And yet numerous courts have ruled same-sex couples DO have the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples.<quoted text>You have again disgraced any claim you have to being logical. If you are irrational enough to want to base things on court decisions, US courts and courts throughout the world have overwhelmingly rejected the fiction of homosexual 'marriage,' just as homosexuals themselves have overwhelmingly reject it as an actual practice. Laws preventing homosexual 'marriage' remain valid and on the books is most US states.
Your plagiarized rant about a rational interest in denying homosexuals 'marriage' is entirely irrational. Homosexuals were never denied a marriage license. What you are assuming, irrationally, is that marriage is the same thing as two homosexuals 'marrying.' You're talking about an irrational redefinition of marriage, and not any right to 'marry.'
You've lied about my stating that procreation should be a requirement for marriage. I assume because you have no rational argument for homosexual 'marriage.' As for a state interest in children being born or adopted into a household that can provide a father and mother, statistics are against your irrational rants. Having both a father and mother in the home is one of the best statistical indicators of a child's future success in life. Unless you are hateful and irrational enough to think that the state has no rational interest in child welfare, you have no argument. Real marriage is an established institution that has the capability of providing this advantage that no homosexual relationship can.
You don't have a rational leg to stand on, but are just endlessly repeated irrational rants.
That's why we went from bans in 49 of the 50 states (NM never had a ban), to 14 states (soon to be 16) where same-sex couples are able to exercise their right to marry.
That's also why the federal govt now recognizes ALL legal marriages, regardless of the gender of the parties involved.
Aaah, good times!