll hun UltN' f:umlu.""
• chdd custody, mtwnt
Rnce rtrz.hL-c;. and mt•d!t
dl'CLSIOO·IlhlklllJ: power ntn
Bu1 nmendtn<'n!
Unmarrifd partners in UtM
C.tevorf I HouWIKIIM
lot AI m:mbfr
M 11f'<J se l

o•n t: tliJI!!n
or telatl'C!
t:ot 11Hft o..-:1
or :E>Iati,>G rhlli1f eo


fb.,..,.. ,. I j • .-t.h'U. /J ,..._,.,_., fllo..ttrtA
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 21 of 68
f (.>cs : C{ Hl i tl t' r
t ·c > 11 setJU c n ccs
a Coutllllll'tl from Ul
'llllJIUrlt·r·, 11\-.lo..t lll.H· t l,lJ..!t· liHt
11 .. lllfwp·nt 1 t..:hl'- .tr•· -..It,..,,
1'hl'\ .lll!IW IIUIJI,IJTh"l t'OISJih'••
• :m "lh'll h-eal t'111ll rat'!' In l!a m
... nnw n1 flu· .. 1m• "''' up
l"HWfll.!- '*" t'\t'n th,....,.. I" I\ :Ill'
, 1111tr-;u '' '"•11•1 h" • • 11
th•· .unc•ndnll'nt • ..,
t\m••"dnwnt .1 ,., 'Ar allt ' JI Ill
1"' o Jt.:trt<- rtw lk-.1 "4'nt4'1H'1' tic•
till«'' m.trTWg•• UfliOII
t..f .t m.m .m•l 1 'A\1111.11\ '11u· •.for
111\IJ .. t,lh..._ "flO oltWr (jorlU .... tl<'
Htllllll . h•,Wt'\4'r 1l· nnmtn.lll'"'l.
m.a, 1'1( t,..,. ,,
ur J!l\ 1'1: tlw .... ,nw lit' ... ul"'t.lll
ll.llh • • pf),'l t ..
II the· .tm•·nclnwnl ll.l'-"'
l'l.lh o.,1Jfllll,lrt'll"4t t'll'lj)lt ....... I Ill••
thr• j•tJIIlt'.l JIIJ!' !11 lt·"l lht· lr•gal
tht-.lril'' ,JIJ.O\JI If' I Itt .. ·t
Th•· thuuJ,!ht ...,.,a·ru .... . \\HI'
·'''lit 1;111' ou ..... ·tor ·'
l'11l,u lu"' k lht• nu...,l
'11ln•·•·•hh· a•ntUJ• of umnar ru'll
I l,thll' \4 hn \'tttlhl ht• .tftt'dt"'l h'
tht• .tm•·r•tlnu·nl "'' ,,., lrt"t"t I<• ·
11n-.· ... "'h .. ..,.. tlr-.t .,,,.,u .... -.. ha\ •·
tlte-.f tl'-k lt...,II\J.! ml S.'(· ur\1\
lrt•n•·f 11-. .uul t'\1'1\ p.n
nu•nt-.. at tlw\ 1 t•rn u n lrao.h• ul
111m\ .... unph •·nh•r lon1: lt•rrn ,,.
lath'""'" 'P' "11 h ••th1·1 r"t In 'I(-..
1 H•lt·r 'uuph·' an• .m IJ.!'t' v. h"u
'"' h e•n•t Ht l1h• nuhr .... mht•f't•nt
tn \\nllh! t 11mc· mtn
pt.n· Tht• .mlt'mtnwnl t.tiW
1 tllhlr-.·n 11r ullwr fmnll\' mt•m
"""' aut hot lh tn t·hallt'llJ.'t' .m\
.tJ.'tv•·ml'nh unm·ln' tt'll
,,, r1 rwr ...
ThP \n.t•ranm "'""" ur
Ht-t tn'fll\•r.,..._.n., l 'tnh ha' pcKtf"'l
" c:tut ton ahoul tht .mwnt1nuont
cu1 ''' W••h <,itt' In Ohh1 \\ht•n• ·•
-.mutar tm••mlmt 1U '' on til«'
'm '1. lMilnt '' \:U' t)mnally
opt,. N .... tlw '·h;t
·w, \\ lilt 1"' ,.ph· '" unelt•r
... ltw r:umftt'.4t ""''·.. l'o
1.•• h•-. k .... wt ...... ,J,h• ... tumid
!onk 11 thl' \t' J'Y t'.tn<f\llh lt
\\oultt ch..,nJpt a lot tlf rlt.:ht' th.H
t lilt ftlt.._, ha \I' Itt h•nn ... ttl fnc't'l I
I ,mcJ dt't'I .. IOil._
If .1 <-.lupit•{..., ,, th't·t.,ton h• tK·
t'HIIIJIH(H'tf fo 1'.\1 h 11lh1•i hut lh't
lo r,u lhrtMIJ.!h 1 lt\,trrl,l.!'l'. the•\
..,huu ltitft o,uff• ' ..
1\t•..,Hlto.t; qut ... t\IIU., .lhaiiU Ullh
' unnl.lrr It-t I P(lfiH
TIPlll"' 11f pnJ\ \4lliT'\o tht•
;lfl\t'ntlml'ttt lAIII 11\.lkc• 1'"....,'" u
lion HI 1•11h J.!,lnlt , .. , rnon•
tflnlt ult I'.CJK...,U'\ l'oh I!
.um lhn"·tor \'u In li"'\Hlt\ ... aiel
-.he• had 1\utthl .. . ,., •.oor\ '" l.t \\
nMkt·r-. hall,.t'tl .11 t Hw
.Hn•·rHlmt•nl tn ont• rnan
.tnrlutw \4om.m ..
Ttw ,,m-....thlf\" nf ttw .mt!
• • ttw
amt>ndnwnt'., -.t't''und , ..
l't,th .. t 'n• • .nl
••rnmu'ft \1orTIHt.'t' '-tiliUtl• to tn
IJnlYI!IUnJ"'I Tmn <;n-..·n for
Ul\ ('rUu., .. ay ttl.• um·ndmt•nt
lhf''\IW' that ;,tilflltt ' lnfO\II.)("'>liOH
Hut furmt't ('nunlv ,\t
l1ti1W\ 1),1\ HIJ A'r1Vllt whu pnN•
'utt'(l « ;n .. ·n.'t'" thtN' II'
.. ,th
\\ twn ,\rnrondnH nt :i h•
p.u1 of th(• l 1.1h l'on ... lltu
finn. Jll'l ,......, ·ut 111n uf poiYtt.•nn
"111 tlll• •·:t.,lf'r. r\ol h.tn1t•r."
1.t•:n·ll1 -..wl tn .t n•h':\""'
from y,.,._ tlfl :t ,, n&ahlann nl
mwn1tnwnt bit("'''"
\ nu·nfhnt•nt .. upput tt·r Montt
f\h•\\,lf1 ho t-. 'IJlpnlllh'tJ .t._ \
.. \lhll In llw ( orl"''t\
1 ;,.... ....wt Jkll\ ...:amht" • k ·'
1 lo Cil\
'l'niHUUIII'-h 'A lllf nnthUU!
mon• lh1111 h1:..•l •• ,Jnf
,lfrtl ''""' "-4"t t 1\'tl
IIIHtlT\" (ll'(',tll .... ' th,ll \\tit IIJII'fl
llH' t11lnr tu • ·
!'ltf'\\;tll "''"'
f)nn t 1\nwntl ,, lhanu• Oin-t
'"r \11 Co\ "WI't"' S:t•\A H 1
.mtt l.t':\\· llf\ t'\.\ltrlUI('i"i I h;tl
nnthlnt! 'o\tll •.\" nnt
t•nou I hP v-,
tt•nHal for untnh'n•h"l
cHn-.t'qUl•n•-.•' IS too
ror 'ot"" to rlro.k t th•·
l ' t.nh t 'nn,lllutl•m
1 nu-.,t.tkt• wt•'n' tu
hn\ I to Hw "'llh ra)r n IHnP
\k( o\' ..,utl 11tl'l'l• nu t{lllt to
nu r twa•! ,\ nc t' \ nh · lf\l'illl'- t tw
l1" I II l't.l h 't.l "- P\:,U. tl) ·'" It h
fll t "A llli'ITI·ll..'t"' an'
rtnl umun-, an· we• 'o\lltl t
rrnm nHwr
-.t.ttf..., Hut \Al IM\'t' .,.1t,,.
n .• "t'tt .mwnctnwnt u•.tf
had th•• tun'' tu thtnk •• t.,ul ·
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 22 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 23 of 68
Artlcle Ulst Updated: 9/27/2004 01:45AM
Ask the Candidates •••
Salt Ulke Tribune
Q: Jon Huntsman Jr. says he
11 support passing laws to protect people with "mutual economic Interest!!." Are
such laws viable In light of the language of Amendment 3, which would define marriage but also appears to ban
lmy other type of domestic union?
Mollie McDonald Salt Lake City
A: Amendment 3 preserves traditional marriage as between one man and one woman. It also precludes other
aJTBngements that are merely "marriage" by another name and typically described as domestic or civil "unions".
AJTBngements based on economic or mutual dependance are not based on a sexual relationship or "union". A
broad range of Utahns would benefit from dependant relationship legislation, such as, an elderly parent living
with an adult child, widows sharing a home and other property, "life-partners" In platonic relationships, as wen
as, homosexual partners. Just as power·of·attomeys, wills, trusts and other private contracts are not typically
confused as the equvalent of marriage, a new contract based on economic dependance would not reasonably be
Interpreted as the substantial equivalent of traditional marriage, and therefore, would remain viable under
Amendment ~
A: Ulce most Utahns, I support tradltlonal marriage. The second sentence of Amendment 3, however, goes
beyond defining marriage and threatens rights of other domestic relationships, such as hospital visitation. That
why Utahts attorney general, the past two attorneys general, and all of Utah
s attorney general candidates
oppose Amendment 3. Governor Welker also has expressed concerns. The second sentence of Amendment 3 Is
ambiguous. It was hastily considered In the final days of the Legislature. The process of study and review by the
Utah Constltutlonal Revision Commission, on which I served fur several years, was entlrely Ignored. Mr.
Huntsman's notion of "reclpnx:al beneficiary" laws fails to remedy Amendment 3's ambiguity. Moreover, It falls
to recognize a fundamental element of constltu\fonal government: constitutions trump statutes. Sentence two
may very well set up a constitutional roadblock to Mr. Huntsman
s proposal. At the very least, his proposal would
result In expensive and prolonged litigation.
If you'd like to ask a question to candidates In major Utah political reces -·governor, u.s. Senate, u.s. House
of Rt!presentatlves, attorney general or Salt l:llke County mayor -· send your question, along with your name,
mailing address, dayttme telphone number and whether you
re ammated with any political part:y to or:
Tom Harvey
The Salt Lake Tr1bune
143 s. Main St.
Salt l:lllce City, UT 84111
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 24 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 25 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 26 of 68
Amendment 3 ad wars under way
Down the stretch: llt 1lh
sitk-; arc :-.pending
thousamb on tJ1c is.c;uc of
defining marri<l).,'l' in Utah
lh Rl-lll LCA WAI .'>Il
1 h' 'vlit 1 <lk I rJrwv
", lt•oJl:tnly" ttnd
'"Whr.'C'I of Fnr1unc." iJJC liri.l
s:tlm in Utah's
"''ilr over aired thb
Ut;thns for a Bdtcr Tomnr
mw. mw of:J Ctl;lliiinn nffonr JW•
litit.:tl nn,ra
n i7.•:-ol in suppor1 of
:1. p:t icl $1.AiXJ fnr a tlozcm :11'1
slnts tn n111 Wt!(lllcS{In}
toni).':ht in the •
sht>W htlur un Ch.1111WIIol
With 1 he • Sim
• Truth :\O.•ut a SinlJllf'
AmmHinH!llt ... 1 he adve11 iS(!llH:-111
t wn cnuples one en·
I he nther m:m·it!(l. The
woman stands In frnni nfa
hm: kfUlllltHI. the tlf
the amc!n!lmcnt.
Tlw !irst S()ntence define::
marriagt· as the u11itm of a
lllllll and a worn an. :\
cl:lust.! st:ttes that "no other rlo-
• 11nion. however dcnomi·
may tM! il<l<l as a
man·iaJ.!e or the .s:tmc or
m1.mi."' •
1ll£'n a man walk-: in hl•hinll
her "II\ '-I'IJ1JitU11llA .\lllL'ntlmcnt
:l, }'1111'1'1
t ht• w:n ) ou'\ c ah\ ).. no\\ n
it: lw
"SunpJc•:· -.Jw clllu huh·.,
On lht• rlllwr t!w llon'f
,\nwncl ·\lli:mce 1111\r•th'il ti111r
.u11l four r:uhn :ul ..
Don't Amend Alliance ads fHture from
two Utab coupJes with gay chl!dren. Gary and Millie
watts and Ed and Bobbie Butterfltld wy the
amendment wlll hurt their fl!milles.

