The perfect example of this is what all Floridians will see on the Nov. 4 ballot - Amendment 2, the "Marriage Protection" Amendment. It reads:

"In as much as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, not other legal union treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

The Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research drew the following conclusions about the proposed amendment:

"(Amendment 2) adds a new prohibition for unions that are ‘the substantial equivalent' of marriage. The amendment provides no definition for the phrase ‘substantial equivalent thereof,' which lends to the ambiguity of the wording of the proposed amendment.

"Depending on actions taken by the Legislature, the courts and Florida businesses, financial obligations between individuals are expected to change in complex ways that will probably result in increased costs for providing public services and benefits in some cases and reduced cost in others.

"If domestic partnership registries are deemed substantially equivalent to marriage, their termination could place registrants at risk of losing specified rights and benefits, such as those related to health insurance."

"By invalidating any union or ‘substantial equivalent thereof,' this amendment could be raised as a defense in domestic violence cases, resulting in fewer domestic violence convictions."

The bottom line: "Even though Amendment 2 supporters insist it will only reaffirm the existing ban on same sex marriage, the amendment is deliberately vague, leading to many interpretations and potential negative consequences such as stripping away existing benefits for ALL unmarried couples in the state, no matter the sexual orientation."

Let us look at history and see what has happened in other states after a similar amendment was passed.

Michigan's amendment prohibits public employers from providing health insurance benefits to their employees' domestic partners - gay and straight - if those benefits are based on recognition of the domestic partner relationship. In Oakland County, a trial judge used the amendment as the basis for refusing to enforce a business contract between two gay men who had at one time been in a relationship. No doubt similar challenges will be brought in Florida if Amendment 2 passes. A group already has admitted to preparing to challenge Tampa's domestic partnership policy as a violation of Florida's Defense of Marriage Act. The Tampa policy provides health coverage and other protections to firefighters, police officers and other municipal employees and their domestic partners.

The case is the same for Kentucky. Currently, amendment backers who publicly promised they were only reaffirming existing law are now working to eliminate a host of domestic partner benefits for employees at state-funded universities.

In Ohio, a criminal defendant charged with domestic violence (for brutally beating his live-in girlfriend) successfully argued in a lower court that, because he was not legally married, the amendment precluded prosecution for domestic violence. It was only after the lower court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the charges that a higher court stepped in and provided justice for the victim.

The proponents of this amendment are passing it as a "gay marriage" amendment, and although that is their key strategy, let's not insult the intelligence of the Florida voters. With the phrase "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof," the impact will affect many more straight, unmarried couples participating in the domestic partnership programs and benefits then their gay counterparts.

According to the 2000 Census, more than 360,000 Floridians listed themselves as unmarried couples. The majority (320,000) claim to be heterosexual couples in committed, unmarried relationships. During the last decade, census numbers reveal that the number of unmarried couples in Florida increased 77 percent. An Oct. 2004 AARP article, "Unmarried Together," states: "What stops many of them from tying the knot is the prospect of financial loss, a worry that trumps any desire for the religious or social blessings of Marriage. Remarriage may mean giving up a former spouse's pension, Social Security and medical insurance."

So before you cast your vote, think about the complete facts of this amendment and the consequences that would come of passing it. This is much larger then a "gay issue" - a great number of straight couples stand to lose a lot more and they do not even know it.