Yahoo! News - Gay Marriage Amendment Faces Senate Hearing
Democrats as well as some Republicans on Capitol Hill have voiced reservations about tinkering with the Constitution. And members on both sides of the aisle have predicted supporters will fail to muster the needed two-thirds vote in both the Senate and House of Representatives to pass an amendment.

The revised proposal, like the original, would define marriage as between a man and a woman. But new language, Allard said, would specifically allow state legislatures to continue to determine what benefits same-sex couples could get.

"The new language makes the intent of the legislation even clearer -- to protect marriage in this country as the union between a man and a woman, and to reinforce the authority of state legislatures to determine benefits issues related to civil unions or domestic partnerships," Allard said.

Wouldn't the amendment contradict itself in that case? It would bar "marriage", but what if a state gives the full legal rights of marriage in their civil union language? Wouldn't that still be "marriage"? Would full legal recognition be OK as long as you didn't use the word? Good grief.

Glad this is looking at defeat.