Yes on 3 ads fNture 11 woman rHdlnq the ted of a
proposed amendment to prove fts
simplicity. "Y011're owylnc y•s to marrtaQe the •ay
you''le always known lt." her flaMe HJS.
ti, • .. \\l'l'k th:.t "til .Hr {kt JH
lhr N•>v. 1. The Alltant't'
\\ til ntr
tht· ;ul" on all maJor hmarlt .t'-1
'-t<ttum-. thm' nr four 111111''- ,1
The Alhanre ads re.\1\lr(! twr'J
I t,lh fanllli<..; Gary ancl
\\ .Itt!', ;\ l''rovo couple with six
chtldn::n. t"'v who arc g.l}'. :tlltl
anrl 1\l.lhhtc thHn
Sandy. "'ho have a .,.m.
lntcr.-I)(!I":'.NJ wuh·iiiHI·
"ht1(' uttmly phcHos. lh1• l:'<lll[llr:s
tell lhmr stones. Wtptn).: away
Mtllt<' Wa tt--; admit:-: twr
cwm . stw
thOili:ht J;iiY ()(..'()J\Ie only liwd in
Sr.n F'ranr·t-,.ccl until one of ht!r
<:h tldrrn r::•mc out. Gal)
i\nJC'rit:.-.'s tli·
vtdc .md the is li\' ·
inA by the Culrlcn Hulc•
"Out· atb ha\t' tradi·
tional Ut:1h "ho \\ tlllw
huri hy ,\mcncltm•nt .t .. .'\1·
I i:HH'(' rlln.,.·tnr St'ntt :-.1ti
Un nfl muummi·
<'.11 ion:-. prl)fe ..... •·Hr 1-\c.>n
the pull ''' the
:\I I t.'tllt'c''> ac b llll):!ht HJIIIt'i tlmnn'
But t."k m
'111\l' I 'tah llllt.:hl I'll• I till
''An emol ionat is f:1r
ll\01"{' likely to') ha\'1! an
a r.'clmnal aJlJX':II. Hut it only gn<'"
f.1r .. Fnslt!r s:tys. "In this eM''·
it tn dliltlgl! That
isn't to ltiiJIIK!n."
In four t·atlio
;ub. tlarr.1tnr.-o rifT nn
Ea11,lc Forum l'n!Shlcnt (;ayh'
ail ir.ism of Attnmcy
< ;t!twr;tl C\ln
.thulll Jht' amcn•lmcnl. An
nther t:tlll!<l ncxlr dl'!h.1tC'
from ilw of I he 2fk).1
I Orem He•
llllhlil'.m HPp . . Jim 1-\'tTin.
Davit) 1111!, a • frum
.... ;mel Salt City 1.'1\!m·
r>t:r:1t i(' lkp. ,<;l'tllt llanids all
caution when
tllf' li l:th Ctlll!'til\ltion.
"'llw 1 v:r Hers
only me:mthl h1111 and les.
hians." a narrator s.•ys.
"But thrir shol t):.'llll :tpprn:ll:h will
hu11 thouJ.nnds of he>tcmse><u;·ll
• thc· tr rhtldrcn None of
.,.ant tn hurt pcoplc, uur
rrlt'lld!. anti rel:lt iVC'> with a _pt•r
rnatlcnt. Onwrd amcndnumt "
Allnfthl' ad& rnd with I he AI
lianee tnllntrn: "It too r.1r"
Tn to the ads befn.n•
llwy nn to http://www.
.\mcndmcnl Jlo1111
$9,{01 for ar1'. running on
1-\TVX. Channel 4. Yes on 3 me·
Ilia Nancy
,, irl she lltlNi not know 1f
.unenr1nwnt ath Will
air un any other Utah !>lations or
next week TM ads can be n'
ncwl"l \\eck by \H'('k
"1lwn• ts no mfonna
tinn 11\':lll.iblt' on the mt'(ha hm :·
le>aSt'fl Tlwy·rc out lhcrr Wntch
;ill I ean tr.ll ) ou ahmll
them rtt::lll now."
Fo:-ter • both groups \\til
ha\'t! In !>j)(' lld OOIWt.'en to
SSO.I.XXl 111 Cn'atc any
rnr.din lc\1'1<' >lnd
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 27 of 68
10/10/04 DSRTNEWS AA02
10/10/04 Deseret News AA02
2004 WL 94999645
Deseret Morning News
(c) 2004 Deseret News Publishing co.
Sunday, OCtober 10, 2004
Amendment 3 debate heating up: Passage is vital to protect families
By Rep. Chris Cannon
Page 2 of3
Page 1
Lawyers are arguing about Amendment 3, the proposed constitutional amendment to
define marriage in Utah. After all, as a recent letter to the editor observed,
"lawyers argue" --and that's what they do. I was a practicing lawyer once, and
now, as a member of Congress, I will confess to an inclination to argue when the
stakes are high and the problem complex. But in the case of Amendment 3, the issue
is not all that complicated. In the face of activist courts and the certain legal
pressure that will carne to bear on Otah to recognize other states• definitions of
marriage (like Massachusetts or Vermont), we must take a clear and unequivocal
stand to protect marriage as we have chosen to establish it here. Having dealt
extensively in Congress with the challenge of protecting marriage, I have heard
the arguments and consulted with legal experts on all sides of this issue.
Most disturbingly, I've watched as quibbling over which set of words is right has
prevented us from acting decisively on the federal level. one of the most
important questions of our generation is whether one state's definition of
marriage can be imposed upon another based on the "full faith and credit" clause
of the Constitution. Equivocation in Washington has, at least in part, created the
necessity for states like ours to enact our own protections for marriage. I would
suggest that there is little or no question where the vast majority of Otahns
stand on the issue of same-sex marriage. It is critical that we not bog ourselves
down over words as we have done in Congress. Opposing Amendment 3 using sentences
beginning with: "I'm against same-sex marriage, but ..• "may seem sophisticated;
but on this issue,.that answer doesn't cut it. The proposed amendment was not
written on the back of a napkin in an ice cream shop; it was carefully composed by
some of the best legal minds in the state and vetted by many more. Amendment 3
does two simple things: It protects Utah's definition of marriage as the union of
a man and a woman; and it prevents the imposition by the courts of new forms of
marriage. Lawyers will argue, but I am convinced the amendment does those things
and nothing more. And while some will conjure up the possibility of all kinds of
unintended consequences, the intent and, I am satisfied, the effect of Amendment 3
is to.,imply preserve a legal status quo so important to Utah. And those who
disagree have an obligation to be more specific and provide us with a substantive
explanation of their concerns, rather than the simple rejoinder that the proposed
amendment "goes too far." In the weeks ahead, we will be assaulted with TV ads,
radio spots and all kinds of other "messages" about 1\rnendment 3 -- by both sides.
At the end of the day (or the campaign, in this case), it is important to remember
Copr. ~ 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. u.s. Govt. Works. ... 10/20/2004
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 28 of 68
Page3 of3
that this has nothing to do with "gay bashing," which I condemn. lt is about the
value of protecting the nuclear family and the stability it has given us in
America. It is about the reality that our freedom and prosperity come in large
part from our religious foundations that inculcate personal responsibility in our
citizens, and that this happens largely through the family. This is a choice we,
including gays, as a society have to make. It also has nothing to do with who's
running for governor or attorney general or even for Congress. Rather, Amendment 3
has everything to do with the mos t family oriented state in the union making it
clear that we will not accept, at the hands of activist judges, definitions of
marriage conjured up in places like San Francisco. Much of rny time in Congress has
been spent dealing with the consequences of judicial activism. When w·e have to
depend upon liberal Supreme court Justice Breyer as the author of a minority
dissent arguing that the Constitution allows us to protect our children from
pornography, I can assure you that the Supreme Court is not predictable on these
kinds of issues and that the real risks associated with Amendment 3 lie in failing
to pass it -- thereby leaving us unprotected from arbitrary change to a sacred
institution that 1 believe must be protected. Chris Cannon represents utah 's Third
Congressional District
NEWS SUBJECT: (Domestic Politics (GPOL); JUdicial Branch {GVSUP); Social
Issues (GSOC); Political/General News {GCAT); Society/Community/Work {GCOH);
Politics/International Relations {GPIR); Government Bodies (GVBOD))
Language: EN
Word count: 750
10/10/04 DSRTNEWS AA02
Copr. ~ 2004 West. No Claim to Oriq. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://print. westlaw .com/delivery .btml?dest=atp&dataid=B 005 580000000 5 800004067 57... l 0/20/2004
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 29 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 30 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 31 of 68
'Ill\' I ;th1· Trihww lff AH I· 1d.1.'. < :21)(H
Amendment 3 foes scrap radio ads
Prominent voices: A
and radio
station cxcc-i ohjt'L"t to
lh· ltt-:lH·: Cc.\ WAI-"11
'fhr .'-till nl.T 'lri'Jrrmr
Opponents of Ut..1h's
m:trriagc hnvc dis-
carded twn radio ad.-:; aller a SGlte
kJ::l.,lator and ex£:t:lltives from
KSI. Had io ohj<:'-ctC<I.
One ad. t:i.tllL-tl Debate.''
lhtt>t..• JilWm:t.ker:-;' J"'C·
(:onlc!tl atxmt.
i\mN1dment frmn the last night
of tiH: J.cgislnture.
t\ Cill1Ci1 .. Choms ()f
Opposition." lists public
whn ha\'c expressed concern
ahuul the amendment's ial
U n llliCIHlcd l:UI\St.'(JIICilCt'S ill·
chultng riSL H:trfio talk sh11 w
host DOUJ.!
Tht: acls Ill stan airing un
st:rt ions
Hut when Utah C:ounty Hep.
.Jim Ferrin ohjcctCi.lto the usc of
his • and KSL Hadit)
tlin.!cl•)r Anzuet1e in·
sisu.:d the stat inn's call lctter.i
and Wright' . .; name couJd not be
used. the :lllianec clmppcd the
t\lliance Director &on Mc-
Coy says the allianec's executive
comrn ittt-c decided to soothe ruf.
Oro and withdrdw the
"We've hccn try!ng to nm the
as honcstJy and
ahovcboanl and as
said MeCoy. "We
have plenty of ads."
Arquette and riSL
slat ion lll<lllil!-:Cr Chris vc
did not return phone calls Wcd-

