kl-20041022-proposed amendment 3

Subject: Refuting Attorney General Mark Shurtleff On Amendment 3? Issue: Amendment 3 - (proposal on Utah's 2004 ballot) Date: October 22, 2004 Author: Ken Larsen ___Yes for Marriage wrote: Special Alert - October 18, 2004 Refuting Attorney General Mark Shurtleff On Amendment 3 Dear Fellow Utahn, We urgently need your help in making sure that all Utahns have the facts about Amendment 3--the marriage amendment to our constitution--before Election Day. An increasing number of voters are confused by the opposition to Amendment 3 by Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. This is unfortunate because every single "legal justification" he has provided for opposing Amendment 3 can be readily dismissed. They are, in reality, partisan conclusions - not true legal analysis - that have also been used in every State in the Nation that has placed the question of marriage before its voters. Utahns have the right to expect accurate, logical, well-considered and independent legal analysis from their Attorney General on an issue as important as protecting marriage in our state. I have seen no evidence that our Attorney General has provided any such analysis. Instead, and quite astonishingly, he (and the two challengers running against him) signed a statement opposing Amendment 3 that was drafted by the homosexual coalition opposed to the amendment. None of the reasons given by this coalition, the "Don't Amend Alliance," withstand any analysis - indeed, all a lawyer has to do is open the Utah Code to see that their claims and objections are patently false. *snipped* As soon as the joint statement was issued, I challenged the Attorney General and his two opponents to a debate with Yes! For Marriage which would demonstrate to the voters the absurdity of their objections. To their credit his two opponents, Greg Skordas and Andrew McCullough agreed. The Attorney General did not, claiming that he would have to "defend" Amendment 3 if passed. But the citizens of the State of Utah deserve to know whether "their attorney" has a clear understanding of the law he will defend if re-elected. Please forward this on to others who will join the effort to get the truth about Amendment 3 out to the voters so they can cast an informed vote on Election Day. Thanks for your help in protecting marriage in Utah! Sincerely, Yes for Marriage *snipped* *** Can anyone please explain to me how granting equal access to marriage to homosexuals and polygamists will harm anyone else's marriage? Will it reduce the importance of your vows? Will it make you love each other less? Will it deny you any right or privilege you now enjoy? The paranoia today about same sex and polygamous marriages is the same as the paranoia 50 years ago concerning allowing blacks and whites to intermarry. It turns out that didn't hurt anyone, either. The Federal Constitution forbids Utah to use a state amendment to enforce the religious views of the majority on an unpopular minority. Next, you'll be proposing an amendment to put all Jews in concentration camps. Jesus did not condemn the adulteress, even though she was a sinner. Neither would he use the law to prevent same sex or polygamous marriage privileges. Jesus would vote No on 3. Ken Larsen, Candidate for Governor Personal Choice Party 801-533-8658 856 East 100 South #2 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 PS: Each candidate on the Personal Choice Party ballot speaks only for him- or her-self.