Marriage's Foundation On Procreation
Throughout History - But What If There
Is - SameSex Procreation?

Gregory Aharonian, Jan. 2008
www.samesexprocreation.com/document/marriage.htm

"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage." Saint Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:27

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on same sex marriage, relying heavily on its closest precedent, Loving v. Virginia, a 1967 decision where they declared unconstitutional bans on interracial (i.e. heteroracial) marriages. Except for one reason, the Court will have little choice but to declare bans on same sex (i.e. homosexual) marriage unconstitutional using much of the reasoning of Loving. Especially when Loving-based arguments are combined with arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause - see "Same-sex marriage through the Equal Protection Clause", Justin Reinheimer, Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law, Justice (2006 vol. 21, 213-240)

That one reason, the one difference with Loving (photograph of Richard and Mildred Loving), at the heart of the issue of marriage, is procreation. Heterosexual couples can procreate, as can heteroracial couples, but while homoracial couples can procreate, homosexual couples cannot. What follows are religious, political and philosophical (hostile) quotes from the last two thousand years emphasizing procreation as the foundation of marriage, starting first with some comments on how this is the major difference with the Loving decision.

Even the possibility of same-sex procreation (hinted at by the latest scientific techniques), when combined with Lovings, should be sufficient to ban anti-same-sex marriage laws. This is because the Supreme Court does not view procreation as an essential aspect of marriage, as seen in the final comment in their 1965 decision Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 [1965]) in regards to marriage:

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life,not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.

State-sanctioned procreation to increase the population is a social project, and thus cannot define marriage. Religious sanctioned procreation to define marriage violates the Establishment Clause. If marriage is a civil law, it MUST be available to samesex couples.

The current dilemma for courts is this: how to choose between the growing logic and public support for homosexual marriage (given the many parallels with the logic of Loving), with equal support against same sex marriage (given the impossibility of same sex procreation). Compromises (civil unions of homosexuals, civil unions for everyone, etc.) seem inadequate because of this fundamental matter of procreation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, has an essay on procreation and parenthood.

One last observation. Much of the hostility to samesex marriage is base on religious hostility to homosexuality, in particular, Christian hatred of homosexuality. It is ironic then that the philosophical founder of Christianity, Paul of Tarsus, whose writings on sexuality have been distorted to create hatred for homosexuality, it is ironic that Paul most likely was homosexual, as are 25% of today's Catholic priests. And Paul's advice on heterosexual marriage (from 1 Corinthians 7)? "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage." But if you do get married, don't divorce according Jesus "no man put asunder" but not according to Matthew "except for immorality". These people were SOOOOOOOOOOOO confused. Not the basis to oppose same-sex marriage.

---

---

At the national level, the governing legislation is the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by the 104th Congress, that defined marriage in Federal law as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife". At the heart of their view of marriage is procreation and child rearing. From House Report Number 104-664 at 33, 104th Congress, Second Session, 1996:

Nothing in the [U.S. Supreme] Court's recent decision [in Romer v. Evans, 116 S.Ct. 1620 (1996)] suggests that the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutionally suspect. It would be incomprehensible for any court to conclude that traditional marriage laws are .... motivated by animus toward homosexuals. Rather, they have been the unbroken rule and tradition in this (and other) countries primarily because they are conducive to the objectives of procreation and child-rearing.

In June 2007, one of the DOMA's strongest supporters, and an opponent of hate crimes legislation, married Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig, is arrested and pleads guilty to soliciting gay sex at a toilet in an airport in Minnesota. A few months before this, married Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter, also a leading supporter same-sex marriage bans at both the national and state level, admitted to using the services of a prostitution ring in Washington, D.C. In November 2007, married Washington Republican state legislator Richard Curtis resigns after confessing to having sex with a man at a pornographic video store. Earlier, Curtis voted against a state bill that created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Robert Skolrood, a lawyer who in 1992 led efforts to deny equal rights to homosexuals in the Colorado state constitution (struck down by the Supreme Court in 1996), in 2002 is arrested for making sexual advances toward a male undercover police officer at a highway reststop - he pleads no contest to disorderly conduct. All engaging in the worst form of hypocrisy. One of the authors of DOMA, Representative Robert Barr of Georgia, has been married three times.

---

---

2004, Apr - "Bans on interracial marriage, same sex marriage - parallels?" - Michael Foust, a writer for the Baptist Press news service, in an article comparing heteroracial and homosexual marriage, quotes two university law professors:

.... The Loving v. Virginia case involved a black man and a white woman who were married in the District of Columbia before moving to Virginia, where they were charged under the state's interracial marriage ban and sentenced to a year in jail. But they sued the state, and in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court found that so-called anti-miscegenation laws violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

.... Teresa Stanton Collett, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of law in Minnesota, said there are legal differences between [homosexual and heteroracial marriage].

.... Instead, Collett said, the traditional definition of marriage is "built on the history" that when a man and a woman come together in marriage, they do something that is "unique throughout all human activities" - creating new life [procreate].

.... [Louisiana State University law professor Katherine] Spaht said [U.S. Senator] Durbin's question ignores one of the fundamental purposes of marriage - procreation.

.... There is an inherent difference between interracial marriage and same-sex "marriage" because homosexuals cannot procreate.

So why is no one asking the biologists if samesex procreation is possible?