In a letter to McCoy this week.
Ferrin insists his quote was
taken out of cnntext and c:L"t as
an argument. against the amend·
mt:nt in a "severe distortion."
McCoy counters thilt Ferrin's
comment wa-. taken in context
rmm an OJICil who:ie
arc available to any
member of the pub\ ic.
"If we could hav(• quoted tbc
whole .st:ttcment. it wouJd have
hccn c•ven hctter." he saicL
KSI. exccuth:cs also took
sue with an allianee ad in which
Wright was mcntiont'fl along
the Family Law Section of
the Utah State Bar. t\ttorney
Gcncrnl Mark Shunleff, the
Group of religious leaders
backs tl1e initiative
l\ of loud religious
lcath!r.i hm; announced
fCJr Amendment :J.
In a news confcrcm:c thts
the Yes on 3 coalition
brought together a few of
local and
a list of more than 60 ecclesiasti -
ca I I cad en; hack the const it u ·
tiona I :tmcndnll'nt. derin tnl!
Mike Gray. pastor of South-
east Bnptisr Church, Oishop
Willie Dunn of the WorllJwlctc
Gospel Church and tllc Re\'. Greg
or St;mding
announCC<I the
OpdC'n Stnndnrd·K-.:aminer and
f>rot.:o /Jaily Urrald.
riSL ch:mgeu iL" JlUI icy on
cmplnyl"Cs doinl:! commercials
after Utah bank cxecut ivcs com-
plainL)(J (]bout Wright's tl!lcvi ·
sion cmnrnercials for Arncric:t
1-'irst Crt't'Jit Union. The cvol\'ing
pol icy aUows pcrsunal it ies
interfaith agreement.
"Mardage is being abuse.
right now. The Dihlc and trad'
t ional c.Jcfin itjon of marriage i.
between a mnn and a W'Jrnan
Th<tt's what's best for
best for kids," Gray said. "Th1
Bible says we arc to honor mar
ri11gc. That's c..xnctly what l'n
Grny said concerns rniS(.'<
.1b4mt tJ1c second section of th•
;uncndmcnt are not rc:tsor
tn vote against
Utah's Constitution. He
thl' 60 churches repn...--scnt abou·
IS.<XXJ Ut:thn.-. .
to do voiL"c-<>vcrs in TV and mdit
as long as they avoid pcrsonai
Wright routinely
conccm about the amcndmcn1
on the air and gave the alliance
tlCnn ission to use his name.
but was not rt.'<...'t)rdOO for the
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 32 of 68
Attorney group pans
Amendment 3 issue
,\group f2l2 ;tltorney"
ran fu ads in The S11ll
I .a • Tribune and
on Tuesday
,\ n1endnu:n1 :.1.
l 'lah LaWyt!rs for Snund
< 'onst itut ionaJ,\mendnu:nt-. ·
.ut ...ay:-; the two-1mr1 armmcl
ment is tlawNI. The
NIY "Part 2 is an unsound con
"tltutional It b
demonstrably and unaccept-
ably will produce con
t i nuous I it wn at the t!X-
nf Ut;th ta.x payers. and
proposed by the Slate Leg-
t:,lat urc without the st:nll i 11y
or thP Utah Jtut ion a I Hf'
\ tc,ron Commi!-.'\1011- a Com
ml.,.,ltJn that Lhis
!'!l<ttc wen f'or many years."
The list ofattornt!YS in·
dudes Un i ver,..,Jty of Utah Law
School Profe::.!-.or .John Flynn.
fm mer U. Law School Dean Eel
;u111·six former State
Har presidents.
"If we collect more money,
\W'llnm the ads again," said
( 'lah l.awyers finandal Offit'CJ"
Dan Berman.
Yes on 3 ads
The Yes on a cnalit inn
!->liuietl airing television com-
mf'n.: ials backing Uiah 's pro-
po-.c.•d marriage amcndmcnr
on !.:; pan ish Ian gun -.t:t t inn:-.
hkl·Univision and Tel('nlUndo
thl!'! week.
··The His pan It mmmun il y
1.., a:d in a farm J y·
centric eu.\ture."' Yvette
Dlili', co-chair\\- •man of
Utahns for a Better 'I
"We that chtldnm <Ill'.,
gin and rhal the iralli-
lton.IJ family untt led by a
m.m anti a woman unrtcd in
pro\' those
Po!tt ic11l mm pilnl h,11
'l'rib11 m• sl 1!
children with the hP!...t po'....-.lhlc
!-.t.ui ml ife."
Chmnbcr cndorscn,cnt
.lim Matheson is one of only
cighll>crnouats in Congress
endorsetl by 1 he U.S. Cham her
tlf Ct 1mmerce.
Based on i\·lathl!Sllfl 's su r1·
port for nwtlical liahility re-
form. the Bush tax ull.s. en-
independence and class
act ion rcfonn. Chamber Politi·
cal Jli rector Bi II J\1 iller said
the advocacy group fnr 111 iJ.
lion U.S. h11s inesst:s is hack i 111-!
Matheson in his race against
Hepuhlican challenger .John
"Our tmclnrsenwnts ;u·e
li!Jiln pelf'>rlllilJH'(',"
Mi!IPr said. ha-;c..'<l on how
I hey ,.:ote."
Four years a[.!O. when th<'
seal \\-as open, tlw Chamber
cndor-.;(.1( I Hepuhl1c:u1 lkrek
Smith. That Mii!Pr
when the
\.w\lchccl 111
Crmt.;ress. Chamhcr .scnrP
cnnb show Matheson votes
with tlw ion 70 pcr-
t'l'lll l)f I he tin1L•.
Abo week. Sen. Orrin
I lrttch Swallow. join
ing I he rest of Utall's Hepubl i
t:tlll congressional delegation
"Having .John in the House of
Heprcsent;tt i vt!s wou hi hcl p
'":r delegation push through
unpnrt:mt, Utah-friendly
lation,'' Hatch is quoted saying
m a news
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 33 of 68
First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage http:/ /www.mormonnewsroom .orglldsnewsroom/englnews-releases-storie ...
1 of 1
OT t.lTTI1•DotoY Wll'n
tii!W3STORY- 200CTOI!R 2004
First Presidency Statement on
Same-Gender Marriage
The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has
issued the following statement:
"We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with
understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the
same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives hut there
must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.
"As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage
between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal
destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only
between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same
gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church
accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a
woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
51'\"UlGUIO£ NO'tl!: Wben reporting about The Church of Christ ofl..1Uer·day Sa iota, please we the complete nome o( tbe Churd! in the
first nference. For more lnformatioo on lile use of the name of the Church, go to our
8128/2013 3:06PM
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 34 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 35 of 68
l.JDS Cl1urc.h
\vcig-hs in
( >n tnarrtay;e
• l't•nl imwd fnmt Hl
.: 1:-> ill 1'ull h:trlllllllY wi:h
· · · · ' l:lll'il IJi·sillt·n." ;;.aid
y,.,. 1111 :1 fn:tlithH\ t.:il lt•tllhll·r
.\ln1111· :-:t.•wm1. "It womler·
1 ullr ckar "' nw."
I lppll"\'111::; noll' that the
:-:atPilll'lll 11<1! nwnt ion
.\ lw·mlnwnt :( nnn't :\:nenll ,\1·
!I;PH't' 1>11'1'\'101' St:{llt !\kCoy
nul till' church ··nclnr"SI..'i l
hy llilllll' :lmt·ndmetll:' anti initi-
i11 C;slllill'lll:t. llaw:tii ;ml!
" II lt!OI\'\' S I hl.' ity
tl:at 1 .• 11:-\ !'H'oplc i·.'l U1:1h
,·;tn l'll!lit'\'1' in the goal of pm·
h:•:• n·:lll it • htll
:11 tlw I in1e. i'ltlliiSt: nollt> rlu
it 111 :t hurt flll w:1y lilw Arnenrl ·
'lll't\t ;l dt11:s." :'III'Coy s:litl.
"l'l:lfltlS h:l\'1'11111111!' nfth•.'il· 11Wr1
l l :all's ;tnu·whm·nl writll'n
Ill I \\'o parts. 'l'ht• :;t•lltt'lli'C
dl'lilli'S lll;ll'ri:I)(P :IS lhl' Jt:g;tl
111lint1 nf :1 :ll:tll ;tlld ;1 woman.
Thl.' S.'llil'lll't• which
has !)l.' t' ll •:rtlit 'l/.t'l! h.\·
,· 1aus. f:un l:tw alloll'l\t?YS :mel
t m:n:wrh·d alik\·
... 1:111'.: "ll• • or her tlunu':ilk union.
IHI\';(•\'o•r dt'llollll ill:th•tl. lll:tY ht:
n ·t ·llglliZL'tl :ts a 111:1rriage 11r
till' S:ttnt• Ill' •
l'l(tl i\':tlclll lt.•I:Hl o'llh!l ...
,\ Salt l.ul.'l· '!'ribun,• tHlll ble
!:1st 1110111 h !'mull I I hill fi2 ()I'J'<:L'Ilt
of lJ tahns plan to \'lliC Jill' Ill\'
Churcb expands on marriaCJe amendments
Tnc I trst Presidency's July 7 siJiemenl wJs more gt'nNic. ent1orsing all
lhilt lrildlltOnl1l rndrrtJQe ilS the !c9a1union ol a man
and ii woman lue)day's statement goes ttcyono IMI. mentioninQ church
li.'aders' support lor amendments th.Jt rnclutle il Sllcond claus!!
b ocktn!J eqill recoonttron for Q.JV crv11 un1ons and
aomest c part ncrshrps \)f even
J.a\11. 1004
hetf!rosexual. unmarned
I elcl!lllOShlpS
a 1\IO{\
a.,.ots \I .._
a11\\"> \ \M \ll -....
;) . e as - .
\ la\\et \1\aHio'i -
(, c."ns\ o e\etll\r.Q -
le>l.l- r.\. --
o\ ,J u\1\e
l\\ltc.l\ \ a«'e\' 1\:'
cl\s\' a ...__-
ol Clctot.r
-- "We ot The Church or .lt!s C
"•ct. out w:;h "Merstana"' hrJSt ot latt.,.day Saints
.,, •Nr,J:·t!'tl to those '"•oct /"' 'otkvrtJu.,s
th.,emay be or .. , tonet '"me Oend., w, , .. ,,,.
must also be ''<oon,hon h.,,'"" but lher,
w •t " "Qhl before fhe£

