Rosenberg advanced several arguments about why limiting marriage to different-sex couples related to a rational state interest, including maintaining the traditional meaning of marriage, promoting consitency with the laws of other states, the possibility that the rights associated with civil union will be recognized by states prohibiting marriage for same-sex couples.
Justice Borden asked whether the state relies at all on the "responsible procreation" argument; Rosenberg responded that although amici raised that argument, the state doesn't rest on it.
Rosenberg began her conclusion by stating that marriage is not a matter of constitutional law for the court to decide; rather, it's a legislative matter that should be decided by the people.
Justice Borden wondered about the analysis applied to the Virginia Military Institute case; Justice Norcott identified it as the McLaurin analysis, which may fall somewhere in between an intermediate analysis and strict scrutiny.
Justice Borden continued to ask whether Rosenberg thought it was important for all children, including the children of same-sex couples, to say that their parents are married. He also asserted that there is a good amount of evidence pointing to the equal parenting abilities of same-sex and different-sex couples.
In response, Rosenberg revisited her idea that the plaintiffs' feelings about the word marriage - valid as they may be - didn't lend themselves to a legal argument, and that that may be an issue for the Legislature.