Another parallel between homosexuality and racism. Currently, homosexuals are prohibited from being openly homosexual while serving in the United States Armed Forces. In the words of 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and many other ignorant Christians, such openness would "destroy unit cohesion". The same hateful argument was made about black people serving in the armed forces, until President Harry Truman in 1947, ignoring such hate, ordered the U.S. military to become racially integrated. A strong military is not built on hatred of women serving their country in the military, nor hatred of black Americans serving their country in the military, nor hatred of homosexual Americans serving their country in the military.

---

---

2000 YEARS OF QUOTES ON
SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND PROCREATION

---

---

2008, June 3 - Same-sex marriages performed in Greece - a mayor of a remote Greek island performs the first same-sex marriages in Greece. The top prosecutor of Greece, Giorgos Sanidas, warned that such marriages would be "automatically nullified and considered illegal". According to the New York Times article:

[Sanidas] said the decree was founded in the spirit of the Constitution, which defines marriage as matrimony between a man and a woman with the intent of forming a [procreated] family.

Such attitudes reflect those of the dominant Orthodox Church, which has denounced homosexuality as a "defect of human nature".

2008, Mar 15 - Republican state legislator calls gay agenda a bigger US threat than terrorism - a March 15th Associated Press bulletin reports on a YouTube audio clip of a state lawmaker's screed against homosexuality, which she called a bigger threat than terrorism, has outraged gay activitists and brought death threats. Some quotes on her views of the gay agenda, which presumably includes same-sex marriage:

"The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation, OK, it's just a fact.", said Oklahoma Sally Kern said recently to a gathering of fellow Republicans outside the Capitol. "Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted, you know, more than a few decades. So it's the death knell in this country. ... I honestly think it's the biggest threat that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat.", she said.

2008, Feb 1 - New York state must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages - the 2 February New York Times reports that a New York state appellate court has ruled that valid out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples must be legally recognized in New York, just as the law for over 100 years has recognized those of heterosexual couples approved elsewhere. "The Legislature may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad.", the five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court stated. "Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York."

2008, Jan 18 - Vatican condemns cloned human embryo research - in response to an announcement from Stemagen (La Jolla) that is had created human embryo clones from adult skin cell, the Roman Catholic Vatican issued a condemnation of such research efforts (efforts which could be useful in creating cells for facilitation samesex human procreation). In an interview with the Vatican radio station, Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life (the Vatican's department that handles bioethics), the Monsignor called the cloning:

... "the worst type of exploitation of the human being" ... "This ranks among the most morally illicit acts, ethically speaking." ... "You can't know any more if this is all a game ... done solely out of the desire to experiment on men and women."

Vatican radio did not ask the Monsignor if such cloning was more or less morally illicit than say, multiple American Catholic bishops helping multiple Catholic priests rape thousands of children with none of the Catholic bishops being punished by the Vatican or the American government.

2008, Jan 17 - Governor Huckabee argues samesex marriage requires allowing sex with animals - in an interview with beliefnet.com, Southern Baptist argues that to support same-sex marriage requires supporting sex and marriage with animals:

I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and an animal.

2008, Jan 14 - Vermont gay marriage debate tamer this time - an Associated Press news item reports that the samesex marriage debate in Vermont seems less heated, less vitrolic. But it could just be the calm before the storm, as opponents hold back their emotional opposition.

2008, Jan 8 - Insurer denies insurance to church that supports samesex marriage A Wall Street Journal online article reports that a small Protestant church in Michigan has been denied property insurance for its church because the insurer thinks that the church's support for samesex marriage makes it too risky to insure the church.

"Based on national media reports, controversial stances such as those indicated in your application responses [support of gay marriage and gay priests] have resulted in property damage and the increased potential for increased litigation among churches that have chosen to publicly endorse these positions.", wrote Marci Fretz, a regional underwriter for Brotherhood Mutual - one of the nation's largest insurers of religious institutions in a letter to the church last summer.

2008, Jan 4 - "Uganda: Homosexuality - a Challenge to Christianity" Reverend Father Leonard Lubega, in an article in the Kampala Monitor, writes:

Homosexuality is an immoral sexual act which should be shunned by all people irrespective of their sex, calibre and tribe. Regarding homosexual acts, the traditional and exclusive teaching of the Church is condemnatory, seeing such acts as morally wrong.

God's chosen people were engaged in a procreation race with the cultures around them and homosexuality is a lousy procreation strategy.

2007, Dec 29 - "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage (Again)" - a blog comment by Andrew Sullivan. See also his comments that criticize Governor Huckabee's homosexual hatred.

2007, Dec 9 - "Definition of fatherhood being redefined by courts" - in Newsday opinion piece, law professor writes on the blurring legal boundaries of fatherhood: "It's become acceptable for someone to be declared a child's father based on no real evidence of [heterosexual] paternity - biological [procreative] or social."

2007, Dec 7 - "Massachusetts gay marriages lead to increase in IVF" - an article on the 365gay.com Web site reports on statistics that show that since gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, more gay couples are using in vitro fertilization (IVF) techniques to have children and build families.

"I have noticed that the physiological and psychological concerns of prospective parents - regardless of their marital status or sexual preferences - are pretty much the same.", said Dr. Samuel Ping of the Reproductive Science Center of New England. "Procreation is a natural human desire, and parenthood can be an intensely fulfilling experience for anyone."

"I don't know how much equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples has affected the upward shift, but it seems to be the trend over the last three or four years."

