According to the Alliance for Marriage, which is the primary promoter of the proposed amendment, the amendment would not affect legislatively created civil unions or domestic partnerships, such as those in California.
Following is their chart explaining the amendment:
Some people, however, believe the phrase "legal incidents" includes civil unions. One of the legal incidents of marriage is the ability to leave property through inheritance to a person who is not a blood relative. If registered domestic partners are allowed to inherit from each other without a will, would that violate the proposed Constitutional amendment?
The wording of the amendment is confusing. Nobody, not even the President, seems able or willing to articulate a clear position on this issue.
California has a law forbidding same sex marriage, but it does not forbid the "legal incidents" of marriage to same sex couples. The California legislature recently created same sex domestic partnerships, which provide many of the benefits that would normally come with marriage. In California, there is a lawsuit about whether the domestic partnerships violate the California law against same sex marriage.
So would the phrase "legal incidents" affect civil unions?
The organized homosexual deviants have most of America on their knees,(pun intended). While some of our elected leadership struggles to ban gay marriages they have compeletly caved in to legalizing homosexual unions and rewarding those dubious 'unions' with monetary benefits ---- from OUR tax dollars.
On some issues there should be no compromise, no retreat. Rewarding homosexuals with our tax dollars to improve their "lifestye" is one of them. If we ban gay 'marriages' but officially bless their co-habitation who wins? It's one step forward for the perverts, one giant step backwards for our society.
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. -proposed Federal Marriage AmendmentThe phrase "legal incidents thereof" directly preempts the use of equal protection arguments in future litigation that would equate marriage law and civil union law. I believe that is the optimal effect.
This does not restrict states from creating benefits for gay couples, but it does restrict them from tying them together with marriage benefits. Therefore gay couples cannot sue for rights conferred upon hetersexual couples. Therefore marriage law can remain untouched.
I think this equal protection aspect needs to be highlighted and understood better. If ratified, this would be the first amendment to the constitution whose main intention is to preempt judicial activism. Note the use of the word "construed."