Originally Posted by smooth

The desire or ability to bear children is not a requirement presented to opposite-sex couples before they may marry. The State does not mandate fertility testing of couples before granting them marriage licenses. Nor does it rescind marriage licenses from childless unions. While recognizing that raising children in a healthy and stable environment is a legitimate and long-standing State interest, we can not conclude that the State’s interest in promoting stable households for children is met by denying loving, homosexual parents from marriage. Whether they are allowed to marry, homosexuals can and do raise children. Scientific studies presented to the trial court found that children of homosexual parents tend to have fewer psychological problems than children reared by heterosexual parents. Given the legal barriers and social animosity homosexual couples face in becoming parents, homosexual parents must engage in careful deliberation before choosing to raise children. Such parents can not accidentally have children as a result of sexual activity, whereas heterosexuals can and do. Adopting children is a lengthy, carefully screened process requiring motivation, patience, and appropriate financial means. Impoverished homosexuals do not have children whereas poor heterosexuals do. These factors lead us to conclude that homosexual parents provide at least as positive an environment for children as heterosexual parents. If the State is truly concerned with the welfare of children, it should focus on issues of unwanted pregnancy and poverty rather than restricting same-sex couples from engaging in one of our nation’s most cherished and fulfilling human interaction. In respect to the conservation of State resources, it is well settled that a State's interest in conserving resources does not allow it to create invidious distinctions between classes of citizens. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216-217, 227 (1982).