2007, Nov 19 - "80% are opposed to making IVF easier for lesbians" in the UK - in a poll conducted by a Christian family group, 77% of those surveyed in the United Kingdom oppose UK government plans to make it easier for lesbian couples to have fertility treatment, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), as reported in a Daily Mail article. The House of Lords is debating a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, would would include provisions to remove a doctor's legal duty to consider the "need for a father" when deciding to go ahead with fertility treatments. The bill would also end a ban on creating animal-human embryos for medical research. While many politicians and religious leaders oppose the bill, gay rights supporters point out a hypocrisy:

But Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, said "At a time when three million children are growing up in single-parent households, it seems odd that there should be this obsession with a few hundred who have an opportunity to have a second loving parent."

2007, Oct 28 - "Same-sex couples say civil unions fall short - San Francisco Chronicle article.

2007, Oct 27 - Iowa Catholic dioceses seek amendment to ban gay marriage - newswires report that Iowa's Catholic dioceses are calling for a state constitutional amendment to ban samesex marriage. The Iowa Catholic Conference board released a statement that said in part:

"Neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage." ... "In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children."

2007, Oct 19 - Pope declares protecting marriage are not just Catholic values - in a message sent to the head of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Pope Benefict, in part, asserted that the protection of marriage is not just a Catholic value, they are human values:

"marriage, etc." ... "[t]hese are not just 'Catholic values' and principles, but shared human values to be protected and safeguarded, like justice, peace and the defense of creation [procreation]."

"respect for life and the attention that must be given to the needs of the family based on marriage between a [procreating] man and woman"

This respect for life, apparently, does not extend to the innocent children raped by Catholic priests who were aided and abetted by Popes and their Bishops. This respect for families, apparently, does not extend to the many women and their children abandoned by their husbands/fathers with no state requirements for child support in heavily Catholic countries.

2007, Oct 11 - "Vermont panel on gay marriage opens hearing" - an article from a Vermont newspaper reports on a state panel having a meeting to hear views on samesex marriage. Vermont has a law for civil samesex marriage. One comment from an opponent:

One of the people opposing gay marriage at Wednesday's meeting was Brian Perl, a social conservative from Grand Isle who has vowed to challenge Governor James Douglas for the Republican nomination next year. Pearl, who was the first to speak, said he worried that legalizing gay marriage would result in minors marrying older members of the samesex. He added that samesex marriages should not be recognized because the couples cannot procreate as heterosexual couples do. "That's why you'll never win."

2007, Sep 27 - "Catholic school board urged to ban Equality book" - the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail reports that the Catholic school board in Waterloo is being urged to ban a book on equality because it presents homosexuality as "morally neutral". Defend Traditional Marriage and Family objects to the book, "Open Minds to Equality", because it could lead people "to reject scriptual teaching on homosexual acts". One reason for the opposition:

But committee member Joann Schmalz said Catholic parents want their kids to be taught Catholic teachings, such as that sex is for procreation. "This is our faith. This is why you pay Catholic tax dollars.", she said.

2007, Sep 21 - "Episcopal Church remains divided on gay issues" - an article in the New York Times reports on how the Episcopal church is gradually splitting up because some churches and bishops don't want to accept gay and lesbian priests and don't want to accept same-sex marriage. From the article:

The Episcopal Church urges, but does not require, dioceses and bishops to refrain from electing openly gay and lesbian bishops, and none have been elected since Bishop Robinson. The church does not have rites of blessing for same-sex unions, but some bishops permit blessing ceremonies in their dioceses.

Conservatives in the Episcopal Church and the worldwide communion of 77 million members said that the Episcopal Church's stance [towards any acceptance of homosexuality] violated traditional biblical teachings on sexuality [including on procreation] and have asked the church to repent [of their loving acceptance of homosexuals].

A growing number of American Episcopal churches are dropping allegiances to American bishops and affliating with African Anglican bishops in Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria and Rwanda. The American churches want to support the rampant gay hatred of the Anglican churches. For example, in 2006, the Anglican Church of Nigeria supported anti-gay legislation so harsh that the U.S. State Department, the European Parliament and more than a dozen major human-rights organizations worked successfully to defeat it. 33 American congregations have affliated with the Church of Uganda, headed by American bishop John Guernsey of Virgina.

2007, Sep 20 - "Conservative San Diego mayor to support same-sex marriage" - newswires report that the conservative Republican mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, a former police chief, two days after threatening to veto any city council resolution in favor of same-sex marriage, abruptly reverses his opinion, and openly supports state efforts to allow same-sex marriages. Why? From an AP newswire:

He fought backs tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have relationships protected equally under state laws. "In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationship - their very lives - were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana.", Sanders said.

Can one conclude that Vice President Dick Cheney loves his lesbian daughter much less, given the Cheney's opposition to same-sex marriages while his lesbian daughter is in a committed relationship with a child. On Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted 5-3 in favor joining other California cites to back a lawsuit pending before the California Supreme Court attempting to over the gay marriage ban.

2007, Sep 18 - "Maryland's [Anti-]Gay Marriage Ruling. A commentary from a Washington Post writer reviews this day's decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals to not allow same-sex marriage in the State of Maryland, ruling that it is up to the state legislature to decide. The commentary reviews the two main basises for the ruling:

But the court sided with most other state courts in rejecting that idea [there is a fundamental right to marry], arguing that "the right to marry enjoys its fundamental statute due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species."

Marriage is all about "safeguarding an environment most conducive to the stable propagation [procreation] and continuance of the human race" and that's what makes regulation of marriage "a legitimate government interest", the majority said.

"The fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the possibility of procreation, the majority said.

and

The majority also rejected the idea that homosexuality is immutable, saying that it had no scientific or sociological evidence to show that people are born gay and therefore are being discriminated against on the basis of something over which they have no control - another argument the same-sex couples had made to bolster their view that fundamental rights are being violated.

