I don't think the state should be involved in endorsing any relationship whatsoever, but my poiint was that those who are arguing for selective endorsement on the basis of children are being horribly inconsistent, and well as more than a little foolish (and irrelevant) in light of contemporary culture.
Where have I been inconsistent?
1. The raising of well adjusted, moral, productive citizens is neither foolish nor irrelevant in any culture, no matter how contemporary.
2. Broad rules that protect the institution of marriage may fail the consitancy check in some cases. That does not invalidate the need for marriage, or for its protection.
3. Gay marriage is unproductive every time, and thus does not warrant special protection.