Brett Marston has a post analyzing the proposed text of the FMA and the intentions behind it, as well as several links to other commentaries on the subject.
I agree with Brett that the proposed text seems simultaneously overbroad and confusing:
SECTION 1. 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. . . .
I understand, in a federal system, the impulse to want to prevent having the Full Faith and Credit Clause construed to require, say, Alabama from recognizing marriages performed in, say, Vermont. And, given the proclivity of courts to go off on weird tangents interpreting laws, I think Brett too quickly dismisses the censoring of fundamentalist churches. It would not be all that big a stretch to have churches denied tax exempt status or other benefits if they discriminated against homosexuals in their desire to marry, for example.
Still, a constitutional amendment seems an awfully big step to solve a rather minor issue–let alone one that is only prospective since no states yet recognize same sex marriages.
