correct contemplator- that's exactly their argument- that if folks don't have children in three years, then it would be illegal to dissallow gays marriage because they contend that marriage is based solely on procreation - but htis is a lie. As you pointed out, it is about the sanctity, and htis is another key area that the gay folk are attacking as well.
But as one poster also pointed out, there is another issue they will have to overcome- the fact that children are much better off with a mom and pop- and this is fact. There may be soem exceptions of kids that do ok in two pop or mom families, but the research is overwhelming that it is NOT a healthy environment for kids.
This speration of church and state argument though is going to be the kicker in all this- I guess it could be argued that judges are set up by God and so must rule judiciously in a moral manner- not sure how that would play out though in court.
If I might reference what you wrote about 2 mom or 2 pop homes: I heard Rosie O'Donnell refer to her girlfriend/live-in/partner (whatever) as her 'wife'. It repulsed me to no end. There's a distortion of definitions going on. Marriage, husband and wife mean something already. The gays need to get some other names for their sig. others and get over it.