Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate approves measure to ask voters to define marriage in the state constitution
Summary
After hours of heated debate over process and legal risk, the Utah Senate passed a joint resolution that would place a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman on the statewide ballot. Supporters said federal court actions made prompt action necessary; opponents urged more study.
The Utah Senate voted to send a joint resolution to the House that would ask voters to amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Sponsor Senator Scott D. Butters argued the measure was necessary in light of recent court decisions elsewhere that he said could compel Utah to recognize out‑of‑state unions the Legislature opposes. “We’re the sovereign. Utah is the sovereign,” Butters said during floor debate, urging colleagues to put the question to voters.
Opponents, including Senator Ron Aaron and others, urged caution and recommended referring the measure to the Constitutional Revision Commission for further drafting and review. Aaron said the state could benefit from the commission’s expertise on correct placement and phrasing in the Constitution and warned that rushed language can create legal vulnerability. Several senators cited the state and federal legal landscape and urged deliberative process rather than a last‑hour floor vote.
After extended floor discussion that included questions about enforceability, federal law and the effect on existing statutes, the Senate cast roll‑call votes and passed the resolution. The measure will move to the House next; if both chambers approve it, Utah voters would decide whether to amend the Constitution.
Senate leaders said the vote reflects a decision by legislators to let Utahns, not courts in other states, weigh in on the question at the ballot box. Opponents argued the timing and limited committee review made the action premature and warned of potential litigation and unintended consequences.
The House will now consider the Senate’s action; the Senate’s recorded debate and roll call are part of the public record as the constitutional process moves forward.
