The entire premise of homosexuals is that their behavior is beyond their control or environment. Homosexual behavior, they propaganda, is an immutable trait.
For the court to find a “love test” in marriage requires that marriage be ONLY about adult sexual satisfaction.
Called "essentialism". It's purely a legal strategy, science need not apply. (The search for a "gay gene", undertaken by homosexual scientists, has been fruitless .... so to speak.)
At the same time the homolawyers were pleading essentialism, their gay bretheren in the performing and social arts were swearing up and down that sexual orientation is situational and fluid, mutably mutable, gradational, notional, any sort of whiffenpoof word you liked ......... clearly, they were not on the same page as the attorneys. Which conveniently gets forgotten about when homopleading sociologists and psychologists like Judd Marmor take the stand, to lay down the essentialist Party Line.
Think of it as the latest iteration of Lysenkoism, and closely related to Anthropogenic Global Warming: More politically-motivated b.s. from Moonbat Central.
Marriage (by definition) is an act of commitment by man and woman to each other (generally to God, religious if you look at the past) - supposedly for life. Now you can say the same could happen between homosexuals but without the religious connotation since it is against most religions. That alone changes the current definition of marriage.
The definition of marriage has been standardized for Centuries so to change it at this point would be stupid! Love is a consequence of two people (man and woman - see definition of marriage) who decide that they want to live their lives together.
While their is love between two other people (there are many types), it has nothing to do with marriage.
Trying to change the definition of marriage is what is being contemplated, not the actual union of man and woman. Seems today that our vocabulary is being bastardized to the point that it is meaningless.