The US Supreme Court misinterpreted the equality clause when he legalized gay marriage nationwide

Con claims that my argument suffers from "many flaws" because:a) Supreme Court suggested that marriage has always been recognized not because of the societal productivity that it produces, but because it is essential in the pursuit of liberty and happiness of men.b) infertile married couplesTo show why this objections are non sequitur and completely irrelevant I want to clarify my argument a little bit more, by using an analogy. This will also show why Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is not only unfounded but also absurd and nonsensical.We all know that the environmental pollution gives rise to various environmental problems. Due to this reason, government has interest to create laws, tax benefits and other policy mechanisms to encourage individuals and businesses to adopt environmentally friendly practices. Let us suppose that individual A decides to enter into eco-friendly production. This decision is now recognized by government and benefited with public money in the form of tax benefit.Now, another individual(B), that did not adopted environmentally friendly practices, sees this privileged status of individual A and start to protest, demanding "equality for businesses" and "extending the privileges" already enjoyed by the individual A. The government responds to the individual B by saying that this is absurd - you can't extend privileges intended for businesses that adopted environmentally friendly practices to the businesses that didn't adopt them, since right to this privileges exist only as the result of policy that recognizes the importance of the preservation of the environment.Individual B is not satisfied with this answer. She has chosen the type of business that is important and precious to her, the same as Individual A has chosen the type of business which have relevance to her. Since she can't stand the fact that someone's else business have a privileged status in the eyes of public authority, she takes her case to Supreme Court. Supreme Court accepts a case and decides that a government policy is unconstitutional because businesses A and businesses B are treated differently. And now, eco-friendly benefits are extended to non-eco-friendly businesses also.Of course that this scenario sound crazy, but this is exactly what was done on June 26, 2015, when Supreme Court made marriage for same-sex couples legal nationwide.In order to show this, first we have to define what marriage is:"the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"(1)This is the crutial part: "relationship recognized by law". In other words, marriage, from the state's perspective, represents the following:A) public proclamation of relationship by an authority figureB) rights and obligations between spouses established by a lawC) package of government benefitsNow we will ask a crucial question. Why this things mentioned above(A,B,C) exist in the first place? Why the state got in the marriage business? The answer is simple. Because state knows that majority of relationships between man and woman will result in children. In order to ensure a healthy and stable environment in which future citizens are produced and in order to ensure child to have a mom and a dad, if child is adopted, state legally recognized relationship between one man and one woman. When this institution is created, the state needs to produce all sorts of incentives to encourage as many of individuals as it can in the institution of marriage, and that's why state provides package of government benefits and proclaims a special status of this relationship at the wedding ceremony by an public authority figure. Now it's obvious from the above that, ipso facto, this has absolutely nothing to do with the same-sex relationships. Extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples is just as absurd as extending eco-friendly benefits to non-eco-friendly businesses, since right to marriage benefits exist only as the result of government policy that is created to encourage a man and a woman to enter into law regulated relationship. If someone decides not to enter into this type of relationship than obviously, that individual is not entitled to marriage benefits.Someone would now respond that there are thousands and thousands of children who are being raised by same-sex couples, so this is the good reason for extending marriage benefits to them. But this is like saying: there are thousands and thousands of children who are being raised by single parents. Or, there are thousands children who are being raised by polygamous couples. Or, let us suppose that a single mom has her sister move in to raise the kids together. So, there are children who are being raised by two sisters. Children are also raised by nuns in the monastery, etc, etc. The point is this. There are many different environments in which children can be placed in. But that doesn't mean this environments are in the best interest of a child. We know that children need both mom and dad, this is the environment that majority of children have and therefore, government needs to ensure that children's right to be raised by a mother and a father is fulfilled. And this is not done by legally recognizing and benefiting every adult relationship or environment that children found themselves in. So, from the fact that children are being raised by same-sex couples does not follow that the government should legalize gay relationships and create benefits to encourage individuals to enter into this kind of relationship.Now we can return to Con's objections: a)...This is like saying: business with environmentally friendly practices has been recognized not because of the importance of the preservation of the environment, but because this business is essential in the pursuit of liberty and happiness of men. Further, if that were true than we must publicly recognize and benefit every relationship in which someone finds most personal fulfillment. For someone this can be some form of romantic relationship, like polygamy. For someone else this is a spiritual relationship, where two monks live together in a monastery. Two people who aren't romantically interested in each other(eg. best friends) can live sa roommates. Due to strong emotional bonds between siblings, union of two unmarried sisters can be essential to them. There are all sorts of relationships that the state doesn't have anything to say about, and never did. Even if they're very loving relationships, even if they're romantically loving relationships and even if people find most personal fulfillment in them. But why is it that every society in human history, across cultures and ages, have recognized man/woman relationship? It's because there's something inherent in the nature of men and women, and that function that they alone can provide that is essential to the marital relationship and to the creation of the next generation. It's because this relationship is essential to our very existence and survival. From the public perspective, pursuit of liberty and happiness of men has nothing to do with it. b)...Non sequitur. This couples exist because the state can't come by your house every Thursday night to make sure you're having sexual relations or if you have been sterilized or if you're using contraception. They exist because practical legislation must issue in demarcations that are clear and easily recognized, and therefore 'unfair' to some. We don't, for example prevent the senile elderly from voting even though they are living in the past out of touch with the issues of the day and incapable of thinking coherently about them. We don't exclude them because it would complicate the voting law enormously and in highly contentious ways. The same is true for infertile married couples.(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) http://www.supremecourt.gov...