More court nonsense can be found in the court's 244 page decision, such as:

[AP] The court also found that the state has an interest in promoting procreation and that the General Assembly "has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing [procreating] children traditionally within the marital unit."

and

"In declaring that the State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structure - our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex".

2007, Sep 18 - "Catholic leaders praise [Maryland] ruling on traditional marriage" - an article from Catholic Online (Sept. 20) reports on praise for the Maryland State Court of Appeals' decision to prohibit same-sex marriage from the Maryland Catholic Conference. The article quotes the Conference's director:

Richard Downling, executive director of the Catholic conference, said in a written statement released immediately after the Sept. 18 ruling that "the conference affirms the understanding that marriage, as a natural and social institution, is reserved for opposite-sex couples who may and raise children." ... Dowling said that "traditional marriage assigns exclusive privileges to the family of one man and one woman because it is the foundation of future generations [through procreation].

This is "consistent with the Judeo-Christian moral heritage upon which Western civilization is based and with the long-standing tradition of Western law."

Dowling conveniently forgets that the legalization of slavery, denying women the right to vote, and prohibiting interracial marriages was also consistent with the Judeo-Christian moral heritage upon which Western civilization is based and with the long-standing tradition of Western law.

2007, Sep 18 - "Gays and Children" - journal Bob Franker, writing in his HuffingtonPost blog, expresses sarcasm on the Maryland court's decision against same-sex marriage:

What the Maryland judges remind us is that marriage is mainly the business arrangement to keep baby procreation somewhat orderly in humans. That sure takes a lot of the romance out of it, doesn't it? ... Of course, no one has ever come up with a satisfactory answer to why a man and woman who plan to remain childless [don't procreate] can legally wed. ... Prejudice against gays will probably be the roughest oppression to overcome. Because, whether they know it or not, the homophones are really scared humans won't procreate. Just ask those Maryland judges. It's a mighty primitive way to define morality. Some might argue an immoral way.

2007, Aug 31 - "Mitt Romney misses key point in Iowa gay marriage ruling. On August 30th, Iowa state District Court judge Robert Hanson ruled that Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates fundamental Due Process and Equal Protection rights. The judge ordered that the Iowa State Code should be changed to be gender neutral on the issue of eligibility for a civil marriage license. The case and decision is: Varnum v. Brien.

An article at a rationalist-conservative Web site criticizes Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney (whose god tells him to kill interracial couples) for wrongly criticizing the court decision in order to stir up hate to use in his Presidential campaign, with Romney whining that the decision ".... is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people ...", Romney apparently being unaware of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution. As the article criticizes:

Romney's bashing gays and State's Rights indirectly aside, why does he apparently subscribe to gay hatred and need to punish [gays] somehow by denying them rights that should be self-evident at this point in modern history? What drives people like this and is someone who wants to deny equal rights to just one narrow class of Americans really presidential material? ... Playing to the "conservative base" on this issue is making Romney lock small-minded and able to be led around by a constituency that would arrest and no doubt [biblically] stone to death gays if they were able to legally. ... The days of anti-gay bigotry being useful for aspiring politicians are waning, and there are far more pressing issues needing attention instead of policing America's sexual orientation.

2007, Aug 31 - Iowa court rules that it is unconstitutional to deny marriage to same-sex couples. On August 30th, Iowa state District Court judge Robert Hanson ruled that Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it violates fundamental Due Process and Equal Protection rights. The judge ordered that the Iowa State Code should be changed to be gender neutral on the issue of eligibility for a civil marriage license. The case and decision is: Varnum v. Brien.

An article published by BBSNEWS comments on the judge dismissing any marriage prohibition arguments based on procreation, which the State of Iowa argued in the lawsuit:

The judge points out that it is clearly ironic that among the defendant's claims that same-sex couples must be kept from marrying because they can only procreate by "assisted reproduction" or adoption, those are weighty decisions that prove a large amount of forethought and planning, actually undermines the [State's] argument given that people willing to go through the rigorous challenges in simply accomplishing a legal adoption or a clinical fertilization [to procreate] would be "heavily invested, financially and emotionally", and [undermines] the idea that gays simply don't need the benefit of civil marriage for encouragement to promote a stable environment to procreate and raise children. And allowing them that right currently denied them, civil marriage, would not advance the State's interest in "responsible procreation by heterosexual couples". Additionaly, that state allows others that don't procreate to marry. "The sterile, the infertile, the elderly, and those having no interest in sex or procreation are allowed to marry."

2007, Aug 17 - How homosexuality is accepted/hidden India's culture - in an article, writer Sudhir Kakar reports:

The assertion that there are hardly any homosexuals in India and yet there is considerable same-sex-involvement seems contradictory, yet simple to reconcile. ... The cultural ideology that strongly links sexual identity with the ability to marry and procreate does indeed lessen the conflict around homosexual behavior. Yet for many it also serves the function of masking their sexual orientation, of denying them the possibility of an essential aspect of self-knowledge. ... If male homosexuals make themselves invisible, then lesbians simply do not exist in Indian society - or it seems so. ... The [Indian] laws against homosexual activity, such as the act of 1861, are all examples of a repressive Victorian moral code.

2007, Aug 17 - "Uganda: Religious Leaders Rap Homosexuals" - in an article from AllAfrica Global Media, various religious leaders are quoted as condemning the efforts of homosexuals in Uganda to fight discrimination. Some quotes:

Sheik Yahaya Lukwago, an executive member of the Uganda Muslims Supreme Council, accused the [homosexuals] of polluting the public. "In the Sharia law, they deserve to be killed. Allah created us for reproduction [procreation]. Prophet Mohammed wrote in the Quran that homosexuals should be killed."

