An amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples no more limits your rights than the constitutional requirements that you be 35 to be President.
Of course, there are many many cases where the government rightly distinguishes between actions that promote the public welfare, and those that do not. Normally, we don’t need constitutional amendments to define these, because the Constitition already allows the congress to make laws.
It’s just the political nature of the courts that have caused us to have to look to change the constitution.
Laws should be applied fairly, and equally to all. For example, either every individual should have a right to perform anal sex, or none should. Same with oral sex, or sex with animals. Equal rights under the law.
So if any state passed a law that forbid a “gay” man to marry, I would be right next to the gays fighting for their right to do the same thing I did — marry a woman.
Because history has shown that gay people can marry women and have children and raise families, just like hetorsexual people can.
BTW, at some point, after a few states have legalized “gay marriage”, they will no doubt start discriminating against some guys who want to get married, but whom the state will decide aren’t really “gay”, but are just trying to get special state benefits.
THAT’S where the discrimination will be, when we force people to prove they are gay to qualify for same-sex marriage.
Why MUST they call it marriage pray tell? That is what this is all about in a nutshell...not that they want "rights". You are falling for the whole fish, hook, line and sinker.