s doctr,ndt fJrincifJte b .
attirm I hac ""'rriaq, b;,::•d o, ""ed ""Piure. ••
.,,,.,,.,to,,. c,..,"'. '" • .,., dnd. is
HIS Childree. lor the • destiny ot
'XPrriscd •nty betw
.,, to be
W!'tfd('d ,, husb.Jnd • woman r. .. tutty
ny Other refatt .
Person, ot tho "me •ns. '"""dmq I hose botw.,n
created institution ot I he •
'"nrs "''"'ures /hat define Y. The Church •ccordinqty
. "'"" OOd • "'•man •nd that d:""•o• as lhe ""'"" ota
\ •nv "'"•I '•l•t•onshlp" not conr., teq•t st•tus on
• fh, ( /u n-/Jt•/ !tn<J I .1.111 ..;.,,,,
/1..-. .;.th t.rJ.,· I"""""
:11111 mluwnl. :Ul\11111.!
!.D.• \II(C'I'- \'\I'll hiJ!ht'l' 'j;\
pt'l'l\!nt ... \\ •II \Ott.· 111
• Utah Ct ln:-tilllthm
<; n en that h:wk tn 1 he 1-'sr ... t
• :-.tall:nwnt
ion.; Ill' I im ing.
I 'htt rch i!'S\lL'(I a nmn·
J.!t·nt ·ral s ratt•nlenr .luly i
Jl ,g ant•.'llthiH:nts ju:;t
bL'I'un.· of Congre:-:s
\tHt.'fl on a fl'<kr:tlmar

I \e:-. irlt•s Ut:1 h. i m i l:u·
m . • rrt.ll!l' .lllll'l ldllh'llb an· 1111
till• in II
llt•:-;lult · tlw t •
:i111:nt 1 .n;-;
\ 'hurl'lt .l:tn Sh:JIIlS
tltt• l:tl'k t1f:111 •
,, ch11in•. Thl•
r·,·;acl tl\o•r· the p1tlpit in
111 Obit> :1111\ ltlahu intc·r·
1111 f1nlir
k:d • i11 rlwir
:<l:t!t•s. Sllll\1' l\lonllPII:-. lll:ry in·
h'l'Jil'l': it as an t•ntlllf'.SI'IIICnl uf
the :tllll!lll!rlll'llt.S. 111:1y llt'·
li e\'1.' thl! s tah'llll'll l is :s
.;faiCIIWJ\1 of COIISt!l'\':11 ii'L'

