The above posters did an excellent job demolishing your "Marriage is for procreation" argument against gay marriage (as have most state and federal judges that have examined the issue), so I won't add a redundant post picking that apart.
I did want to touch on this part though, because I think it's a bit intellectually dishonest:
All right.
First off, to clarify, my position is that federally, there should be a law allowing civil unions with most but not all marriage rights (what I personally support; so it isn't a 'marriage in all but name'; not a lawyer so don't really know specifics about which rights I wouldn't include), and then individual states should be allowed to expand that all the way up to full gay marriage if they so choose, but they cannot do less than the federal law does.
Two things:
1) This policy outcome wouldn't involve any less of the intervention from "activist judges" that you decry in your argument against gay marriage. States like Texas have state constitutions that flat out forbid recognizing civil unions in any capacity. The federal government could establish its own regime of federal civil union licenses for things like filing federal income taxes and federal benefits, but you can't pass a law forcing Texas to grant gay couples hospital visitation rights without a federal court ruling backing it up.
2) You say you are opposed to the federal government forcing states to grant the full slate of marriage rights to gay couples, but you would support the federal government passing a law granting
some marriage rights to gay couples, and yet you can't actually identify any specific marriage rights that you oppose requiring the states to provide to gay couples. Did I get that right? What's the point? If you don't even care from a policy perspective which rights states are required to provide equal access to, then your support for civil unions as opposed to marriage equality amounts to a stance of "Grant gay couples some rights, but then knock them down a peg (Somehow. Don't care how)." So the only States' Right that you're standing up for in the end is the right of the state to declare that they don't like gay couples as much as straight couples.
