As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.
This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.
LOL.
Why do you think I'm joking? You have just radically altered the definition of an institution.
You assertion is laughable, to I laugh at it.
You suggested a fertility test for marriage. That would be a very strange situation indeed. Especially as fertility is not always binary. A forty something woman
might be able to get pregnant, but it'd be a lot harder than in her college (or even high school) days. Men usually don't have a problem with age, except for what I'll delicately call the Viagara situation.
And do you have to be fertile only to
initiate marriage or do you need all your organs in functioning order to remain married. Seems strange to deny a marriage license to a woman a month after the onset of menopause, when she could have gotten grandfathered in with the same man just the year before. Then you'd need regular checkups to ensure people are
still fertile. Once a woman goes through the change of life, you'd need to annul the marriage. Should all women be forced to send the state their medical records at that point so that they can have their marriages cancelled? Because that's the logical conclusion of your fertility argument.