Topeka ? In Ohio, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was used as a defense to reduce a charge in a domestic violence case involving an unmarried heterosexual couple. Dozens more men are using the amendment to try to have their abuse charges reduced or dismissed.

In Michigan, the attorney general has ruled that a gay-marriage ban approved by that state’s voters also prohibits public employers from offering health benefits to partners in homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

In Kansas, voters will decide April 5 whether to adopt a state constitutional amendment similar to those adopted in Ohio, Michigan and numerous other states.

Specifically, the Kansas amendment would define marriage as a civil contract between a man and a woman and that no relationship other than marriage “can have the rights or incidences of marriage.”

It’s that legal jargon in the second part of the amendment that has lawyers battling in several states.

In Ohio, a Cuyahoga County judge reduced a charge against a man accused of domestic violence against a woman because the judge said Ohio’s domestic violence law recognized relationships between unmarried couples as “approximating the significance or effect of marriage.”

But the new gay marriage ban in Ohio denies legal recognition of unmarried couples, the judge said.

Other judges have ruled against that argument, but the question persists, and appeals in this case and similar ones are expected to reach the Ohio Supreme Court.

Nancy Neylon, executive director of the Ohio Domestic Violence Network, said the uncertainty about the law has a bad effect on women who are battered.

“We don’t know how many victims of violence are hearing about this and not seeking options because they don’t know what is going to happen to them. That is where we are at, and it’s not a great place to be,” Neylon said.

Supporters disagree

But supporters of the amendment say those kinds of arguments are being used as scare tactics, and problems with same-sex marriage bans written into state constitutions wouldn’t happen here.

Knights of Columbus gives $100,000 to support amendment Same-sex marriage donations pour in (3-22-05) Donations: Amendment supporters Donations: Amendment opponents

“The bill is pretty well-written,” said Peter Brandt, senior director of government and public policy for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family.

“The language has been reviewed by legal folks that we consult with,” he said. Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Focus on the Family has spent $23,063 campaigning for the amendment in Kansas.

Rep. Jan Pauls, D-Hutchinson, one of the main sponsors of the proposed amendment said she was satisfied the measure wouldn’t affect domestic abuse cases.

The state’s Protection Against Abuse Act covers anyone within a household, Pauls said.

“We did a new definition of household to be sure it was broad enough,” she said.

But Bruce Ney, chairman of Kansans for Fairness, which opposes the amendment, said the unintended consequences of the Ohio amendment should serve as a warning to Kansas. “We’ve been telling people that that’s a possibility, and supporters of the amendment say that can’t happen, but it can,” Ney said.

Pauls, however, conceded that the Kansas amendment would probably be interpreted in the same manner as the Michigan amendment when it came to governmental entities providing benefits to domestic partners, either homosexual or heterosexual couples.

Ney said there were no governmental bodies in Kansas that extend benefits to unmarried partners. But, he said, the amendment “would forever prevent a city from doing that. If the city of Lawrence ever wanted to offer those benefits at some time in the future, it would be prohibited.”

Michigan benefits fight

Earlier this month, Michigan Atty. Gen. Mike Cox issued a legal opinion that the same-sex marriage ban passed in November prohibits a city policy in Kalamazoo, Mich., from offering health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners.

Cox also ruled the amendment “is best interpreted as prohibiting the acknowledgment of both same-sex relationships and unmarried opposite-sex relationships.”

His ruling would not affect current benefits contracts, but future ones. The matter is now tied up in court.

But while supporters of the amendment downplay the problems in other states, opponents say the threat of the amendment throwing a monkey wrench into basic legal protections is real.

“I don’t think it’s a scare tactic,” said Neylon, the head of the Ohio Domestic Violence Network. “We are dealing with victims who have been abused who don’t have the protection of the law. It’s pretty scary for them.

“My advice to Kansans is to vote this down. There are so many ramifications that people don’t understand yet,” she said.

But Pauls, the representative who helped put the amendment together, said legal arguments didn’t mean there were problems with the proposal.

“There is always litigation when we pass a new law. This amendment is pretty straightforward,” she said.