This article about the ruling in Massachusetts that same-sex couples from Rhode Island can marry in Massachusetts, even though they can't marry in Rhode Island, because the ban on same-sex marriage under Rhode Island law is not sufficiently bold and broad, seems to be playing into the hands of the people who support such action as the same-sex marriage amendment in Virginia.
I question what could the proposed Virginia amendment do to make Virginia law any clearer than it is that same-sex marriage is prohibited, but the way this latest case has played out, it suggests that a state cannot do too much to express its public policy against same-sex marriage.
So, what motivates this kamikaze litigation in Massachusetts, which is not binding on anyone or anything in Rhode Island? I guess the Rhode Island couples headed to Massachusetts would have to answer that one, but it won't do their peers in Virginia any good in November. And there in Rhode Island, "opponents of same-sex marriage, including the Diocese of Providence, are hoping the ruling will spur Rhode Island to pass a law defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman."
UPDATE: This fellow has beaten me to the punch, in making this connection.