if the amendment is interpreted literally. I made pretty much the same list in Ohio in 2004 when we passed a very similar amendment. Thank you for putting up a good fight! Unfortunately, in 2004 I had to choose between a disorganized to non-existent campaign against the marriage discrimination amendment and Kerry. I decided it would be worse to have another 4 years of Bush - and it was.
But, the reality is that, once it passed, those with good intentions found ways around the amendment which did not require recognition of the relationship in order to provide benefits.
State schools still provide domestic partner benefits (I'm still scratching my head on that one, but no one is making a big stink about it), people living together (whatever the relationship) are still benefit from domestic violence laws (although within a month or so of passage some straight guy claimed the law didn't apply because he wasn't married the woman he was beating up; he lost), and just a month ago I defeated the marriage discrimination amendment bogeyman in connection with my own personal health care (resulting in a state-wide change that permits domestic partners to be enrolled as a family rather than as two singles - making a difference in the deductible if either or both have children).
So, it is now sometimes a two step process - convince the holder of rights or benefits to want to offer them, then figure out why the amendment doesn't prohibit it. But so far, any entity intent on doing the right thing has been able to figure it out - and the others were just looking for an excuse not to anyway.
I wish you, and your state, well.
= new reply since forum marked as read
