Just as well. This not an issue that required a Constitutional amendment and would have set a bad precedent. Regardless of whether one supports a ban on gay marriage, this was not the way to go about it.
It is the only way to go to avoid the inevitable cadre of lefist judges redefining what society has already determined to be so. Regardless of any circumstantial particulars, or claims, marriage is and is universally recognized as a mutually agree to contract between a man and a woman.
Only those elements of reality that pose a threat to leftists causes in general are subject to such radical redefinition. In this case it's important enough to pass the amendment and postpone consideration of a more general amendment that would protect the identity and meaning of reality itself.
Then what is the way to do it? Roll over, play dead, and let the homosexual rightists and their minions have their way with us?
What third option is there, or do you prefer the second option, above?