Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Estate Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate advances bill to create low‑cost 'mutual dependent benefits' contracts after heated debate
Summary
After extended debate over whether it conflicts with the state—s marriage amendment, the Utah Senate adopted an amendment and voted to advance Senate Bill 89 — a statute creating a simple, Department of Health certificate allowing two adults not eligible for marriage to allocate limited medical, visitation and narrow property authorities — to the third‑reading calendar.
Senator Derek Bell, sponsor of Senate Bill 89, told the Senate on Jan. 27 that the bill would create a simple, low‑cost process for two adults "not eligible for marriage" to document limited rights such as hospital visitation, certain medical‑decision authority, disposition of remains and narrow organ‑donation directions. "You can go to the health department, make that check a box, get a certificate," Bell said, describing the certificate as affordable (he estimated about $20) and administratively straightforward.
The bill prompted sharp questions about its relationship to Amendment 3 (the state constitutional provision defining marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman and prohibiting equivalent domestic unions). Senator Bill Bramble said he could not support SB89 because, he argued, it appears to sanction arrangements that the constitutional amendment sought to forbid: "Aren't we in essence doing that very thing?" Bramble asked, saying the effect would be to dilute the meaning of rights under state law.
Bell and other supporters repeatedly rejected that reading. "This does not mention same‑sex marriage, gays, lesbians, domestic union or any partnership based on a sexual relationship," Bell said, calling the measure neutral and limited to non‑marriage contractual arrangements. Sponsor testimony cited legal opinions from marriage‑law scholars concluding the statute as drafted would not run afoul of Amendment 3 because its criteria do not rest on sexual or marital status.
Senator Chris Butters framed the issue as one of need and practical assistance, saying the statute targets mutual dependency and shared residences rather than sexual relationships. Butters and other supporters argued the statute addresses real problems faced by roommates, caregiving relatives and others who lack affordable estate‑planning options.
The Senate adopted Amendment 1, which allows parties to elect differing levels of health‑related rights and clarifies administrative details including certificate issuance and language to negate the creation of an insurable interest. After further discussion and final summation by the sponsor, the Senate voted to read SB89 for a second time and place it on the third‑reading calendar for continued consideration.
Where it stands: The Senate advanced SB89 to the third‑reading calendar on Jan. 27. The motion to advance was announced in the chamber as having received 15 votes in favor; the transcript excerpt does not provide a complete roll‑call breakdown for nay and absent votes in that announcement. The bill remains subject to a final floor vote at third reading.
Why it matters: Supporters say the bill fills a practical gap for adults who cannot marry under state law and who lack affordable legal assistance; critics say the statute risks undercutting the constitutional amendment by creating surrogate marital rights. The controversy centers on the scope of the certificate, its administrative effects, and whether neutral technical drafting can avoid constitutional conflict.
What lawmakers said (selected quotes): "You can go to the health department, make that check a box, get a certificate," Senator Bell said of the proposed certificate. "Aren't we in essence doing that very thing?" Senator Bramble asked, questioning whether the law would undercut Amendment 3.
Next steps: SB89 was ordered to the third‑reading calendar; the Senate will consider final passage at that later floor action.
