Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 21:42:41 -0500
From: DavidN1327@aol.com

The following is testimony presented today by Gay and Lesbian Utah Democrats
Founder David Nelson at the Utah House of Representatives Energy, Natural
Resources and Agriculture Standing Committee about Utah H.B. 366,
"Recognition of Marriages," which would ban recognition of same-sex marriages
regardless of where the marriages are performed. The committee voted
unanimously to pass the bill and recommend its passage by the whole House of
Representatives.

***

This bill is being opposed by Gay and Lesbian Utah Democrats because it would
be facially discriminatory, unconstitutional, costly for the state to defend,
bad for families and bad for the state's business and tourism.

WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO
This bill addresses one of two separate state laws about same-sex marriages.
Utah Code Annotated section 30-1-2 prohibits the performance of same-sex
marriage in the state. Section 30-1-4 recognizes the validity of marriages
which are performed outside of Utah if the marriages are valid were they're
performed. While the two laws are similar and appear to be connected, the
issues of performance and recognition of legal marriages are separate. This
bill would amend only the law that governs recognition of marriages, not the
performance of them. Therefore, the question of this state being required to
perform such marriages isn't affected by this bill and shouldn't be examined
today. It's simply not a part of the debate.

THIS BILL WOULD BE FACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
What is a part of the debate is whether or not this state wants to ban
recognition of the legal marriages of another country, state or territory.
It's one thing for this state to have a prohibition against a certain kind of
marriage being performed inside its borders and another to refuse recognition
of marriages which are performed - legally - by another country, state or
territory. The solution to this dilemma of differences among Americans was
settled more than 200 years ago with the implementation of federalism.
Although states may disagree about the performance of same-sex marriages, the
recognition of those legal marriages by all the states promotes interstate
trust and cooperation. If we fail this basic federalist lesson, we'll risk
promoting an on-again-off-again conflicting patchwork of legal rights and
responsibilities far beyond the idea of marriage.

The arguments for this bill are the same as those that supported keeping this
state's interracial-marriage ban before its repeal in 1963. Should this bill
pass, the idea of equal protection of legal marriage among the states would
be compromised.

THIS BILL WOULD BE BAD FOR FAMILIES
The denial of certain protections that would result from the passage of this
bill would also undermine and destabilize families. These protections include
joint parenting, visitation, next-of-kin status for hospital visits and
medical care, divorce protections for child support, inheritance, and right
of survivorship. Should this bill pass, all these kinds of protections and
more that are now automatically derived from marriages which are performed in
another country, state or territory would be denied to a legally married
same-sex couple - and their children - should they choose to move to or visit
this state. This bill would be anti-family.

THIS BILL WOULD BE BAD FOR BUSINESS AND TOURISM
For the same reason, this bill would be anti-business and anti-tourism. Some
proponents of this bill may be quite comfortable to advertise a kind of
heterosexual "whites only" motto for this state. But that message may cost
us. As some of you may know, the passage in 1993 of a homophobic and
unconstitutional ballot initiative in Colorado cost that state more than $120
million in lost business and tourism. The adoption of a similar resolution in
Cobb County, Georgia, recently cost that county its chance to host the 1996
Summer Olympics volleyball competition. Should this bill pass, Utah's
reliance on business and tourism to its cities, parks and resorts would be
jeopardized. This bill would be anti-business and anti-tourism.

CONCLUSION
This bill wouldn't change the prohibition of same-sex marriages being
performed in this state, nor would its defeat. The performance of marriage is
a separate law from the one being discussed today.

This bill would be bad for Utah. The bill is unfair, would be costly for the
state to defend in the likely event it's legally challenged if it passes, and
is bad public policy. We can't afford to destabilize legally married same-sex
couples and families who live here or may choose to move here. The result of
doing that extends far beyond their mere ability to call themselves
"married." Regardless of the arguments the bill's proponents have made for
its passage, I hope that you'll understand that the effects of this bill
would hurt people and, as this state's interracial-marriage ban did before
1963, tell the world that certain relationships - legal marriages - are
abhorrent and, therefore, void in this state for all practical and sometimes
vital purposes.

Please join us in opposing this bill or adopting the amendment to it that
I've attached to this statement. Thank you.