Home   Google ARCHIVE SEARCH: Date:

Opponents of same sex marriage base legal argument on homosexual inability to procreate

Attorney Mat Staver, left, maintains legal argument that same sex couples legally should not qualify for marriage due to historical legal tradition and inability to procreate. Staver represents the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund. Prop. 22, a measure approved by the voters in 2000 which reaffirmed the definition of marriage first enacted by the Legislature in 1977. An Appellate Court specialist, Staver also is president of the Liberty Council, an organization supporting traditional marriage based on religious beliefs.
Photo(s) by Luke Thomas

By Pat Murphy

July 11, 2006

Same sex marriage opponents yesterday pegged legal arguments to inability of homosexuals to procreate.

"The rationale and the basis for that I'm talking about this afternoon is for several reasons, not the least of which procreation and child bearing," contended Mat Staver.

"Two men and two women do not have the accident of producing children as the relationship of a man and a woman do."

Staver made the remarks following morning oral arguments before a three-member California Court of Appeals.

The Court is considering the appeal of a March, 2005, lower court ruling which held that barring same sex couples from marriage violates state equal protection doctrine. The hearing also incorporates other state rulings which favored ban on same sex marriage. Staver is president of the Liberty Council, which opposes same sex marriage based on religious beliefs, and specializes in appellate court law.

"As a result of that accidental birth that comes as a relationship between a man and a woman, society and certainly this state has a strong interest in preserving marriage to make sure that there rights, privileges, benefits, and obligations and support for the raising of that child," continued Staver.

"Because as a result of that child there's economic consequences that you and I face, and there's sociological consequences that we experience.

"As we weaken marriage as the union of one man and one woman, we weaken the social structure and we increase our economic costs.

"That's why these cases have been talked about this morning deciding that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for the simple proposition of common sense in history, and that is men and women who produce children. They do it intentionally and they also do it by accident.

"Any kind of relationship outside of that does not naturally or accidentally produce children, and as a result of the state's interest in children that's the reason why this state and the other states have preserved marriage as between one man and one woman," explained Staver.

"And so certainly we'll supplement the argument regarding why the state has a significant, fundamental difference and an interest in preserving marriage as opposed to any other kind of same sex relationship," asserted Staver.




The Hunger Site

Cooking Classes
in Buenos Aires

Buenos Aires B&B

Calitri in southern Italy

L' Aquila in Abruzzo

Health Insurance Quotes


Bruce Brugmann's


Civic Center

Dan Noyes

Greg Dewar

Griper Blade


Malik Looper






MetroWize Urban Guide

Michael Moore

N Judah Chronicles


Robert Solis

SF Bay Guardian





SFWillie's Blog



Sweet Melissa