[William McKinley]

So if the proposed amendment said "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.", your objection would be what, exactly? This is what would prevent the judicial fiat nonsense being perpetrated right now in the name of various State constitutions.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

So if the proposed amendment said "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.", your objection would be what, exactly? This is what would prevent the judicial fiat nonsense being perpetrated right now in the name of various State constitutions.

You are correct as far as you go. However, if gay marriage were to become a law in a state by legitimate means -- passing through the state legislature and being signed by a governor -- this would also allow other states to ignore it.

Marriage in a legal sense is a contract. Allow one type of contract to be ignored by the states and you open the door to other types of contracts being ignored by the states. The left would just love that.