Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marriage Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contested substitute to SB 24 advances to third reading after heated floor debate
Summary
Senator Butters’ first substitute to SB 24, which states the policy of Utah to recognize marriage as a union of one man and one woman and includes clarifying language to avoid impairing contracts, passed the Senate to the third‑reading calendar after prolonged floor debate and a roll call vote.
Senate substitute legislation clarifying Utah's policy on marriage advanced on Jan. 28 after extended floor debate.
Senator Butters, sponsor of First Substitute SB 24, framed the bill as a clarification of state policy: "It is the policy of this state to recognize a marriage only that legal union of a man and woman is approved in this chapter," he said on the floor, adding that the substitute is written carefully so as not to impair private contracts or other independent rights. Butters described his effort as making a "bright line" in state law while preserving contractual rights referenced in lines 30–35 of the substitute.
Several senators expressed concern and raised questions. Senator Wadhams said constituents had contacted him, worried that the bill might impair contract rights; sponsor Butters and others pointed to substitute language intended to avoid that effect. Senator Valentine and other supporters defended the substitute as a careful balance that protects the institution of marriage without interfering with private contracts.
Floor managers placed the first substitute on the third‑reading calendar after a recorded roll call. The clerk announced that the Senate moved the first substitute SB 24 to the third reading calendar with a recorded vote (the transcript shows the measure passed the floor motion to move forward with a recorded count). The debate included a call of the Senate and a later lifting of the call.
What happens next: First Substitute SB 24 will return for third reading and final passage votes; senators signaled continued attention to precise wording and constitutional considerations as federal rulings evolve.