The Reverend Aaron Mwesigye, the Provincial Secretary of the Church of Uganda, said the practice was against the scriptures. "God's design and intention is for humanity to express itself only in male and female relationship and for procreation. We condemn homosexuality."

A senior Catholic cleric yesterday condemned homosexuality saying it "goes against the grain of the scriptures. ... Procreation is the main purpose humanity was created. How would procreation take place if homosexuality is exalted.", he asked.

2007, Jul 10 - Senator who opposed same-sex marriage admits to hiring a prostitute - newswires report that Senator David Litter (Republican from Louisiana) admitted to hiring a prostitute from an escort service run by Deborah Jane Palfrey, who is on trial for running her service in Washington, D.C. (making Vitter's use of her services a crime). In 2006, Vitter strongly supported the Marriage Protection Amendment, a proposed consitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Ironically, a reporter from Louisiana wrote a few years ago about allegations that Vitter, a Roman Catholic, had an extramarital affair with a prostitute, which he denied. The reporter, who is running for the state legislature, issued a press release claiming that he is "vindicated" by the Vitter confession. Indeed, the same day, Jeanette Maier, a former brothel owner in New Orleans told newswires that Vitter had been a customer of her brothel. In opposing same-sex marriage, Vitter once commented:

"Marriage is a core institution of societies throughout the world and throughout history. It's something that has provided permanence [via procreation] and stability for our very social structure."

2007, Jun 29 - "Catholic Church [in Costa Rica] Reiterates Gay Unions are Improper" - in an article in The Tico Times, the Catholic Bishops of Costa Rica are quoted in their opposition to a proposed law that would allow gay couples to form civil unions:

"If this law is passed, it would be an evil for society, a mortal wound to the institution of marriage and the [procreating] family and a distortion of God's plans [for procreation]." ... The proposed law is "... totally inappropriate from the point of view of natural right [of those couples who can procreate], constitutional rights and, in our point of view as believers, divine right."

2007, Jun 22 - "Legislators submit bill for same-sex unions" - in an article in The Tico Times, Monsignor Jose Francisco Ulloa, president of the Catholic Church bishop's Episcopal Conference, is quoted as opposing a proposed bill to authorize same-sex unions in Costa Rica:

Ulloa said he might not oppose limited rights for same-sex partners, as long as their union is not equated with marriage. The bill presented this week, however, "goes against nature [including procreation] and against God's law". ... "Of course they should prohibit [adoption by homosexual couples]. [procreated] Kids need to have a mother and father."

2007, Jun 20 - "New York Assembly OKs Gay-Marriage Bill" - in a news item at the Web site of the family-focused citizenlink.com, a memo from the Catholic Conference of New York to state representatives is mentioned:

In a memo to all Assembly members, the Catholic Conference of New York said "marriage is not some political term of art that can be re-imagined or redefined according to the whims of the popular culture. ... Recognizing same-sex unions will only serve to devalue marriage even more than what has already occurred in recent years ... Same-sex marriage furthers a social disconnect between procreation and marriage while promoting the notion that a non-traditional family structure serves a child as well as a traditional one."

2007, Jun 8 - "Marriage is not a civil right" - in an editorial in The Pilot, America's oldest Catholic newspaper based in Boston, today's editorial comments:

... Every civil marriage is a very restrictive contract that provides benefits for certain people expected to contribute to society in a particular way -- procreating and raising children.

... The consequences of separating marriage from procreation and redefining it as a civil right are far-reaching and catastrophic from the institution of marriage and for society at large.

2007, June 5 - "New Catholic Bishop expected to bring orthodoxy and opposition to homosexual agenda to Minneapolis" - in an article in the online LifeSiteNews, the new Catholic archibishop of Minneapolis, John Nienstedt, is quoted as saying:

... Nienstedt wrote [in 2004] in a pastoral letter that marriage could not be contracted between same-sex couples on the bases that "the nature of the marital relationship demands the establishment of a life-long commitment between one man and one woman that is fundamentally open to procreation and the upbringing of children within a bond of sexual complimentarity".

Marriage is not an institution based on a "desite for pleasure, mutual affirmation or even intimacy" but requires that the partners "intend the ends of marriage itself", the procreation of children. Nienstedt wrote that [procreation] is biologically impossible for homosexual acts.

According to the Star Tribune, Nienstedt has opposed women's ordination, and believes that homosexual tendencies are not biological, but largely derived from childhood psychological trauma.

Note: there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is caused by childhood psychological trauma. To say so is hate, not love.

2007, May 31 - "eHarmony sued for excluding gays" - eHarmony, a online marriage matchmaking Web site, popular with single Christians, and established by the evangelical Christian Neil Clark Warren, is sued in Los Angeles Superior Court for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals. In the past, Warren had three of his books published by the ultra-gay-hating organization Focus onthe Family, and the service was originally marketed on only Christan Web sites, until Warren started making lots of money.

2007, May 14 - New Catholic Archbishop of Ottawa hatred of gay marriage - the Ottawa Citizen reports on Terrence Prendergast being named as the new new archbishop of Ottawa. For many years he has opposed same-sex marriage, and urged his parishioners to get their elected leaders to oppose same-sex marriage as well. In 2004, Prendergast complained when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the federal government has the power to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples:

"It strips down the public meaning of marriage to a couple-centred close relationship view. ... It dismisses as incidental the central role of marriage as a union that bridges male-female difference. It dismisses the central role of marriage as a union open to the procreation of children.