'"l'ht:y a lrc:1dy h;ul :1 po:'il ion.
Tins d:ll' ifyin!! :nul
mort • l:llllM:r\':tli\'t• :Ill' pu:: it inn
th .. t tht•\ had. Tlwy rc!:slly !H"t'
1.1 "llll. 1 h>llgh st:1nd 1111
'-t'\11:1111\ ::::1i1l Shipps. :Ill
• p l'•)li ·ssor uf h l:i t
.md n•l1gltl\IS stwlir:s at l'ul'd\Jt•
l'niH'I'!<IIY in lnrlian:q11tlis. "If
llwy had mcntimted Utah'::
anu!nt hllcl ll hy n:um•. thi!' wnultl
l1:1ve ht•fm an inflil:al it;n that thi:-;
is :tJll'm'illt:ial t:hun:h."
Wh:ttt: \'t'l' l'l'itsnn tior lht•
1 \udng. llri!:h:1m YPIIIII.! !'11 ivt.•r
:'I y llllil'l':tl st:it;IU:I' pn•ft:S$111'
1\t · l'. tttlr:-itlll tlw :;I:IIP·
1111'111 \\' t" :eln:ltlt!r nl'r inriu,.
'\n\\ j.., llw 1 ill\" wlwn \'Ott'
..,!:11'1 ]1:1\'lllg • li'
and atwnr inti to
t•:unp;ti i!IIS," l'al:l'l':-.111'1 saitl.
" Sratt!metl!s likt• this fmru
1 rusted i ns I itut ;r nri
1'111 d i l t•s nJ;IIf!'!' in hallot t':tltl ·
l 't1 '''''' don't h;t Vl' il:J.P:·y
:tnili:ll io11 111 guilk wlll'll
:n:1k ing lht JS!' •knsions ...
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 36 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 37 of 68
Both sides in debate shaq1ly
split over \vhat 1narriage is
J\t U. of U.: \11••1111'\'- ,,\•·nd'''
It:,.., Ill•· • 111 llt; ll tl.tll lllillll
1;, , • • • \\\ , ......
I ,It . rf: , ,t) t j I •J 1•1
1 tp l! Ill • .. , ... , "n·! I a t! JI t .; • f ' · . ·, j : ,. I tf
..._:ninl'· at!• '·-·1· . cl•"tll u •" '· "' •
.,., lie. II 'I !u: • • .. •
., . .,t )t
;i1111J.thh _._,,q)d •.:11 •· H tt I•• llh· tf t• 1 11 •(1 :
II'"-" tJtil lh•• l"••f•, ,•:,: t I 1 .... I .fh • It: , : •! • l ui
.\t rJ ... ' ,,, .. .. ,, ,. ' ,• ':.ah I I .. \.. •• !I•M: t l lt:l
f!11JI ..d , f\ tip• ··=······ ,l.tjl 'lli'tl ' llli! Itt·'
I•!Uftt•.tt:e)tft ,: rl1 t II",' : '•'1 :d•· 1!,1 ' d t ii P ••I
l:tfr'I,JI!t• • •.•. Itt•! .. !!cl' t 'fl' h• 11• tllti • II P ·
\to• I Ill" o·l••t,lo.tltl '" 1!11 · • •·•·· \ 1 1:111··,
:\lltt'lltlrn•·rtl .: ',:. i n l
.11111'1111111' ll' llh• .I 'lot! ·.·.••o,l.t hi"'!- • .,;;!11
II• .,, ,,, i'•l\ lt!tlHtl
Fr• ·•·d•tlh 1 .. \1. ,: 1 •• l• .t.t. I': 1: . .-H • ••It
I ll•· l"ll!hh 111 wllll .. ll ' oil .. , • '•Ill.!•··. llllit;t· "''
.•.IJ;If lo:tpJlo•ll'•lll fl,t ',,.•. ···I• 1 !11111 IIIII l it,ol \\"Ill
111•1 I•• 11\1' •·old "I •;o·. !11.111" 1 II'' \'.OJihl•ll .,; ol•l
I 1111 •·l ollll ll '• h 111 ,, .. I I h'lol' III••IW Iii f 1\ d
l 11!111"• HHtl(lt':ll :11'1• J\otl 11 ,t,l\ •··11!• .1 d.1·. •
• • • :•·11••1\ 1!111111•11• .oil :o l!l"•••·'
i h t•l' lt•' ltctft I l•l".•· ' ';,ltlP- - P\ tri,U t t.ti',t' t.• .. lllt•
• "'or 1···• 11 , .. ,·.•. nd .. : rill' .,. , 11.11 f•·',lllllll•·ll . ..
IHUac .u: ·,.·u•l i"!c·· t,, •. ,n .. u J• , 1[ • ... ·•
I lldflr' dt .-,..,111 t •t••·•'l' II r ''' ••,'l '""'' ••
\ '/t l h • th' et l·llll'• I 11 • ... tlll'll· .....
1 • I•• h:nl,. ,.,h•·lt •Ia· · ' •· til · d··la . • l«'41 ,•:lral
lUi II'' t.IJ'" '"'· tl' I•' •\'. ··• ••'. • : \Ju• a' II :•n '' ·• •··f'." :uul
•,•,htt•.!J;,UI11ft• 11J1••:11 \fitll"1 1trt l,fl!t • Jtt·f·li'ln,
.l•ttrtth:: ·.\·•·ll·.··•' ,111-l 1 ut• ..... ,,, H,·,l:h:uu
, •. ,,n:: 1 nl\•·t·· t·. J., ••, "' .. ,,h,.,.,, 1 '.\'an!l··
.uul lhlllo;lll'· 11•;:11" I l!l'l':oll"l• : •• llhll ,·,,w,:.o•l
L .• • :"'I ·.v .• t l :t ..
\\ooll••ll' "11\"11•'11 lot d •t.u·t•ll;" ltridt •l l'"ll•
l'•J•''' lftu::ti.,O'" t:J l l !t I 'JI ',t·,Ji·· ,jdnpllliU of
''" •·•1111 dt\'''''' 1•·: ..... ,,,.. l n .. ·r!nu. ,,J ····upl•··"' 'H
I I " •• . I I" I I' fl I • I' .,
,,, ..
11111·rr r• 1.1: lll: u·t 1<•1:·· n·•111• llll( h :o11tl till• li•l!HI
11 • 11lll 1:11"1 it•d \',otllll II I llt:IITI:I\!1 '.
'ill"••l.oit'.i· :o·nn• l' l!ltl••dtllol lllt lu•"'•ll l
',\ h:d ,.,.;,• ... :1 •I••"· tl\1• l!lo\"o•f"lllllt'tol lt:ol"l· ior
It ::·.lfi\' •·•·111'1•·• •. oir••:ul'. tlll•lr;,, r\ lll'r"k 111
t!! n r i.t/'' ':triiH' lot pitn• ut·, . fetl'"-11\l'
llt•·lf • ltitoln·n. 11\'•·r 11"1111 IIlii rill'
··u·!l:•t:•· tllo·lq•;d and • tlw
;,·,, ol!oow•,Jo,r toll I• i"'' \\"toft".;lo!l •
\\.o11ll •· ,.,.,llrll·r··rl tlt:ot marri:•1:•· "thl' • t"ll!i
1 1 111'·11111!11111 ddt!t ifl!: lollJ>'oi'I:JII! :-•ll "l,d I oii.'S .
th.· IH"-.1 pl:u·· w• llh'll lt:ull•qtl;illl"•lllttl l" tglllh .
llr• . .; . J, • t!11111: olll .,fildl'l 11'-1':\ 11:0 I I "Jillf•h':. I It' 1"11111
;:a;,·n Jfl" 11\11}: till u-..- ''' ' "
·•r·.,t:l!n:· l•·:•al lin·ll"'''' ro lt;orlt••i:-. 1,,.111111: l;il\
I • • t ••I' Ill \\ lt11 I h•·\ w:•ll l l•o .. ,_ltll'.\'
I ho· ...:ottl • •
;q,,r: . ! i ,.;,r
l!ut \• ltW: III IJWIIIlh"rl t •llll l til l fllill'llf•d \1'111111'11
h•l • 'lllllt !I'' \\.1"11' • n•d lht • I•I'"IWI"I\' .. r
tllt'll loll;,lo:tllli•. : \ntJ .'idl\1':11"1/. :-;old ".,f
I• 11"··'''' .. ,.,,,"l'ari:-,toll .. r,· .. • .:·•' :odulh 111
·r •. n. 1 ;,,.,.11 ;ottl pr•rl"l tvil\" I• II' ··l•tlrl "lll"l llr·-..
\'.,1:-:t ll all•·rllj;l ;ol •
1'- n·., ll"ll ll•ol loy ••1!•'. lanll l.\· l'o•l .tlh•ll•,htjl illlll •lw
r11:r11hl'i ·•I l"'' •l'h' ill\l•h·•·rl r'll"''"illl! 1!.1\ ll lill"
r1:•::r• """"itlll·•l l lt:tm:•·lh:tl
. \·.lnrl'l;oli",:ollll:tulllh'lil. 1\.lllll'd 1111'
l: ot ll!•'"t.:•· •
;,11.1 ,•nl•·r:. In Jtl"tt\ tdo · l"i):ln' I·• -.;11111' '•I'\ o'lllljlh"
I I•• olt :-.JoiJto•ol lh1· SllJI JI"'>I'Itl y ,.,.11,.'1"\ : llll"o• llildl·l
jlllll11111:s 11ll ho· lo:rlltt l •
""T iot• l 'l:th f' II I'l l l"ll !•'' :o·· f" J•lo•\ I' ll I
1••1" :otltinw till' 1:-lull nl :111 \' ••tht•t l"ll'ilt....""lt••
;-.;till "'TIIt·ll' is 1111111111..: • llll:o.o•l'\;lti\"o' .!1 111111 I, ',1111'
lolllo'lh•· :-,l;oto.":. h; ot ub :t:lll altlllllll"l' •'t'lll't.olhlll :.
''"II II,., •11:-.lllllllllll:tl hnt h : llll"t'•·
IIIII W: o n II·· ill:-1:.1:- 'ho· '"IIIli! "' o·r:-. 1;11 l:lltl:ll.l':•·
1\\"q Jlill'l :llll•:llolllh'lol b l'toiiiJ•Io•tll• !11,11 \
:111•l 1\1 o:o•:-.-.:11";."
"'\\'•· :outo ·tlolllii'IH ·· I• • Jll , ot • ·1
"'""'' tllllll::-. ,,_.,, 1:.111•' ·:nol lh" •· t!tillJ'·, "·'' 11t111k
:or•· ihn•:tl••n•·• l. " \ \ ':cnilo· "nol 'i•·U·I' lwl""" tt.o\\
ll:o:, it 111'''11 lll'l'"!'t.":t n ll o oll'lilll lll.ll"l"o:•• o·
l __
Srn:nhs-fs on

t'illlll•:•if:llnl;;un ll w l ltt '. l jl
... t••n···• 1 I :wh ', 11, """ r . tlll'
nuoi• ·nlto''' In p·1 1 r•·.lll\1'
• 1 anrl ul:t ll ..,
'>11•\ o· Tlr .. u t p'-'111 null\l•a11
1\.d ok;s :11,. ;"o•h 1111: ollllli •• IIIII I'
II• l ,111!1 \\111'tl 111 l llllllllt IH 'lli'o•;ul
ll u•1r l"•hlw:olllil''•"'il!•''
"JltJIIIIJI!-''"· ol l.•1r.111 1 tl\
I'IIIJIII"il ll)!lll l'lllllllllt.! :w:1111 ....1 f(t•
l'lll>lll':lll Httlo 1\l:·ll• lfi, JIOIId ;til
:11 11'1 I•• llht'-11":111' .t p11lillc';tl •'ill"
I•IIHt lhat h;oo• tn:lilo·•f 1 ..
1'1 '· .. 1111 ' 111 (to,. lllilll l\\"11
ftt•·llrl'-. !IIIII '"'•IL Tlh'l' :ll"l""ll
;11 'tap.,, •. .,.;, • ·l;ul !-d·
l'lllhl Ill l!t'ill•l"ill'l:.illlllll' .
rnu J,•:tr h•"" rlln! ··:--:dt' .. :a!:;•iu:-t :\
• ;11"11 :II III\' Joi"IH"I:nlll
til: ll o• •,;,nw .. JI \•':11':, l;•lt· r.
llolll-.:1 • • I' 111:111 111
•ll..,lrlllll l•·lhl· rllon'h :111-:
•,I ollllllil ll' Ill·, IIJ'JIIIIlt'lll l(o'llilft
l l! 'otll! l11 1:. I .lllll• •n. li·•· .1f:tt I{ ••I
lo·,Hh•r;.,Jttp :ttu! I'IIIISblt•lJI'\' 1111
11htt'.tll11tt. Sox w: • im
o!lll!l Itt II\ .IIIIi j11lt I >111!'.11111"1 i111:
Tho' ;ub c.•11l"· ,· .. utili :ct u .• !l
\\'•·h !.II••: hlt)l:l;
\\\\·; uthahk:l.•'lllll .
K IJ!Y of :1cl
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 38 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 39 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 40 of 68
lho -.:.dt liT.\H .. .,
Backers, foes of Amendment 3 make last appeals
Emotional issue: Opp111ll'nt' uf
!Ill' rnarriagl' mt•;l.."lll"\' :L"k f, lr
rornp;to;,.;iun; propc tnt•nt. .... '-'l_\'
just want tu pn..;crw tl!l'ir lifi. ...;tyk
l h '\\
.. ,J: J.J.,., Jt,i'ffw
Tttny l!uul'r1'h·ld and l';u;l
:Lc;, iii r:1ar
riaJ:{: a' cht!::
T•'l!•·rh,•r ror 1:! !111: 1'"" mt·n
h;ok en·iltt;l an;l wtll:. anrJ hr•: in·
! • t!i\\.'11 IJlh•:r H .. '
t4r a 't:rn.'l,.':tlt: CU\Hh1·r tn !•l :;l t:WH t'Ul!hl t-.•Ji:-.Uot' nn Chc:u· h1rth
• P:ntl h•,,Htl with th• ..·
T••n:. '.'.t ... :u\t l • to ....·h•"'•l.
'"\\·,.-.. t• ll'HH· \''<t>l". ;h:1t ttl,. l:t\.\'
pPol·ido·· I' lloo:tull;..' ,•·:,·r:;tni;sg IS
aJrtil.!ht :·L' H t :t•'
llllt:c!rii,•Jd. 'l lo;t · ·!If' lo:ll·
lrtf..! u!" thl.' t r•\:trn:.}.!t• ·
• 1 .im .. tul
fllt'nl m'l•r iht• • <11:111•· :uttl tlol'l<
,·uH ....IIlutu''"'l
\-! ' ... l••yun,! •
n:\t:t' I!H.• it•!,!;t) tllll1111 til a n!4.UI ;ti UJ · '
\\'olfii:L!l . ft aj,;.o ... lhr• :'li tf<• trulll
an:: tJ!Ill'r rd;ttJt•n-htJr.> a•,
ThE:te df>:' two otner con:;llllr
lrondl amenoments on llu• ballot.
e Z 'NOUid allov. Sliif'!·
o· .. nt?<Junt :u1cons Sll( 'las tne Unwe<slly
of Ulan 3rul Utan State Uni.,erslly tole-
IJJIIY hole an ;h1p mtefest .n pn11ate
(Omoamts whose <:Jr iQin 1s in rese.:.rch
conuucll'd ot tne scnools.
• A.mendmeat 1 l'lt>uld diiO'Ii the :Jiah
ftouse to call it sell rnto b·{ a h•o·
vote to conssder •mpeachment at a
public olhct>r. lhl' Scnah.' holding iJn
ornpr.achment lnal. Currently. only the
QOvcrnor Coln call the LeQisfalurc mto
tor an impeachment
•.'QUII.':Cicnl" Ill
Th.: it !h:tl
mule ;,ppl]· I<• ;,n: v!th•·tr lillc r.•l'L,. But f(•;tr i.' m lht: .. r
,J<.o;· l.usultJI•fl.:, ••n lht• ••lht•r hantl.
• aholll ·.-·h:Lt will h011Jill.'ll tu UIJ'th
'o(•'iNy rf ·:.,r;:rs r''Jt'\:1 tht: ;un,.tHhn••nt.
TIJ<• nlr! • • antl
h•or 1Ju,.ll:u1!l h<tv•· .•,rt:H•n IWCt
r .. ot•k.., :tnd • ttn rnakuu.:
m;ornat,'t· lldil"''-"' tlk•
rmun· ••f hurn<mn;. un. ur'l.,.IIU
\ llm:•IIY ttnltt'\1 O.:il'ftN.':<u;tl mar
• Sh•· tu
t:l muu: rdlt: ttnll
• 11 h• when Jilu: l'lo•niTlilrk
:-t.l n l1l aJIIIWll11: \II rn.'llT\
hil" lli.'CI'Inll' aJIIUr>l t"(
'in<1 Yuunf( JI'.'IPh· h•rk at it 1111
ll('\.'\l r•tr 11 . 'llwn: 1.' 1111 cumlllltrnf.'al ll>
l;p,•p th" fiJnuJy • •
,;ud. • tJnJVId<!:i that commit·
mc•tlt. Whl.'ll th•:n: i;. ntl m;trri<I!!C. 1111

