Yes, I can see where that could be a point of contention. But do you really think that a Constitutional definition of marriage is the right answer?
And that's a horse of a different color... well, I don't recall ever saying that studies were "unnecessary," although no one seems to be doing the type of study I believe is <I>most</I> necessary. But I don't see how any of this is relevant to the present discussion. Are you really saying that if a majority of gay activists became convinced that sexuality was subject to voluntary change, and said so publicly, you would then support gay marriage?
I find that difficult to believe.