Clever, but at the end of the day the reality of we're talking about is restrictions on people. Semantics won't change this fact.
Regardless of issue, this is what I and others are opposed to. The Constitution / Bill of Rights exists to grant us rights, not take them away.
It is a matter of perspective. There are some that believe "homosexual marriage" is a right.
I myself do not view "homosexual marriage" as a right.
The issue "homosexual marriage" that is playing out is simply put a matter of exercising the checks and balances underlying our form of government. The amendment process is legitimate and IF the amendment goes through it too is legitimate.
What precipitates the amendment is reaction of the citizenry to actual and potential legislation from the bench. The unelected judiciary is overstepping when it creates or attempts to grant rights that do not nor never have existed or been recognized. As such they are being rightly called on the carpet...
WRONG! The Constitution/BOR exists to stop government from taking away our rights. Our rights are given by God not by government. (If the government gives they can just as easily take away)
We have the right to not have to recognize sodomite marriages. Sodomy has never been accepted as legitimate in any civilized country and it should not be forced on us now. Since we have the right to freedom of religion, and forced recognition of sodomite marriage would violate that right, a Constitutional ammendment barring government from recognizing sodomite marriage is legitimate. See Sweden, Canada and England where preachers are being jailed for preaching against sodomy. There is a right to freedom of religion. There is no right to government recognition of sodomy.