Marriage is just for procreation

I've been trying to keep up with local news articles about the on-going trial regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in the state of California. In general I have several issues with the ban on same-sex marriage, but one concept is really sticking out for me. According to most of the articles that I have been reading, it seems that those in support of the same-sex marriage ban, and in particular the lawyers representing those supporting the ban, are trying to champion the concept that the core premise behind marriage is procreation.

This is a very interesting idea, and it seems to me inherantly flawed and just a bit hypocritical.

One of the rallying cries of supporters of Prop 8 has been that to allow gay marriage will demean the insitution of straight marriage. If Bob and Joe were to get married, it would somehow mar what John and Sally have. Yet, if the core premise behind marriage is procreation, then what would it matter what John and Sally have? This idea totally invalidates the love that John and Sally feel for one another. As long as Sally's uterus is the reproductive equivalent of a circus clown car, then all is well.

I mean, after all, you straight people get married because of love, right? And every marriage that I've ever attended, interpreted, or presided over has included the terms "love," "honor," "cherish," and "obey" (even though that last one is, well, a bit archaic). Maybe my brain blinked, but I don't remember any vow that goes, "...to love, honor, and impregnate." Those who cannot or will not procreate (for whatever reason) still marry. Does this devalue thier commitment to one another because they decide to commit to each other and not to the biological act of reproduction? Does this devalue the marriage of others with children? Should we disallow them to wed or force them to divorce because they are not bearing children? And should then we only allow divorce if the couple is unable to reproduce, because marriage is supposed to be "as long as you both shall live"? Again, I've never heard the officiant making a statement that ends with, "...or until one of you no longer cares for the other and wants to find someone hotter."

Those who choose to procreate choose to not wed. Hello?! Octomom...who is actually quattuordecomom (sorry; word nerd...hazard of my profession). What about her and all the other single mothers who decide to become pregnant, despite the fact that they are unmarried? Should we outlaw child-bearing unless you are legally wed?

What about couples who do not marry but have children together? Should they be disallowed to reproduce until they officially tie the knot?

(Which, on a separate rant: if we come out as gay, we are told to leave our sex lives in the bedroom. But when we put link the act of intercourse to a heterosexual couple it's totally okay... what's the word I'm looking for... oh! hypocrisy... yeah, that's it!)

Even back-in-the-day, marriage was NEVER for procreation: it was for the sole purpose of political allilances.

So please, Lucy, 'splain to me how procreation is the historically core value of marriage?