2007, May 13 - "Spitzer [same-sex marriage] proposal will wreak long-term havoc" - an in op-ed article in the Buffalo News, lawyer Anne Downey, co-chairwoman of the Coalition to Save Marriage in New York, writes:

We have lost sight of the true nature of marriage as the holy union of one man and one woman, till death do us part, for the purpose of producing [procreating] and raising children as part of a stable social unit. .... We have torn asunder the link between marriage and procreation, ...

2007, May 10 - "Defining Marriage - a book review" - Washington Times reporter Cheryl Wetzstein reviews the new book The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values. She comments about the book:

Marriage is more than just a legal commitment between two persons in love, Mr. Blankenhorn write in his new boo. It is an ancient, universal social institution, rooted in biology [procreation] and supported by religion, which guides men and women to bridge their differences, form exclusive unions, create families [through procreation] and kinship networks, ...

Marriage is also an institution that bestows public approval on a man and a woman's sexual intercourse [for procreation] ...

But same-sex "marriage" hastens the day when marriage loses its profound shared public meanings, such as the lifelong bond between a man and a woman, sexual exclusivity, the expectation of natural procreation and provision of both a father and a mother for each [procreated] child, says Mr. Blankenhorn.

2007, May 9 - "Jews and Muslims back Pope over gay rights" - an article from pinknews.co.uk reports on Jewish and Muslim groups in Rome encouraging their members to attend a "Family Day" rally in Rome organized by the Roman Catholic Church on May 12th. The rally is to protest a proposed Italian law to give limited recognition to same-sex couples. In a manifesto being handed out at Catholic churchs, Church officials write:

Only in the family founded on the stable union of a man and a woman and opened to a natural, orderly procreation, the offspring are born and raised in a community of love and life from which they can expect a civil, moral and religious education."

2007, April 2 - "Catholic Bishop compares gay partnership rights to incest and pedophilia" - an article in Ireland's GCN (http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/newsupdate.aspx?articleid=2012), quotes from an article in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica with regards to comments made by Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, head of the Italian Bishops Conference. The comments were made before a meeting of Church workers, and with directed to proposed Italian legislation that grant rights to unmarried couples:

"Why say 'no' to forms of legally recognized co-habitation which create alternatives to the family? Why say 'no' to incest? Why say 'no' to the pedophile party in Holland?"

2007, March 29 - "In the name of the family no to civil unions, say Italian bishops" - an article in AsiaNews, (http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8868&size=A), reports on a statement released by the Catholic Italian Bishops' Conference urging Italian politicians to cast their votes against bills that would legalize civil unions, including homosexual unions, saying it would be "incomprehensible" for a Catholic politician to cast such votes. Some quotes from the statement:

"Everyone, before becoming anything else, is born a child, and a child comes from [is procreated by] a couple made up of a man and a woman. ... First of all, for the good of procreation, only the family that is open to life can be considered society's real nucleus because it guarantees continuity and care for all generations. .... it is even more dangerous to give equal legal status to homosexual unions because in this case, it would deny sex differences, which are impossible to overcome [such as for procreation]. ... [politicians should] introduce and back laws that are inspired by values based on human nature [such as procreation]."

2007, Mar. 23 - "Catholic Bishops denouce pro-samesex marriage writings of a Catholic thelogian" - in an article in the March 23 New York Times, it is reported that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Doctrine has declared as false teaching the writings of Catholic theologian Daniel Maguire. In the summer of 2006, Maguire had written two phamplets: "The moderate Roman Catholic position on Contraception and Abortion", and "A Catholic defense of same-sex marriage". The Catholic Bishops (a group that has yet to be prosecuted for its role in helping Catholic priests rape children) denounced Maguire's writings as "irresponsible", in "serious error" for suggesting "that the teaching of the pope and the bishops represents merely one voice among many legitimate voices within the Catholic Church." Marquette University, where Maguire teaches, issued a statement that the university agrees with the Catholic bishops.

2007, Mar 16 - "Homosexuality may be based on biology, Baptist minister says" - in a March 16th Associated Press newswire, it is reported that Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in a post to his Web blog, is now conceding that there may be a biological basis to homosexuality. He said that scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality. Harking to Nazi eugenics, Mr. Mohler indicated support for possible medical treatment that could change a procreated fetus' sexual orientation. Mohler stated that a biological basis for homosexuality would not alter the Bible's [scientifically ignorant] condemnation of homosexuality, which Baptists and other Christians believe is a matter of choice that can be overcome by praying.

2007, Mar. 7 - "Catholics will 'do everything possible' to prevent homosexual civil unions" - in an article published by the online www.lifesite.net (www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07031202.html), Catholic Bishop Elio Sgreccia, head of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, vowed that Catholics will do "everything possible" to fight civil unions for homosexuals. At a press conference at Vatican Radio, Bishop Sgreccia was quoted as saying:

Homosexual unions would go "against a law of nature", he said, since "in the corporality of man and woman there is written natural and structural complementarity pertaining to emotional life, sexual life and the procreation of children. ... "Natural law expresses the good sense" of that [procreating] union between a man and a woman.

