Not "closed minded" - pragmatic.

We live in a society of laws. All laws have multiple interpretations (the writer may interpret it very tightly, and the reader may intepret it very broadly), and that is normal. Once laws are passsed by legislatures, regulations then are drafted by the agencies responsible for enforcement and administration in order to make the law actionable by government and the public. If the laws and regulations are not so precise that disputes in interprettions still occur (which is almost always the situation), the courts get involved via lawsuits, resulting in courts (which also disagree) more fine-tuning things from the bench.

I gave my reasons why I think the Amendment makes sense, that being the foundation for future legal actions so that every county, state and federal judge at the various trial and appellate levels doesn't find him/herself playing Solomon on related issues, and the resulting decisions being inconsistent. I like predictability when it comes to legal actions, rather than "Oh, we'll worry about that when it happens." It ALWAYS happens, and it's always a controversy, and no one is ever satisfied when courts get involved in societal matters.

The Pursuit of Happiness is a concept contained within the Declaration of Independence, and not within the U.S. Constitution. The latter is the supreme law-of-the-land, while the former is the ultimate "press release" describing the reasons for the colonies' secession from Britain.

So, if it's "closed-minded" to expect that any modifications to the legal fiber of our society - at any level - go through the established legal process so that multiple interpretations (including the biases and personal mores of the interpreters) are avoided as much as possible, do not cause even more frustration and subsequently generate excessive litigation, then I guess I am.