The actual wording of this week's one is:
When recognizing marriages entered after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.Of course, that would be confusing, legally and culturally. Yet, in the unlikely event this occurs, it would make plain the intent of the anti forces — to limit the freedoms and take away rights from homosexuals. (Judge for yourself how anti-American stripping existing rights from citizens is.)
This might be a good time to recall that unlike other colonies and then states, Massachusetts kept a clear line between church and state, as described here. Marriage here was always and remains a civil contract. Ministers and other clerics were not originally allowed to solmenize marriages, only government officials could. It is fascinating to see how groups are trying to twist this into a religious issue.