Injecting unscientific hatred of homosexuals into the discussion by referring to homosexual attraction as a disease, he stated:

"[G]ay pride certainly does not help them in overcoming their suffering, which instead must be faced with human understanding, with medical and psychological sciences, and with promotional attitudes of all the good qualities that exist in these persons

2007, Feb. 12 - "Family and First Principles" - in an article in the 12 February edition of the National Review, law Prof. Robert George of Princeton University (also a member of the President's somewhat unethical Council on Bioethics) writes of embryonic stem cells and same sex marriage. With regards to same sex marriage, he writes in part:

I have in other writings made the moral case for the conjugal conception of marriage as the union of one man and one woman pledged to permanence and fidelity and committed to caring for children who come [are procreated] as the fruit of their union. I have argued that acceptance of the idea that two persons of the same sex could actually be married to each other would make nonsense of key features of marriage [in particular, procreation], ...

By abolishing the basic understanding of marriage as an inherently conjugal union [based on procreation], legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would be disastrous.

If [politicians opposing same sex marriage] don't know why they believe that marriage is a conjugal union [based on procreation], or can't say, then they are unlikely to be much help - or even to be willing to expend much effort - in preserving it.

2007, Feb. 7 - "No support in scripture for same sex marriage" - in an online article (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5475), former Episcopal Bishop Maurice Benitez writes:

... God did not place two males, or two females, in that Garden of Eden and call on them to simply enjoy their fulfillment in becoming "one flesh" with their partner. ... Furthermore, same sex relations are clearly contrary to what Holy Scripture says, and the introduction of same sex marriage would change the nature of marriage (which is the bringing together of male and female for unity and procreation), and so change the nature of marriage beyond all recognition.

2007, Jan. 30 - "Vatican Appellate court defends marriage on behalf of Catholic Church" - in an online posting (http://allafrica.com/stories/200701300406.html), the Catholic Informaiton Service for Africa reports on Vactican ruling:

The Catholic Church's central appellate court has defended marriage as the unique conjugal institution which brings man and woman to realize love and procreation.

Bishop Antoni Stankiewicz, Dean of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, speaking during an audience granted by Benedict XVI to judges, officials, lawyers and collaborators of the tribunal on January 27th, said: "Up for debate at present, is the unique natural physiognomy of marriage, in which man and woman can realize a genuine communion of persons, open to the transmission of life, thus cooperating with God in the procreation of new human beings."

"Our task is to recognize the full value of marriage, to respect its existence in the best way possible, and to protect those it has united in one single family. Only for valid reasons and with proven facts can doubt be cast on its existence and its invalidity.", Bishop Stankiewicz declared.

2007, Jan. 19 - White House lies about stem cell researchers - an article in the 19 January 2007 issue of Science reports on how the White House lied about the work of stem cell researchers:

... the White House Domestic Policy Council issued a new report on January 10 to promote methods of getting stem cells that don't harm embryos. ... Three Harvard stem cell researchers ... wrote to [Congress] complaining of the 'clear misrepresentation of our work' in the report - 'We are surprised to see our work on reprogramming adult stem cells used to support arguments that research involving human embryonic stem cells is unnecessary. Our work directly involves the use of human embryonic stem cells ... [and] is the type of research that is currently being harmed by' the president's policy.

2007, Jan. 15 - Dobson lies about research on family - in a letter to the Editor in the 15 January 2007 Time Magazine, Carol Gilligan, a law professor at the NYU School of Law writes:

"I was mortified to learn that Dobson distorted my work in a guest column. Not only did he misrepresent my research in saying that only mothers stress sympathy and care to their children and only fathers stress justice and fairness, but his citation of my work to support his attack on Mary Cheney's intention to raise her child with her lesbian partner is completely without foundation.

2007, Jan. 13 - "Pope - Italian civil union threat to marriage" - in an online posting, www.totalcatholic.com/universe/index.php?news_id=2098, Pope Benedict XVI is quoted on marriage:

Speaking as the Italian government is currently debating the possibility of legally recognizing de facto unions, the Pope said, "a policy of family and for the family is necessary". "That is, it is about increasing initiatives that can make the formation of a family, and then procreation and the education of children, less difficult and burdensome for young couples, favouring youth employment, containing the price of housing to the degree possible, and increasing the number of nursery schools and kindergartens."

"Those projects that seek to attribute to other forms of union improper juridicial recognition, weakening and destabilising the legitimate family, based on marriage", he added, "are dangerous and counterproductive."

2006, Dec - "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States - a social science perspective" - an article in the Dec. 2006 issue of American Psychologist by Prof. Gregory Herek of U.C. Davis in which he presents data showing homosexual and heterosexual parents do equal jobs of raising children. The article's abstract:

... The present article reviews relevant behavioral and social science research to assess the validity of key factual claims in this debate. The data indicate that same-sex and heterosexual relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to his or her ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social and health benefits. It is concluded that same-sex couples and their [non-procreated] children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships.

2006, Nov. 9 - Catholic, other religious leaders, bring historic marriage declaration to Canadian government - at a November 9th press conference, 40 Canadian religious leaders present at a signed "Declaration on Marriage", which affirms marriage's crucial role as a heterosexual social institution for the procreation and nurturing of children.

"Marriage is a most important state in life, because on it depends the future of the human race [through procreation].", said Ottawa Archbishop Marcel Gervais, .... Marriage not only guarantees the procreation of offspring, but the best quality of upbringing, he said. ... "Our appeal today is that law and public policy recognize the essential and unique importance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the security, nurturing and well-being of [procreated] children. The best interest of the child must prevail over adult's exercise of their liberty."

With regards to the statement itself:

"Changing the definition of marriage involves a repudiation of millennia of history and experience.", the Declaration on Marriage states. "Redefining marriage as being 'between two person' eclipses the essence and full purpose of marriage, the inner connection between marriage, the complementarity of the sexes, procreation and the raising of children is lost."

