If you meant constitutional in the sense "mentioned by the US constitution," well, you're wrong. The document doesn't mention marriage at all, whereas one can make a fairly strong and cogent argument that the US constitution argues for SSM on the basis of the 14th Amendment's stand on equality before the law.
Originally Posted by dixon76710
Why should the government be interested in procreation? It happens naturally, so it's not like there's an enormous impetus to codify relationships outside of archaic traditions and perhaps some legitimate interest in making certain legal issues much easier (power of attorney, for instance).
The discriminatory distinction is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest.
No it isn't, because, again, sterile people aren't excluded, whereas most other contracts can make certain exclusions based on pertinent matters (job contracts based on security clearances, for instance, or people with credit risks for loans, or the like). So, you're "group argument" is flawed because you're just saying "heterosexuals/bisexuals in opposite sex relationships" rather than "only fertile people of the opposite sex may marry."
As opposed to the discrimination you propose with "'gay marriage". Marriage extended to homosexual couples because only homosexuals........what? ...you have to have some justification, otherwise it is unconstitutional discrimination.
Additionally, the marriage contract basically provides a number of legal protections in a single package which can be acquired otherwise in a much more difficult matter, and most of those legal protections have little or nothing to do with procreation (spousal privilege which allows spouses to not disclose to prosecutors or police officers about matters spoken about with the spouse when they are reasonably certain about the privacy of their conversation, for instance; power of attorney for all decisions when the spouse is incapacitated; etc.), which argues strongly for a contract not based on the ability or inability of the participants to produce children (for instance, platonic friends can get married if they wanted and the government cannot do anything about it and wouldn't anyway), but for a legal contract providing numerous protections between partners.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers