Both of them was thinking that it should be, that it's beneficial for sexual assault survivors to have this extra bit if they decide to press charges. I was looking at it from the other side, and thinking that it's unfair to someone who buys a drink as a gesture of friendship, and then later gets accused of rape. Kelly's point was that if it helps one sexual assault survivor, then the wording change would be worth it. My point was that if it condemns an innocent person, it's not worth it.
In either case, at this point it's merely an intellectual exercise, and will probably remain so for quite a while. It'll be interesting to see if this does pass, how this affects cases that refer to the statute . . .
Edit: Revised to address Kelly's comment . . . (3/8/2006, 14:28 MST)