Oh, yes they can, and will.
One can see that happening too: ie, the bill of rights can be used to "interpret" other attempts at Constitutional Legislating.
The problem is that people's MARITAL status and arrangements are NOT delineated as part of the FEDERAL government's realm of authority. Marriage is largely a religious event, and should have NEVER been subject to anything other than religious organizatons. ANY attempt to impose what COULD be interpreted as a religious definition or restriction on marriage, specific to the majority definition in the USA... will eventually go down in flames.
Marriage should have NEVER been subject to definition or defense: of, by or for, the state.
God joins a man and woman together... not the state.
By the time this is over, we will end up LOSING the right to be married under our own religious convictions... as to some degree or another, SOME group in DC will see our "religious" vows as a threat to the sovereignty of the federal or several states.
We need to get government OUT of families, marriage, and education... OR simply surrender to a centralized SOVIET state that dictates every condition, relationship, contract and belief system.
You cannot balance an all powerful state's demands, against the weight of an individual's convictions. Someone in the state will ALWAYS find a way to see that the needs of the many, overrule the choices, freedoms and rights... of the few.
We don't need to give the FEDS permission to interfere with marriage anymore than it already has via the hijacking of civil family law... custody, visitation, alimony and childsupport are now ALL federal matters, under some circumstances. And those "circumstances" are randomly enforced, to direct social policies of the state... the FEDERAL state.
it's wrong to give governmen ONE MORE IOTA of power than it alread has and we need to, in fact, GET RID of it's level of control and influence as quickly and thoroughly as is humanly possible.
It is clearly going too far with the legislation, and attempts at constitutional codification of the majority's belief system on the "heathen" of our nation. Tomorrow, the definition of what is FEDERALLY controlled will certainly be greater than it is today.
WE need a cap on the powers of the nannystate.
Marriage has ALWAYS been subject to definition or defense: of, by or for, the state, king, ruler, chieftan, clanleader, etc.
Marriage is not a religious institution, but a social one recoginized and regulated by the rulers/leaders of whatever society you'd care to study.
While every religion has a ceremony celebrating or formalizing 2 individuals participation in the social institution and in some societies the role of governing marriages may in fact be ascribed to religious authorities, but this does not make them the sole purveyors or arbiters of the institution in all societies.
The constitution is going to be ammended, the question is by whom? Us, through our elected leaders and the ballot box, or by an overweening, tyrannical judiciary?