No provision of this Constitution shall be held to require that any such benefits and responsibilities be extended by the general assembly or the judiciary to any grouping of people other than one man and one woman. This would prohibit the court from making this type of ruling, but would allow the Legislature to grant benefits as it saw fit. The House did not have to address the issue of a constitutional amendment because amendments must originate in the Senate. All of the members of the committee agreed Tuesday that Canns' amendment was flawed, and they all said they opposed it. Illuzzi initially had been a co-sponsor of amendment, but he, too, said it was not properly worded to provide a definition of marriage.
Marriage is a special label.
His proposal is actually a rewrite of the Canns amendment. It defines marriage, but then goes on to place restrictions on the court's interpretation of the common benefits clause. Until Tuesday, it appeared the committee would not vote to bring a constitutional amendment to the floor because most members opposed both proposals. However, some Republicans threatened to try to force a vote. Rather than have a fight over that, Senate leaders agreed to bring out a proposal that could be debated by the full Senate.