I ;ewy•:n; t•n booth an:ut.,.J
lh•: ltnll Lund ben:.<>' point'-.
Tl1n •· • 11 •r anumcy t41mcr·
11!. the Vt:lh ,\:\1<1'. the Family Law
Sl:t.1iun hfthc Ut;oh•: ll:u·.llcrl.cns uf
blnmtl' .. lew1sh. l.uthcr;m
ami t;;nhnlk church • and
funncr p<•lnwmist Wl\'l':o woJrry ;tbout
th(• • ltmJ:u;IJ:t:.
They ars.:uc tht: :mh:ndment will im·:te
••XJIC!OSh'l' htll!:'IIJ()fl ami l'flUid
whoil· • Hf l :tah .'•Ill' I·
cty. nut JUSt CitY ;mel their dlll-
clrcn. bul h•:h•rus•·xta.;tl I'IIU-
plo:s a.' ,.·dl.
t:ulll•malun:d fnmtnmncr .Jon
. lr .. a >(:Ill'!: 1 of l(.'l!ISI<t·
11w t'hul'\:h ()( Christ uf
l .atu:r 11<1y S:ums· Fir.;t and
Jll'I.'O>dll.'r.< .ti",.'Ul' ll ll:
(" C T
twr;-p:m • is linwly :utrl n•.•
r":\.o;;:1ry to ,tn)' :::;oy • frnm lhn;n1c
l't:Jh !vr>xucJ117.l' \'•:nnunt C:l\·ol •
and (';,JiliJrru;,·;, tlmno'SIL!: panr11:r.h11.-.
They lht: • • • , .. ,.n;,,,.,,
and thE: S.'<:.,nd • will nut ll/1
!lcnn im• I ikr· lh•• Jluttt •riil'lol ,'
l<l't'l•nt shuw llt•arly I'll r•·l'l'l•nt
.. r muliliunally con,..,["\·:otil:t· IJt:1h '"'
c•rs pr11hahly wtll \'ule ti1r tlo1· '" .c·nrl- Ttw .:11/U:hrsiun <>I '1\u .....!:l )'·, cit• ·
til,n mily ;llrc;•dY ......,
liut llon't ,\ownlt ,\JIIam·•· •
Scr•U .\loi'ur .,till hHhh ••Ill "''II"-' hrtJ••
that th1: lct::tii]Ul"'>liun' ;uuJ c·muunn;tl
il!l!J!:.d tJt' ilkt• thr• lhlllt'rfJ••lr lo..
WIIJ lit!i'SU;Irlt: til I••
!c.a.:;1l tlllti • ..
•tr•: ht.'ll\'ity 1111 • • • Wlu·n
yuu adtl lu that thP • t:llrii J• •
nent. t h:J I m1s:ht b· ,,_,:l" '" ltrr , .. '"''' '"
tlL..:i!.ll' ma ybl.' 1o1:1: tltt lhb. ·
,\II"' ,.., .... nl! rlu·p· t. •h· ·' •.. ·•111 •
WrntH.." '1'\,t\' • t!\,·1-,_U'-1 Hul or\
•l·•tiltt• • • .\n•l .\mr·rlfhn••IL' 1
th•• 'A.TffiU,: ·.\':1\
Yt"'''" s ·, ,,. tl.nn:l.ta .\lunl .. ';c•"A.trt
h••w•·•.••r •·all :·tt·.uu•'lulrH•·nz i;Hl!fll, l,,
"c•J•"J.!;t Uf:IJJ•:•·t!"tt"l• 'IU
.. It ''a"' • H"'' • •
11\'r'f • ht· '-itff :111 ... •·nl rft•h.JII• \
\'Ill!' )f"\ llfl $ thH1l! tht• nw,
olr•• .\.;1} • • t"Hht,tJ· h P)l!l
AH•·r .• IJ lh•· t :, .. t,, 11 • u:·!
lht• t&:ttiHI,"'o . tp• f ,J-.t 'h;:lt ::i••(lJ ,,Jl,!
I.BJIIIJ"'I"\! uth••t' '-" !H :u iPII l:ih t
ltr•·t :h•: """'uh u1•• ..,,,r-. ·'"""·'"
• • h.t, ,n .qtpr•HHHl' n: ,. ,.,
tn" .ttiHC JlE'\ •O ',l • ._ · H sUf l:•trtJh t
a! 1 \\.••II :ta\•• •,, Ulo",t h•• •·,u•l l
'J;tot:ld fC!-l ktll '" t If!( t:u1111\ I lu•c•
l'ht ... •·· ;, l!t•·.tt (tr,u•· h• • ;;,,,: ... Hu·
\"Uf':t:\ t :IH••;If(•U 1Ut •IU t.(:'\
.ufl l !H•t ,,q.,-.·t U ... *'' •
• ..... \!.C'• !.rUP!lf'"• "A tl
••· liw· 11 .\m••nr·l:nt•::r 1 "·' .-.. J; ,.
tr·ufU IIU\ltt nr;H"J t:ll
f' If I f Lth 'A $ft 'l,l
f"•·u ,,\ ... 1
'l'flh , •• H''t • tnHtiUt ·:n:'•' lr ....
{•:, ... . . , .... ;rl u'n ,,, ,,l('!,•t..· .....
cJ ',\ , .
11nf1 t 'A-:trll •J-Ut (U \\·· • i
• ,., h·"· "A h tt v .. •· t-..:t\ •·
I ";_;tft . ... ••fl<-' ••t l l . ....... ·"' tt h ,,
• • oUUPHthn,•tU fH\ :h.o·
.,.., ..... ,;.·.
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 41 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 42 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 43 of 68

TAB 23

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 44 of 68


Chart 1: Groups in favor of Amendment 3

Name Total contributions received Total expenditures made
Utahns for a Better Tomorrow $708,026.00 $708,026.00*
Constitutional Defense of
Marriage Alliance
$7,611.71 $7,559.92
Yes for Marriage $20,437.52 $21,592.52
Traditional Marriage Crusade $642.84 $642.84
Totals: $736.718.07 $737,821.28

Chart 2: Groups opposed to Amendment 3

Name Total contributions received Total expenditures made
Don’t Amend Alliance $770,650.88 $803,107.85
Utah Lawyers for Sound
Constitutional Amendments
$7,554.24 $7,554.24

Totals: $778,205.12 $810,662.09

* See explanatory note in Tab 17, Affidavit of William C. Duncan at ¶ 18.
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 45 of 68

