Nor could anyone get car insurance—or cars—until someone offered those. At the risk of deteriorating into another Life of Brian reference, the "right to have babies" does not confer the MEANS.


You will find choice throughout the law; the straight person has, and the homosexual person lacks, the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. We do not want the state arbitrarily dictating that choice to consenting adults, hence we abolished miscegenation laws.


A number of states have done that with "civil union" laws, and, yes, it did open the segregation debate we are having. In fact, one of Mitt Romneys infamous flip flops was such a case: He endorsed the MA constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage but allow civil unions—then condemned it on the grounds it "confused voters who opposed both same-sex marriage and civil unions."


But they do want to participate, for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to) the host of legal benefits marriage grants. They simply do not want whom they participate with dictated by others, any more than you or I do. How is it non-discriminatory to dicate in ONE specific case, but no others?