Two men, Lance Kropf and Michael Serface, and their dog sit on the porch of their Eugene, Oregon, home.

Lance says, "Mike and I have been committed partners for 11 years, so people assume we're for same-sex marriage -- but they're wrong."

Now in the dining room, Michael turns dramatically to the camera and says, "We keep hearing about benefits gays don't have because they're not married, but we've had no trouble getting benefits." (The argument here is disingenuous. "Benefits" not only refers to corporate offerings, but over 1,000 advantages given by federal and local laws to married partners.)

Lance continues, "We've taken legal steps to assure that, in any medical situation, we have the same rights as a married couple." (This argument is limited and absurd, because while marriage is simple in the rights that it offers, non-married individuals must spend hundreds of dollars in legal fees to set up multiple, arcane documents that are rarely available in emergencies, and may not be respected, especially in other jurisdictions.)

Michael frowns to the camera as he says, "To say that Oregon must redefine marriage so gays can have benefits is a dishonest argument."

"We recognize the reasons for keeping marriage between one man and one woman," Lance offers. "We're voting Yes on 36," Michael finishes.

It is both clever and deceptive to offer a gay couple against legislation that would benefit them. Obviously, few gays would take such a position.

Not coincidentally, Lance is the brother of conservative Oregon State Representative Jeff Kropf.

The constitutional amendment passed, with 57% of voters supporting the measure -- as they did in 11 states during the November 2004 election -- but it was the weakest win of any state. Like 37 other states that already had laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, amendment supporters feared a court could toss aside the state law.