I would have said, your Honor, it depends greatly on a number of factors, and especially relevant is the way, and by which criteria you decide to rule on the issue. If you rule on this issue using gender as your key guiding factor, then please consider the following. Procreation doesn't end with the act of laying the seed, simply having the ability to have a child isn't the only thing involved in procreation. The fundamental right to bear children is deeply rooted in all of society from every generation, and has been for 4.5 million years. However, the word pro create is important. It imparts special meaning. The "pro", in procreate is germane to the nuclear family. Meaning that both able bodies, formally, and consciously give their affirmation that they wish to consummate the family unit by creating another human, and to raise that child in an environment that equally recognizes the unique function of their own families, and their posterity. The "blood-line" is essentially routed, and perhaps even intrinsic to the wanting, and longing for a family, to continue the line. It is even axiomatic to the function of DNA, and without our own conscious control.
It is somewhat suspect that a homosexual, can produce a child equally similar, and with another homosexual that closely matches, or even resembles that, that can be produced by an opposite sex coupling. In an opposite gender coupling, the urge to procreate is not bound by any intrinsic obstacles. However, in same sex couplings the desire to share in procreation is not, and cannot, be mutually shared physically, similar to that of true blood line opposite sex couplings. One must question whether intrinsic urges exist if one partner must fundamentally accept the inherent difficulties in bearing a child for the other, if blood lines, and the basis for child rearing at all is based on the intrinsic desire to pass on ones blood line to the next generation. Therefore, since the state is a manifestation of the unique contributions of opposite sex couplings, it is incumbent on the state to value them over all else, in fact place special recognition for the contribution to the states posterity, the heterosexual union provides, unique to any other gender-couplings, or sexual orientation.
Your Honor we must accept that in our culture, gender doesn't stop at ones sex. In fact, genders play roles in the procreative process. It has been shown, and accepted in every study ever done on marriage that children do best with a mother and a father present, the respondents will stipulate to opposing council, and to the court that, there isn't a lot of data on the impact of same sex families, however, children need, and are of wanting for examples of how they should identify themselves, as they grow. There are unique qualities a female, and male presence impart on the psychological health of a child, in areas such as their identity. Children of broken homes, or dysfunctional ones, tend to get into more trouble in all areas reflecting poor psychological health. It is the position of the respondents that, same sex couplings share no intrinsic qualities that are present in opposite sex couplings with respect to procreation, and, leaves it to the court to decide whether this value to society reflect inexorably on the efficacy of a same sex coupling to the extent equal to the benefits of the opposite sex coupling. Further, it is the opinion of the respondents that, by intrinsic qualities alone, the same sex coupling is incapable of proving the same benefit to society, by way of biological, and psychological dysfunction to the family unit, if one presumes to conclude that the same sex coupling is unaware of the benefits the opposite sex coupling impart on the success of society by simply being an opposite sex coupling.