An important part of Judge Moeser's analysis concerned a detailed examination of the legislative history of the amendment. He found that throughout its consideration in the legislature and the resulting campaign, it was clear that the proponents sought to ban same-sex marriages and Vermont-style civil unions, which carried virtually all the state law rights of marriage. Thus, the phrase "identical or substantially similar" was intended to prevent the state from getting around the marriage ban by setting up a parallel legal institution with the same or almost the same list of rights. The judge noted specific statements by various proponents that the measure was not intended, for example, to prohibit the state from providing partner benefits to state employees.