You said: "Marriage is a legal contract that recognizes a man and woman as husband and wife, at least in 32 states."<quoted text>
--You and I both know that it is only a matter of time before same-gender marriage becomes legal throughout this country. I honestly cannot imagine anything standing in the way of the momentum we have seen in the past decade. Can you?
You said: "That is true, however the law recognizes the sexual nature of the male female relationship, and its procreative potential."
--The law does recognize the sexual nature of male/female relationships and its procreative potential, however marriage IS NOT based solely on that potential. There isn't a marriage license in the country that deals with procreation. Children aren't even mentioned in traditional wedding vows. Laws that deal with parental issues are separate from laws that deal with marriage.
You said: "The motivations as to why people marry does not change the state's recognition of marriage as a sexual union of husband and wife, and it's potential to procreate. The state has a vested interest in privileging that relationship above all others for that reason."
--As you pointed out earlier, this is only the case in 32 states. And I firmly disagree that the state has a vested interest in privileging a male/female relationship above all others. If states had a vested interest in protecting a male/female relationship based on its ability to procreate, then states would MANDATE that parents be married before having children. We both know that states do not mandate that a child's biological parents must be married in order to have children. You don't even have to be married to adopt children.
You said: "A couple is either of the opposite sex, or same sex. Couples can be of mixed orientation. A man cannot "have" a child, he can father a child, or adopt a child. A woman who uses ART, still must involve the opposite sex."
--But what does this have to do with marriage? Even your comment above doesn't indicate that couples MUST be married in order to do these things. In fact, states have set up very specific processes for those couples who have children (by accident or intention) who do not wish to become married. They set up visitation schedules, child support schedules, insurance coverage, education issues, etc.--all for unmarried parents.
--Marriage IS NOT necessary for the procreation or rearing of children. This cannot be emphasized enough. If states believed that only married couples should have children--if states believed that children were of such great importance to marriage--then unmarried couples would be wholeheartedly discouraged from having children. States would require that unmarried parents be married as soon as possible, even if they did not wish to be married. That's not how things work.
--Finally, you must know that your "consummation argument" is very flimsy. Firstly, not all states or jurisdiction have a "consummation law". Secondly, "consummation" does not mean penile/vaginal penetration--any type of sexual activity (oral, tactile, etc.) can be defined as "sex". And finally, it is EXTREMELY rare to see a case where a marriage has been annulled due to lack of "consummation". Same-gender couples are capable of consummation. I believe a judge would laugh you out of court if you attempted to argue that same-gender couples cannot marry simply because they do not engage in an activity that you would define as "consummation". I don't even think it was an argument used before the Supreme Court.