but we are not created equal
We are before the law/or that was the intent we struggle toward, to our credit.
one can have a baby and the other cannot
Untrue, but off point on the right of contract, since those who can procreate within the bounds of a committed relationship, without resorting to surrogacy, frequently choose not to and needn't to marry/contract.
the one that can have a baby needs the other to get one
and
you need both of them to protect it
don't you think there is an overwhelming/compelling societal interest in this?
As I've explained more than once, that isn't how you apply the standard. We are equal in right. To abrogate, to take from someone their otherwise unobstructed right, to put them in an unequal position in terms of the exercise of that right, to deny them a thing someone else is allowed by right, you must find a compelling interest that overwhelms THEIR otherwise unobstructed usage.
That means you have to advance an overwhelming (and legally rare) interest in DENYING the homosexual couple the right to contract as the heterosexual couple can. That is, there must be something in allowing the contract between them that is threatening/dangerous to the Republic and demonstrably so, to the point where the abrogation of right is necessitated.
So when we wanted, as a nation, to inter people of Japanese ancestry, denying them due process among other rights, we had to show a compelling state interest to justify the abrogation. Some advanced our inability to distinguish the saboteur from the loyal American, that to allow many near cousins to our enemy to move about freely would pose a danger to our military forces and capability. And the danger posed by the emotions of Americans in the wake of Pearl Harbor to those same citizens was cited by some as a part of the necessity.
Try again.
.