Let me add one more thought to the previous message. (If you haven't read it yet, scroll down and read it before you read this.) I also think the proposed amendment is worded to encourage the dread "judicial activism." Here's the full text…
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
What does that last sentence mean? You may have your interpretation but if you browse the arguments out there among legal scholars, you have to admit there's a wide range of opinions. Would it allow a state to vote to have civil same-sex unions that have all the perks and privileges of marriage? If the drafters of this amendment wanted that, that sentence could and would be a lot clearer. If they didn't, they could also make that clear with a three-minute rewrite. I think that sentence is deliberately awkward and arguable.
Even a lot of folks who think marriage should be reserved for mixed couples think it's okay for gays as long as you don't call it marriage. If you make it explicit that the amendment would bar that, it would never pass. So they make it ambiguous and murky and then hope that, if they can get it passed, right-wing activist judges can then interpret it into something more restrictive.
A confusingly-worded law is fodder for judicial activism. This amendment is confusingly-worded.