The author's article, and particularly the byline at the end, suggests misleadingly that she's all for the people deciding whether same-sex marriage should be legal. But her bill, referenced in the byline, would do no such thing. It would ask whether to enshrine New Jersey's prohibition on same-sex marriage in the Constitition. If the voters rejected her amendment, same-sex marriage would remain illegal, and I highly doubt she would then accommodate the voters' will by voting for the marriage bill. If she were being honest, her bill would provide that if the voters voted yes, same-sex marriage would become legal, and if not, the status quo would remain.