My summary:
a) It's pretty toothless and has very little effect in law, and
b) It's also symbolically important to recognise a highly disadvantaged group of people
I think that means we might as well vote yes because at least it's a symbolic nod to an inequity. And there's no reason to vote no because it doesn't really have any legal effect, let alone downsides.
Bonus conclusion: politicians claiming "it could be interpreted unpredictably by the courts and lead to legal uncertainty" are being disingenuous and we should treat those people with suspicion.