TAB 24

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 46 of 68
State of Utah )
County of Utah
) ss
I, Joseph P. Price, being first duly sworn testifY of my own personal knowledge
1. I am an economist and associate professor in the Department of Economics of
Brigham Young University. My research specialties include labor, family, and
health economics. I received a Ph.D. in economics from Cornell University in
2007 (affiliations noted for identification purposes only).
2. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1, and the information contained in it is
true and accurate.
3. My testimony in the remaining paragraphs of this affidavit is provided pursuant to
Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence.
4. My research indicates that Utah is foremost among the States in the extent to
which its demographics indicate a consistent commitment to the ideal of married
households and the related ideal that children will be raised by their own married
mother and father. This is suggested by a number of measures.
5. Regarding the percentage of husband-wife households, Utah is the highest among
all States with 61.0% compared to the national average of 48.4%. The percentage
of married husband-wife households with children under 18 (31.7%) is also
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 47 of 68
significantly higher than other States and the national average (20.2%).
Utah also
has the highest percentage among all States of residents between the ages of 24
and 70 who are married and the highest percentage of residents in that age group
who are in a first marriage.
6. Utah has the lowest percentage of households headed by cohabiting couples as a
percentage of total households (1.3% compared to 2.4% nationally)? It is seventh
among states in the wedding rate per I ,000 population (8.5 compared to 6.8
nationally) and would probably rank even closer to the top if one excluded States
with higher rates (such as Nevada and Hawaii) that are probably affected by high
rates of tourist weddings.
Utah's divorce rate per 1,000 population is not unusual
(3. 7 compared to 3.4 nationally); Utah is in the lower part of the top half of States,
which may be explained by its higher rate of marriages, low rates of cohabitation,
and younger population.
7. Utah's birthrate is the highest in the nation, 18.2 compared to the national average
of 12.7.
Utah has the lowest percentage of unwed births (as a percentage of all
Daphne Lofquist, et al., "Households and Families: 2010" 2010 Census Briefs, April2012,
C2010BR-14 at Olbtiefs/c201 Obr-14.pdf, table 4.
U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics 2010 American Community Survey, DP-1.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Marriage rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-
2010" at!e rates 90 95 99-ll .pdt: 2010 data.
Divorce Rate. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Divorce rates by State:
1990, 1995, and 1999-2010" at rates 90 95 99-
l.l.&Qf, 2010 data.
Brady E. Hamilton, et al., "Birth: Preliminary Data for 2011" National Vital Statistics Report,
vol. 61, no. 5, October 3, 2012 at OS.pdf
Table 6.
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 48 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 49 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 50 of 68
Lefgren, Lars; Joseph Price, and Henry Tappen. "Interracial Workplace Cooperation: Evidence from
the NBA." Economic Inq11iry, 51(1): 1026-1034, 2013.
Patterson, Rich and Joseph Price. "Pornography, Religion, and the Happiness Gap: Does
Pornography Affect the Actively Religious Differently." Joumal of the Sdentifit- St11dy of Religion, 51 (1) :
79-89, 2012.
Price,Joseph and Justin Wolfers. "Biased Referees?: Reconciling Results with the NBA's Analysis"
Contemporary Economic Polir;y, 30(3): 320-328, 2012.
Price, Joseph; Marc Remer, and Daniel Stone. "Sub-game Perfect: Profitable Biases ofNBA
Referees." Joumal ofEmnomit'S & Managemmt Strategy, 21(1): 271-300, 2012.
Price, Joseph and Jeffrey Swigert*. ''Within-Family Variation in Obesity." Economics & Human
Biology, 10(4): 333-339, 2012.
Price,Joseph and Jason Riis. "Behavioral Economics and the Psychology of Fruit and Vegetable
Consumption." jolfmal of Food Studies, 1 (1), 2012.
Just, David; Jesse Lund, and Joseph Price. "The role of variety in increasing the consumption of
fruits and vegetables among children" Agrimltural and Resoum Emnomit'S Review, 41(1): 72-81,2012.
Price,Joseph;Joshua Price, and Kosali Simon. "Educational Gaps in Medical Care and Health
Behavior: Evidence from Natality Data." EL"onomit'S of Education Revie1v, 30(5): 838-849, 2011.
"Is it Just about Love?: Factors that Influence Marriage." Handbook ofFami!J Law & Et'onomics,
Edward Elgar Publishing, (ed. Lloyd Cohen and Joshua Wright), 2011.
Price, Joseph, and Simon, D. "High School Sports and Teenage Births". In "The Economics of
Sport, Health, and Happiness: The Promotion of Well-Being through Sporting Activities" Edward
Elgar Publishing, (ed. Placido Rodriquez, Stefan Kesenne, and Brad Humphreys), 2011.
Cao, Zheng;Joseph Price, and Daniel Stone. "Performance under Pressure in the NBA" jolfmal of
Sports Economics, 12(3): 231-252, 2011.
Buckles, Kasey; Melanie Guldi, and Joseph Price. "Changing the Price of Marriage" ]oumal of Human
Reso11rces, 46(3): 539-567, 2011 .
Dew,Jeffrey and Joseph Price. "Beyond Employment and Income: The Association between Young
Adults' Finances and Marital Timing" Joumal ofFami!J and Et'OIJOt!lit' Issues, 32(2): 424-436, 2011.
Price, Joseph and Justin Wolfers. "Racial Discrimination Among NBA Referees" Q11arterfy ]o11111al of
Economics, 125(4): 1859-1887,2010.
Price, Joseph; Brian Soebbing; David Berri; and Brad Humphreys. "Tournament Incentives, League
Policy, and NBA Team Performance Revisited" Journal of Sports Economics, 11 (2): 117-135, 2010.
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 51 of 68
Price, Joseph and Kosali Simon. "Education and the Response to Medical Research" (with Kosali
Simon),]o11rnal of Health Economit'S, 28(6): 1166-1174, 2009.
Wight, Suzanne; Suzanne Bianchi, Joseph Price, and Bijou Hunt. "Teenage Time Use" Social Science
Research, 38(4): 792-806, 2009.
''Parent-Child Quality Time: Does Birth Order Matter?" Journal ojHuman Reso11rces 43(1): 240-265,
"Gender Differences in the Response to Competition" Industrial and Labor Relations Rcvim;, 61 (3),
320-333, 2008.
Under Review or Revise-Resubmit:
"Sticking with What (Barely) Worked" (with Lars Lefgren and Brennan Platt).
''What Matters in Movie Ratings? Cross-country Differences in which Content Influence Mature
Movie Ratings" (with Doug Gentile and Craig Palsson*) .
"How Much More XXX is Generation X Using?" (with Rich Patterson* and Mark Regnerus)
"The Number of Children Being Raised by Gay or Lesbian Parents" (with Ryan Hill* and Corbin
Working Papers
"Awareness Reduces Racial Bias" (with Devin Pope and Justin Wolfers)
"The Impact ofMedical Research" (with Josh Price and Kosali Simon)
"Causes of gender differences in competition: theory and evidence" (with Chris Cotton and Frank
"Racial Bias in Coaching Changes" (with David Berti and Jason Cook*)
"Teenage Fatherhood and Educational Attainment" (with Reggie Covington, Liz Peters, and Joseph
"Pornography and Marriage" (with Kirk Doran)
Current Projects
"Using Technology to Improve Math Achievement during the Summer Break" (with Jaren Pope)
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 52 of 68
"Habit formation in Children: Evidence from Eating Fruits and Vegetables" (with George
Loewsenstein and Kevin V olpp)
"Does the location of fruits and vegetables in the cafeteria matter? Evidence from elementary
schools (with David Just)
''Product Portfolios and Average Prices" (with Wayne Sandholtz* and Samantha Snyder)
"Ranking which Fruits and Vegetables are Most Popular among Children" (with Grant Gannaway*
and Ruidi Huang*)
"Maternal Employment and Mother-Child Interaction" (with Frank Heiland)
"Technological change, relative worker productivity, and finn-level substitution: Evidence from the
NBA" (with Grant Gannaway*, Craig Palsson*, and David Sims)
Benjamin Miller Research Grant, ILR, Cornell ($2,500), 112007
Bronfenbrenner Life Course Center Innovative Research Project Grant (w I Kosali Simon), Cornell
($3,330), 612007
Institute for Social Science Seed Grant (wl Kosali Simon), Cornell ($6,500), 712007
Women's Research Institute, BYU ($3,000), 1112007
Family Studies Center, BYU ($6,000), 1112007
Mentored Environment Grant, BYU ($13,000), 412008
Small Grants Program in Behavioral Economics (wl David Just), USDA ERS ($30,000), 812008
Gerontology Program, BYU ($3,400), 212009
Witherspoon Institute, Princeton ($1,275), 1012009
Mentored Environment Grant, BYU ($13,090), 1212009
Family Studies Center, BYU ($3,400), 1212009
Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program (w I David Just), USDA ERS ($150,000), 812010
Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Program (wl David Just), ($29,000),
Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program (w I George Lowenstein, Paul Rozin, and Kevin
Volpp), USDA ERS ($250,000), 812011
Mentored Environment Grant, BYU ($16,200), 1212011
Family Studies Center (wl Mike Findley and Dan Nielsen), BYU ($10,000), 112012
Education and Social Opportunity Grant (wl Chris Cotton and Thomas Dee), Spencer Foundation
($28,000), 112012
Mentored Environment Grant, BYU ($10,870), 112013
Emmaline B. Wells Grant, BYU ($9,300), 112013
Professional Activities:
Referee for:
Agricrdt11ral and Reso11rce Economirs Review, Amerifall Economit'S Review, .AE]-Poliry; AEJ-Applied,· American
Jortrnal ojP11blic Health, Biodemograpf?y, Demograpi!J, Et·o11omia and Hm'ltall Biology, Eronomic Inq11iry,
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 53 of 68
Economica, Economic Journal, Economics B11lletin, Ewnomit's of Education Revie1v, Edm'Otional Finance and
Poliry, Health Economics, Inteifam, Jo11rnal of Human Reso1mes, Journal ofEt·onomit' Behavior and
Organizations, Journal of Labor Economit:r, J oumal of Marketing Research, J o11rnal of Poliry Ana!Jsis and
Managemmt, J o11mal of Population Economit:r, J oumal of Public EtwJomit:r, Journal of Quantitative Ana!Jsis in
Sports, Jortmal of the Scientific Strt& of Religio11, Labour Eamon;ia, Managemmt Science, Oxford Etvnomic
Papers, Pediatrics, Political Research Q11arterfy, Quarter!J' J oumal of Etvllomit:r, Review of EconomicS t11dies,
Sexualities, Social Science Jo11mal, Social Sciem-e Resean-b, So11them Etvnomit'Jollmal
Discussant: SEA (2006-2007, 2009-2010, 2012), APPAM (2006), WEA (2007, 2009, 2011-2013),
AEA (2008, 2010-2011), SWEA (2008), PAA (2008), Social Costs ofPornography
(2008), WSSA (2011), ASHEcon (2010, 2012)
Conference Presentations:
American Society of Health Economists: 2008, 2010, 2012
APPAM research conference: 2005,2006,2012
Population Association of America: 2006-2010, 2013
Society ofLabor Economics: 2006 (poster), 2007, 2008 (poster)
American Economic Association: 2013
Southern Economic Association: 2006-2007, 2009-2010, 2012
Western Economic Association: 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011-2013
NBER summer institute, Children's workshop: 2005
USDA ERS conference: 2010
SIEPR Policy Forum, Sports Economics and Policy: 2011
Symposium on Behavioral Economics and Health: 2011, 2012
Food Marketing Workgroup Conference: 2011
Western Social Science Association: 2011, 2013
American Public Health Association: 2012
Child Development Conference (Norway): 2009
Incl. Association of Agricultural Economists (China): 2009
Quadrilateral Behavioural Economics Workshop: 2011
IZA Conference on Discrimination (Germany): 2011
Gijon Conference on Sports Economics (Spain): 2010
National Poverty Center Conference on Religion: 2007
American Time Use conference: 2005 (poster), 2009
Mellon Foundation Graduate Education Initiative Conference: 2005
Incl. Assoc. of Sports Economists Conference: 2005
Invited Seminars:
ANU (August 2013); UT Austin (March 2012); Texas A&M (March 2012); Iowa State (Nov. 2011);
LSU (March 2011); U. Pennsylvania (Feb. 2011); U. Miami (Feb. 2011); Michigan (Jan 2011); Notre
Dame (Nov. 2011); Case Western (Nov 2010); UC Riverside (Oct 2010); UC Denver (April2010);
Washington University (March 2010); Utah Valley University (March 2010); U. British Columbia
(Dec. 2009); U. Victoria (Dec. 2009); U. Utah (Dec. 2009); Virginia Tech (Nov. 2009); Florida State
(April2009); U. Washington (Feb 2009); Oregon State (Nov 2008); Baylor (Oct 2008); U. Miami
(Oct 2008); UT-Arlington (April2008); RAND (Nov 2007); Wharton (May 2006); Cornell (April
2006); U. of Oregon (August 2005)
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 54 of 68
Brigham Young University: Sociology: (Oct 2007); Statistics (March 2008); Family Studies: (April
2008); Women's Research Institute: Qan 2009); EIME (March 2010), Nutrition (Oct 2010)
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 55 of 68

