"If a legislature wants to legalize homosexual “marriage,” it can do so."
This is clearly an inaccurate characterization of the Marriage Protection Amendment's effect. It would in fact declare marriage in the U.S. to be only between one man and one woman. Thus, a legislature would NOT be free to "legalize homosexual 'marriage'," and appropriately, shouldn't be.
Some argue, perhaps correctly, that the amendment would allow state legislatures to establish homosexual "civil unions."
This is clearly an inaccurate characterization of the Marriage Protection Amendment's effect. It would in fact declare marriage in the U.S. to be only between one man and one woman. Thus, a legislature would NOT be free to "legalize homosexual 'marriage'," and appropriately, shouldn't be.
Based upon my interpretation which hinges principally on one word, "construe", which I assume was chosen specifically and intentionally I would disagree with your assessment regarding the freedom of a legislature.
ARTICLESECTION 1. This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’.
SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’’.
CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...
In my opinion the Amendment simply removes a judicial ability to construe a marital construct and leaves open the question legislatively at both federal and state levels (which still leaves open no matter how remote the possibility of majority delusion and madness - LOL)...