Here again is the language of the amendment: “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 federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” On Andrew and Eugene’s reading, the word “require” is excess verbiage. They read the second sentence as though it were equivalent to the following: “Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to confer marital status or the legal incidents thereof upon unmarried couples or groups.”

Indeed, their reading makes even the “construed” bit pointless. Why not just say “Neither the state nor the federal government may confer marital status or the legal incidents thereof upon unmarried couples or groups”? The answer: because that’s not what the amendment is intended to do (although, of course, many supporters of the amendment may well wish that political circumstances were such that they could enact a more far-reaching amendment).