Actually we can't. You can only post two, both 4-3, one from Ultra-Left MA the Other from Ultra-Left Kalifornia, both based solely on a very "unique" interpretation of very expansive equal protection clauses in the respective STATE Constitutions.
By contrast, I can post decisions from MN, IN, AZ, NY, WA, KY, NJ, the D.C. Court of Appeals, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a Federal District Court in Florida and a SUMMARY DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, as well as the explicit Constitutional Provisions of no less than 27 States.
FYI: The Binding FEDERAL case law, the case which establishes FEDERAL Constitutional law in this regard is the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT summary decision in Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810 (1972).
You can't trump that one, because it is the law of the land.
Not with each other.
and have many of the same options available as any infertile heterosexual couple.
Which numerous courts have held as irrelevant. (Whether you like it or not.)
What “basic biology” are you talking about? Want to be more specific?
Oh, you know, that thing thing about sperm and egg uniting to form a separate unique individual.
You write with such passion, but you don’t back up your statements. If you do believe marriage should only be permitted between individuals who can and will produce biological children without intervention, then you must believe infertile heterosexual couples should be denied the right to marry. And if you don’t, why? You can’t just say “because!” You have to come up with a reason.
I already gave you the reason. Why don't you look back and read it, and while you are at it, read through the various MAJORITY opinions of the MAJORITY of courts to address this issue.
I agree with you, though, the government may have no business issuing marriage licenses in the first place. That would be a good solution at this point. Take out the word “marriage” from civil unions and leave that to religions. Give opposite and same-sex couples civil unions/domestic partnerships/what-have-you for legal purposes.
Why give civil unions? Why does the government have to endorse any union if the union is not linked to procreation and the existence and survival of the human race. (See; Loving and Skinner et el.)