You have not made any progress in convincing me, or, I would assume, anyone else, that reproduction, i.e. children, is irrelevant to the reason government has in the past regulated marriage and to the reason it continues to do so now.
Do you not look around you and see that children of stable families tend to be good citizens and produce stable families of their own? Does our relatively stable society not owe its success in great part to the fact that church, society, and government all were intolerant of the flouting of marriage norms?
You have mistakenly cited my position as being against stable families. Once again that test is not included in the marriage license proceedure. You have moved from reporduction being the purpose of the government's role to now having some relevance. Your position is slipping. You changed your argument and then you attack me for not agreeing. Slick, but I've seen it before.