The essay agrees with you. Since there is effectively no danger to traditional marriage, the author asks why an amendment, which is what I want to know.
Why not? Look, There is no danger in us not giving women the vote, why make that a constitutional amendment?
It is to lock down this issue and make the matter settled.
Anyone who is against gay marriage should have no problem with this concept, at all.
OTOH, "Since there is effectively no danger to traditional marriage," ... this is obviously a false statement, given that more than one state has had judges imposing it on their state, and interstate issues have *already* appeared in state and Federal courts cases.
The real opposition to FMA are from those who wouldnt mind at all if gay marriage snuck in the back door somehow.