TAB 25

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 56 of 68

TAB 26

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 57 of 68

TAB 27

Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 58 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 59 of 68
HIS STATEMENT comes from a team of family scholars chaired by
W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia. The state-
ment is sponsored by the Center for Marriage and Families at
the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project at
the University of Virginia. The sponsors are grateful to The Lynde and
Harry Bradley Foundation, The William H. Donner Foundation, and
Fieldstead and Company for their generous support.
On the cover: Woman Writing List That
Binds Two Hearts by Bonnie Timmons.
© Bonnie Timmons/The Image Bank/
Getty Images.
© 2011, Institute for American Values.
No reproduction of the materials con-
tained herein is permitted without the
written permission of the Institute for
American Values.
First edition published 2002. Second edi-
tion 2005. Third edition published 2011.
ISBN #978-1-931764-24-7
Institute for American Values
1841 Broadway, Suite 211
New York, NY 10023
Tel: (212) 246-3942
Fax: (212) 541-6665
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 60 of 68
Table of Contents
The Authors.............................................................................................
Five New Themes.............................................................................
A Word about Selection Effects........................................................
Our Fundamental Conclusions........................................................
The Thirty Conclusions: A Snapshot......................................................
The Thirty Conclusions...........................................................................
Physical Health and Longevity.........................................................
Mental Health and Emotional Well-Being........................................
Crime and Domestic Violence..........................................................
Appendix: Figures...................................................................................
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 61 of 68
Page 4
The Authors
W. BRADFORD WILCOX is associate professor of sociology and director of
the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.
JARED R. ANDERSON is assistant professor of marriage and family therapy
at Kansas State University.
WILLIAM DOHERTY is professor of family social science and director of
the Citizen Professional Center at the University of Minnesota.
DAVID EGGEBEEN is associate professor of human development and soci-
ology at Pennsylvania State University.
CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON is the Dean’s Distinguished Professor of Social
Science at the University of Texas at San Antonio.
WILLIAM GALSTON is Ezra K. Zilkha Chair and Senior Fellow in
Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution.
NEIL GILBERT is Chernin Professor of Social Welfare and co-director of
the Center for Child and Youth Policy at the University of California at
JOHN GOTTMAN is professor emeritus of psychology at the University of
RON HASKINS is a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program and co-
director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings
Institution, and a senior consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 62 of 68
Page 5
ROBERT I. LERMAN is an institute fellow at the Urban Institute and pro-
fessor of economics at American University.
LINDA MALONE-COLÓN is chair of the Department of Psychology and
executive director of the National Center on African American Marriages
and Parenting at Hampton University.
LOREN MARKS holds the Kathryn Norwood and Claude Fussell Alumni
Professorship and is associate professor of family studies at Louisiana
State University.
ROB PALKOVITZ is professor of human development and family studies
at the University of Delaware.
DAVID POPENOE is professor emeritus of sociology at Rutgers
MARK D. REGNERUS is associate professor of sociology at the University
of Texas at Austin.
SCOTT STANLEY is a research professor and co-director of the Center for
Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver.
LINDA WAITE is the Lucy Flower Professor of Sociology at the University
of Chicago.
JUDITH WALLERSTEIN is senior lecturer emerita at the School of Social
Welfare at the University of California at Berkeley.
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 63 of 68
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 64 of 68
Page 7
most our history is that cohabitation has emerged as a powerful alter-
native to and competitor with marriage.
For this reason, the third edition of Why Marriage Matters focuses new
attention on recent scholarship assessing the impact that contemporary
cohabitation is having on marriage, family life, and the welfare of chil-
dren. This edition also picks up on topics that surfaced in the first two
editions of the report, summarizing a large body of research on the
impact of divorce, stepfamilies, and single parenthood on children,
adults, and the larger commonweal. The report seeks to summarize
existing family-related research into a succinct form useful to policy
makers, scholars, civic, business, and religious leaders, professionals,
and others interested in understanding marriage in today’s society.
Five New Themes
Children are less likely to thrive in cohabiting households,
compared to intact, married families. On many social, educa-
tional, and psychological outcomes, children in cohabiting house-
holds do significantly worse than children in intact, married families,
and about as poorly as children living in single-parent families. And
when it comes to abuse, recent federal data indicate that children in
cohabiting households are markedly more likely to be physically,
sexually, and emotionally abused than children in both intact, mar-
ried families and single-parent families (see figure 3). Only in the
economic domain do children in cohabiting households fare consis-
tently better than children in single-parent families.
Family instability is generally bad for children. In recent years,
family scholars have turned their attention to the impact that tran-
sitions into and out of marriage, cohabitation, and single parent-
hood have upon children. This report shows that such transitions,
especially multiple transitions, are linked to higher reports of
school failure, behavioral problems, drug use, and loneliness,
among other outcomes. So, it is not just family structure and family
process that matter for children; family stability matters as well. And
the research indicates that children who are born to married par-
ents are the least likely to be exposed to family instability, and to
the risks instability poses to the emotional, social, and educational
welfare of children.
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 65 of 68
Page 8
American family life is becoming increasingly unstable for
children (see figure 4).
Sociologist Andrew Cherlin has observed
that Americans are stepping “on and off the carousel of intimate rela-
tionships” with increasing rapidity.
This relational carousel spins par-
ticularly quickly for couples who are cohabiting, even cohabiting
couples with children. For instance, cohabiting couples who have a
child together are more than twice as likely to break up before their
child turns twelve, compared to couples who are married to one
another (see figure 5). Thus, one of the major reasons that children’s
lives are increasingly turbulent is that more and more children are
being born into or raised in cohabiting households that are much
more fragile than married families.
The growing instability of American family life also means
that contemporary adults and children are more likely to live
in what scholars call “complex households,” where children and
adults are living with people who are half-siblings, stepsiblings, step-
parents, stepchildren, or unrelated to them by birth or marriage.
Research on these complex households is still embryonic, but the ini-
tial findings are not encouraging. For instance, one indicator of this
growing complexity is multiple-partner fertility, where parents have
children with more than one romantic partner. Children who come
from these relationships are more likely to report poor relationships
with their parents, to have behavioral and health problems, and to
fail in school, even after controlling for factors such as education,
income, and race. Thus, for both adults and children, life typically
becomes not only more complex, but also more difficult, when parents
fail to get or stay married.
The nation’s retreat from marriage has hit poor and working-
class communities with particular force. Recent increases in
cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, family instability, and family
complexity have not been equally distributed in the United States;
these trends, which first rose in poor communities in the 1970s and
1980s, are now moving rapidly into working-class and lower-middle-
class communities. But marriage appears to be strengthening in more
educated and affluent communities. As a consequence, since the
early 1980s, children from college-educated homes have seen their
family lives stabilize, whereas children from less-educated homes
have seen their family lives become increasingly unstable (see figure
6). More generally, the stratified character of family trends means that
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 66 of 68
Page 9
the United States is “devolving into a separate-and-unequal family
regime, where the highly educated and the affluent enjoy strong and
stable [families] and everyone else is consigned to increasingly unstable,
unhappy, and unworkable ones.”
We acknowledge that social science is better equipped to document
whether certain facts are true than to say why they are true. We can
assert more definitively that marriage is associated with powerful social
goods than that marriage is the sole or main cause of these goods.
A Word about Selection Effects
Good research seeks to tease out “selection effects,” or the preexisting
differences between individuals who marry, cohabit, or divorce. Does
divorce cause poverty, for example, or is it simply that poor people
are more likely to divorce? Scholars attempt to distinguish between
causal relationships and mere correlations in a variety of ways. The
studies cited here are for the most part based on large, nationally
representative samples that control for race, education, income, and
other confounding factors. In many, but not all cases, social scientists
used longitudinal data to track individuals as they marry, divorce, or
stay single, increasing our confidence that marriage itself matters.
Where the evidence appears overwhelming that marriage causes
increases in well-being, we say so. Where marriage probably does so
but the causal pathways are not as well understood, we are more
We recognize that, absent random assignment to marriage, divorce, or
single parenting, social scientists must always acknowledge the possi-
bility that other factors are influencing outcomes. Reasonable scholars
may and do disagree on the existence and extent of such selection
effects and the extent to which marriage is causally related to the better
social outcomes reported here.
Yet, scholarship is getting better in addressing selection effects. For
instance, in this report we summarize three divorce studies that follow
identical and nonidentical adult twins in Australia and Virginia to see
how much of the effects of divorce on children are genetic and how
much seem to be a consequence of divorce itself. Methodological inno-
vations like these, as well as analyses using econometric models, afford
us greater confidence that family structure exercises a causal influence
for some outcomes.
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 67 of 68
Page 10
Departures from the norm of intact marriage do not necessarily harm
most of those who are exposed to them.
While cohabitation is associ-
ated with increased risks of psychological and social problems for chil-
dren, this does not mean that every child who is exposed to cohabita-
tion is damaged. For example, one nationally representative study of
six- to eleven-year-olds found that only 16 percent of children in cohab-
iting families experienced serious emotional problems. Still, this rate
was much higher than the rate for children in families headed by mar-
ried biological or adoptive parents, which was 4 percent.
While marriage is a social good, not all marriages are equal. Research
does not generally support the idea that remarriage is better for children
than living with a single mother.
Marriages that are unhappy do not
have the same benefits as the average marriage.
Divorce or separation
provides an important escape hatch for children and adults in violent or
high-conflict marriages. Families, communities, and policy makers inter-
ested in distributing the benefits of marriage more equally must do
more than merely discourage legal divorce.
But we believe good social science, despite its limitations, is a better
guide to social policy than uninformed opinion or prejudice. This report
represents our best judgment of what current social science evidence
reveals about marriage in our social system.
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 36 Filed 10/11/13 Page 68 of 68

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful