Why is Sykes Undecided on the Civil Unions and Marriage Ban?

I guess I don't understand Charlie Syke's hesitation toward openly opposing the proposed ban on same-sex civil unions and marriage in Wisconsin.

In the op-ed he wrote on the issue for this week's Isthmus (the Madison-based alternative weekly), which is titled "Gay Marriage Amendment: I'm Undecided," nearly all the points he mentions demonstrate opposition to the ban: the broad language of the amendment, marriage policy should not be written into the constitution, same-sex marriage would have no impact on heterosexual marriage, and the fact that extremists on the right are the ones at the forefront of pushing this ban.

The only point he mentions to support the constitutional ban is that the Wisconsin courts might otherwise make the decision to allow for same-sex marriages on their own. But even Sykes seems to dismiss that concern by suggesting that same-sex marriage is probably inevitably going to be a reality in Wisconsin and throughout the rest of the country regardless of court action.

He asks: "Does the amendment – which seeks to avoid a judicial mandate – itself veer too far in the opposite direction, by freezing both social and legal policy and removing it from the give and take of legislative compromise and social evolution?"

I happen to agree with nearly everything that Sykes said (which doesn't happen too often).

But the difference is I translate that into being someone who adamantly opposes the amendment. Sykes, however, doesn't seem to want to take that step despite believing in all the reasons to do so.

What's stopping him?