On most matters, I am to the right of Gengis Kahn, but on this matter, I have a different take. I don't believe we need to amend our Constitution for this purpose.  So, I'll probably vote againsy the Amendment on principle of Constitutional law.  About recognition of gay relationships:  my take is leave gays alon, free to have whatever relationship  they want.  It does not need the sanction of the Sovereign. It should not be treated as a  Marriage.  Why not?  Because a sanctioned marriage would also  amend  the laws of Intestate Succession which obtains when a person dies without a will.  The Intestate Succession Act is based on actual kinship, searchuing first for a spouse and spousal rights.  A man cannot leave his wife out of his estate.  The spouse takes a spousal share merely by dissenting from the will.  We don't need to get gay relationships tied into spousal rights.  Further, the Intestate Succession Act deals with "next-of-kin" by rules of descent according to a formular based on actual blood-kinship.  If a man dies intestate, neither his wife or his clildren will be left out of inheriting.  So you see, "fidding" with gay marriage has consequences far beyond  just declaring a ceremony to be a "Marriage"  Finally, a gay person has the same right by his will to dispose of his property. He can leave his estate to the Pope or to the Shiek of Araby if he pleases.  Sorry for the long, but you see, it's not so simple.
Except as set out herein, all my other prejudices remain intact.. If any of the foregoing is inaccurate, point it out.

The relationship they want *is* marriage.

Dumund:  That may be, but everyone needs to be aware that  if the relationship is declared as a marriage, both spousal and inheritance laws are effectively amended.  If a gay relationship is a statutority sanction "marriage", that creates a whole new bundle or "rights". O.K. you legal scholars., join in, you've got that J.D. degree-technically a Doctor of laws.  Dive in.