With attorneys in tow, anyone can arrange almost anything in terms of a civil agreement as to how one's property, finances, even hospital visitation or inheritance is to be allocated. Hence "civil unions" have always existed.Obviously, to destroy the word "marriage" as it has traditionally been known.So why does the court in Massachusetts insist on "marriage" for gay couples?
It is an exercise in Newspeak, like much of socialist liberal moderate rhetoric.
And as such it is not a special case, and should not be addressed by a constitutional amendment. Any more than you would use a sledge hammer on a fly, even if you could be sure of hitting it. This must be dispatched with a flyswatter, ordinary legislative/executive process.
Pass a law expressing the sense of the Congress that the first federal judge who supports this con will be impeached. Then do it. And if the Senate vote fails to convict, repeat the process; impeach the next one. Don't take no for an answer.