Yes to protections, but no to marriage
There are always frauds being perpetrated against us. One of the biggest whoppers is when the government says we are here to help you.
I think the next biggest is “separation of church and state.” The atheist/secular coalition has hoodwinked America and unfortunately the Supreme Court as well. That lie has been ingrained so much that textbooks and, of course, the media look escance when you try to point out this mistake.
Britain at the time of our Revolution had a national church. It was a Christian church, but it was a church controlled by the king, hence the government. Our Founders did not want that, and while the vast majority were Protestant, they wanted toleration.
“The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic ‘separation’ — implying exclusion — of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.” This is called the Exclusionary Clause.
Another important clause is the Free Exercise Clause, which says the government cannot punish or prevent religious exercise voluntarily chosen by the people. Simply put, the Founders wanted to neither compel nor repulse Americans from voluntary religious activity.
Obviously the pro-marriage amendment is causing emotions to rise, but that is no reason to forget what our Constitution tells us. So the writer who wants to make it improper for legislators to be guided by their beliefs is no different than if I would petition for anti-marriage thoughts and beliefs to not be allowed. This amendment tries to protect an institution that has been part of society since society began. It tries to recognize that marriage protects society because it protects both spouses. And while marriages are performed in churches, they are also conducted in secular locations like courthouses and city halls. I think that has demonstrated that throughout history society has put marriage as something special, woven into the fabric of our existence.