While I wouldn’t say I advocate what I would call the “scourched earth” marriage policy, I have considered it and find it defendable. I agree with what you’ve said, except that it doesn’t address this argument which I find the most compeling:

Is it inevitable that gay marriage while eventually (and most likely sooner rather than later) will be allowed? We are losing this battle both in the courts and in the court of public opinion. So while I agree that marriage is the foundation of our society, isn’t the government non-recognition of any form of marriage better than government recognization of all forms of marriage?

So, in response to what I quoted above, I’d say advocates of a scorched earth policy aren’t necessarily advocating gay marriage, but they are surrendering to it in light of what they would view as certain defeat, but trying to hold on to at least this small win: a person, personally, never needs to recognize the marriage of someone else as valid, even if they consider themselves married.

By the way, I admit to only skimming the article you liked to. I agree with it, but it seems to be based on the assumption that gay marriage is morally wrong and bad for families. While I agree with that, and the founding fathers might have agreed with that, it seems irrelevant when deciding whether it is consitutional to ban gay marriage. Not everything that is immoral can be banned, consitutionally. Or can it? Perhaps you can help me make the connection that I missed between the moral and the legal aspects of this issue.

I’ve posted my thoughts on this on my blog as well, if you’re interested. Or rather, I’ve posted some more questions.