Why does King want to change the constitution?

What is "marriage?" To Peter King and his far-right buddies, marriage is something that deserves a constitutional amendment. H J RES 106 was introduced to change the constitution to say "Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
The House held a vote but failed to secure the 3/4 required. King of course voted to codify the bigotry.
There are a few issues we can talk about.. the first one being "states rights" which the republicans like to trot out when they don't like the federal government. Now they want the federal government specifically the constitution of the United States to restrict states from making marriage laws.
The second issue is just exactly what is "marriage?" The supporters of the anti-gay marriage amendment talk about "traditional marriage." Thy want to use THEIR bible and THEIR religion to dictate laws. King considers himself a devout catholic so he must agree with his buddies when it comes to the bible.
Let's talk about the "traditional marriage" that they so badly want. It's more than just a man and a woman... there is so much more to the old "traditions." How about going back to the Old Testament and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 which says : "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders
of the city in the gate; and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, 'I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,' And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity,' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father
of the young woman, became he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you."
Wow! Death penalty for a woman who is not a virgin at marriage? How much more "traditional" can you get?

How about other "traditonal" marriages? Not too long ago brides were considered chattel. Then you have the arranged marriages where the bride and groom have never met.

What kind of "traditional" marriage does King support?

We have too long codified bigtry with the miscegenation laws that forbade different "races" to marry. Would Peter King agree with those laws? So why would he seek to change the constitution to create a new bigotry set in law?