"This amendment is not just about your opinion on whether gay marriage stacks up to heterosexual marriage. Aside from denying gay couples any domestic partner benefits under the law, including the possibility of civil unions, this amendment also has potential unintended consequences for unmarried heterosexuals.
The Star's February 1, 2007 editorial noted such potential problems. They include the difficulty in prosecuting domestic violence cases against non-married couples and allowing businesses to value gay employees by establishing domestic partner benefits. Maybe Mr. Swarens [link mine] and the proponents of this amendment just don't care that there could be serious consequences for non-married couples. But could they really be so determined in their opposition that they would sacrifice others just to ensure that gay families operate under the worst possible conditions?
I imply that gay families will still operate under these conditions precisely because they have already. They have formed unions and had children despite societal norms and will continue to do so regardless of any new amendment. Love has a way of defying authority; regardless of orientation, love doesn't care that a government, majority opinion, or religious fascism doesn't strictly approve. By advocating for this amendment, proponents are hoping to discourage gay couples by taking away any possibility of stability that most citizens enjoy by default. And, by proxy, they'll screw some unfortunate non-married heterosexuals." -- INTake blogger David Hunter