When a state's attorney general interprets the marriage amendment one way and a hundred-plus attorneys view it another, Virginians can be sure of one thing: Much time, money and brainpower will clog the state's courts for years to come if that amendment passes in November.

All those resources would be wasted on a measure that isn't even needed. Virginia law already clearly bans marriage between same-sex couples. Unless that law is repealed -- an extremely unlikely scenario -- the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman won't change.

Unfortunately, the full force of the law isn't comforting enough to the anti-gay crowd. They pushed for an amendment to Virginia's constitution that would not only bar same-sex marital unions but invalidate other legal arrangements by unmarried people, whether they are gay or straight.

Attorney General Bob McDonnell isn't worried about that. In his opinion, the courts will still offer protection orders in domestic abuse cases involving unmarried couples. McDonnell doesn't think it will change any family law matters surrounding children's welfare, get in the way of end-of-life decisions, nor make businesses susceptible to lawsuits if they extend employee benefits to significant others.

These rights arise out of statutes rather than marriage law, he reasons, in an opinion written at the request of several Republican lawmakers. What McDonnell writes is partially true.

Unmarried Virginians currently enjoy many legal rights governing such things as medical directives, property and such. However, constitutional amendments trump ordinary statutes. What laws provide, amendments can abolish.

That's the concern of two former attorneys general, legal scholars and a hundred attorneys of both political parties. They rightly fear that many legal rights for unmarried Virginians would be invalidated under the amendment's sweeping language.

The legal views conflict sharply. This can mean just one thing: years of litigation under every facet of law that touches upon human interactions. In the antagonistic court arena, the relationships of families and friends will be ripped apart.

Surely this is not what family-oriented voters desire. But that is the consequence that awaits an amendment that favors above all others one class of people, married heterosexual couples (who, incidentally, won't gain any legal protections they don't already enjoy).

Voters should reject this unfair amendment, which has the potential for so many unintended consequences.