In a logic class, a newspaper article, or some like context, the wording of this amendment would be a problem. However, any Supreme Court worth its salt will rule that the amendment was intended to ban any sort of institution resembling marriage other than marriage itself. Did they even bother to read their proposal through twice? The poor wording makes it seem as though the backers of this amendment didn't put much thought into it... 
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
|