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.
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
"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
"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.