The FMA would return the issue to the states where it was supposed to remain. As of now it is a federal issue working its way through the courts to be judged by leftist judges trained by leftist law professors.
President Bush also seemed to grasp the concept that cohabitation agreements would be equal to the task of what homosexual couples desire to memorialize their recreational sex partnerships.
Yes, the FMA would allow the people or their state legislatures to adopt civil unions. Unfortunately there is still not enough votes to get it out of Congress. So many Dems and Repubs said that they oppose the Amendment because they think "it should be left up to the states." Therefore, I think the FMA proponents should consider another tactic.
I think they should consider calling the bluff of all of these people by offering an alternative Amendment that stops short of banning gay marriage, but instead says that with regard to marriage and the legal incidents thereof, that the people and/or state legislatures of each state shall set policy for their own purposes, while Congress shall set federal policy.
This would have a better chance of becoming law since it puts into law precisely what people like McCain claim to believe. They would have a hard time explaining a vote against such language.
Another benefit of it would be that it would have no practical difference between the proposed FMA. I say this because the current FMA allows civil unions, which is gay marriage w/o the word "marriage." Therefore, it would really be no different if the people and/or their legislatures could choose to adopt gay marriage instead of civil unions since they are the same thing. Therefore, it is best to protect the majority of the states from the few that would do so.
But of course there are other things to try. The House passed a law last year barring the Courts from hearing challenges to the Federal DOMA. The Senate needs to follow suit and put it before President Bush to sign into law. Sure, the Sup Court could just throw out such a law, but I say that if it leads to some sort of constitutional crisis which leads the American people to fully examine the rolls of the three branches and the Original Intent of the Constitution then that would be a good thing.