In Kentucky, we already had laws that prevented same-sex couple from marrying, so the whole point of passing a marriage amendment to the Kentucky Constitution was kind of pointless in that respect. Here is the text of the amendment:
Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky Constitution to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized?
The stupid part about this is that the second part of the amendment, "and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized" can apply to straight AND gay couples. It's so vague. The fear is now that the amendment will put unmarried heterosexual AND homosexual couples "outside the purview of family court, deny them protection afforded by domestic violence laws and prohibit institutions from providing domestic partner benefits to employee."
http://www.kypost.com/2004/10/26/amend102604.html
I don't think the ramifications of these amendments, at least in Kentucky's case, were fully thought out. Now we're going to have a lot of judges struggling to rule from this amendment and trying to decide how to uphold it. That's one of the many reasons I voted against it. Of course, it passed.....and most of the people in Kentucky who voted for it weren't even aware that gay marriage was already illegal in Kentucky anyway. :rolleyes: