@KellyG Here is a link to answer your question:http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2009/july/34.30.htmlMore specifically,"There is one constant in the constantly evolving understanding of marriage, he
says: "In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of
parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a
license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social
recognition. It is primarily a license to have children."
Further, he says, "Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman
whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage
says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother
and a father, accountable to the child and to each other."
The argument is nuanced, and goes on to take into account
heterosexual couples who will not or cannot have children. But he grounds
marriage not in two people, but in two communities: the family and the
state.
McGill University law professor Margaret Somerville, in a 2003
brief before Canada's Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, argued in
much the same way. She says that to form a society, we must create "a
societal-cultural paradigm." This is a constellation of "values, principles,
attitudes, beliefs, and myths" by which a society finds value and meaning, both
individually and collectively.
"Reproduction is the fundamental occurrence on which, ultimately,
the future of human life depends," she says. "That is the primary reason why
marriage is important to society." Thus, it is crucial that societies protect
marriage as a fact and as a symbol, as that institution that fosters human life,
doing so in the context of family and society. "Even if a particular man and
woman cannot or do not want to have a child, their getting married does not
damage this general symbolism."" 4951