Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Cato]

Respondents argument that is reasonable to believe that just as no fault had an impact changing the understanding of marriage from one of permanency, by means of shifting the focus of marriage from permanent for the raising of children to temporary depending on the adult whims (rather than child needs), resulting in more children being raised in broken homes.  So will the further shifting of marriage from a procreation centric (bonding of parents together with their children and one another) to a recognition centric (public recognition of a private relationship) of the adult relationships (of all marriages) further result in marriage being more about the adults whims than the children's needs increasing the likelihood of divorce and children raised in broken homes.

I've been giving the idea more consideration and think the state interest in marriage for the purpose of bonding children to their biological parents is untenable.

States issue marriage licenses to divorcees with children wishing to remarry (Assume procreation, for whatever reason, is not possible between the new couple.). The rationale given for state interest is not satisfied in these circumstances. Will this practice be abandoned? Assuming the answer is 'no', what then would be the reason for denying a divorcee with children a license to marry someone of the same sex?

Invoking an idea that same sex marriages should be illegal because they might impact the rate of traditional child bonding marriages when the states have no problem with no fault divorces that absolutely do destroy this supposed bond seems misplaced if not outright contradictory. If this procreative bond is so prescient to the state interest in marriage, why didn't it carry the day considering no fault divorces?

Women who become pregnant via donor insemination are permitted marriage licenses to infertile men. What rationale is then used to deny a lesbian couple in the same circumstance from marrying?

States also have no problem issuing a license to a woman that had a hysterectomy and a man that has had a vasectomy. The procreative centric state interest doesn't seem to be an issue here either.