2006, Oct. 27 - New Jersey ruling ignores primary rationale for protecting marriage - commenting on a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling ordering the state legislature to redefine marriage, Glen Lavy (senior VP of Marriage Litigation for the Alliance Defense Fund) writes in an article:

We expect marries couples to procreate - and in the result of that procreation lies the future of the state. ... But we do have the clear, eloquent evidence of nature itself. If two dads were the ideal for raising a child - two dads would be able to produce [procreate] a child. If two moms were the ideal ... two moms would be able to impregnate each other [for procreation]. ... It is the design of nature that children are entrusted to parents of opposite sexes.

2006, Oct. 5 - California Appeals Court rejects same-sex marriage - in a 2-1 decision, the 1st District Court of Appeal for the State of California upheld a ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is an issue for the voters and legislature, not the courts. The court distinguished around the case that outlawed bans against interracial marriage, with racial bias having nothing to do with the sexual aspects of marriage. Justice Joanne Parrilli, one of the two judges rejecting same-sex marriage, wrote in a concurring opinion:

"Marriage has historically stood for the principle that men and women who may, without planning or intending to do so, give life to a child [procreate] should raise that child in a bonded, cooperative and enduring relationship."

This reliance on procreation is shared by Matthew Staver, a lawyer who argued the case of an anti-gay-marriage group, in a statement made after the decision:

"The marital status of a man and a woman uniquely fosters responsible procreation, contributes to the continuing well-being of men and women, to society, to [procreated] children and to the state. Same-sex relationships by definition and nature [same-sex couples can't procreate] cannot constitute marriage."

2006, Sept. 16 - "The recent guidance from [UK] bishops on same-sex civil partnerships is unworkable and totally wrong-headed" - in an article in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1873750,00.html, Reverend Colin Slee writes:

When I was a curate in the 1970s a survey in one parish showed nine out of ten brides were pregnant at the time of marriage. The Book of Common Prayer lists the causes of marriage as: "First .. for the procreation of children ..." - because most brides were pregnant.

2006, Sep 8 - Catholic Pope blast Canadian same-sex marriage law - Speaking to a group of Catholic bishops visiting the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI criticized Catholic politicians in Canada for supporting same-sex marriage laws. "In the name of 'tolerance', your country has hed to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse, ...". Earlier in July, he had similarly criticized politicians in Spain for supporting same-sex marriage.

2006, Sep 7 - "Same-sex unions raise parenting concerns" - in an article in Baptist Press News, Glen Lavy, senior vice president for marriage litigation for the Alliance Defense Fund, pretends to be concerned about the welfare of children growing up, basically falling back on 'natural law' to argue against same-sex marriage:

... What we do have is the clear, eloquent evidence of nature itself. If two dads were ideal for raising a child - two dads would be able to produce a child [procreate]. If two moms were the ideal - two moms would be able to impregnate each other [procreate]. ... It is the design of nature that children are entrusted to parents of opposite sexes. The [procreated] mix has not only a decisive genetic impact on the child, but a profoundly psychological one, as well.

This is a legitimate Amish argument, Amish having rejected much of modern science and medicine because it is not 'natural'. Anyone else using this argument is lying.

2006, Sep 1 - "We need to talk straight about same-sex marriage" - in an article in the South African BusinessDay, Patekile Holomisa, president of the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa, argues against samesex marriage:

In most African societies, marriage is not just a matter for two individuals. Marriage is between two families, two clans, two tribes and even two nations. It is about the establishment of blood ties between the two entities through, among other things, the birth of children [procreation]. A same-sex marriage cannot bring about the birth of [procreate] children.

2006, August 31 - "Bible beating: let's lay homophobia to rest" - in an essay at the online site for The Hook, http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2006/08/31/ESSAY%20rootsofHomophobia-B.doc.aspx, Tony Perrino, a retired Unitarian minister writes:

.... As one Vietnam veteran put it, "The government gave me medals for killing many men and gave me a dishonorable discharge for loving one."

The second source of our culture's attitudes toward sexuality is rooted in Hebrew history. The Jews were a small tribe living a precarious existence. Surrounded by hostile forces and an environment which threatened their extinction, they had to "be fruitful and multiply [procreate]", as their scriptures commanded, if they were to survive as a people. This emphasis on the sacred obligation of procreation carried a corresponding condemnation of any enjoyment of sexual pleasure which did not produce children.

Today we no longer need to "be fruitful and multiply", but, as often happens, those ancient environmental circumstances have enshrined beliefs which became designated as "divine injunction". ... It is clear that we have inherited homophobia, a fear of homosexuality that considers it the sin of enjoying the pleasures of sex without the justification of propagation [procreation].

2006, Jul 18 - "Debating the value of same-sex marriage" - in a letter to the editor in the New York Times, Catholic Monsignor Daniel Hamilton of Lindenhurst, NY, writes:

... Neither the court not its critics, however, have identified the basic reason marriage is limited to a man and a woman: it is the nature of the human person as male and female, a distinction that makes impossible any total interchangeability of man and woman.

No man can bear a child [for procreation]; no woman can by and of herself conceive [to procreate]. It is nature, not opinion or long custom, or the curious "reckless procreation" argument that dictates marriage as exclusively a man-woman relationship. ... Interracial marriage, for example, and same-sex marriage are not comparable [because of procreation], despite the opinion of the minority in the [New York Court of Appeals] ruling. It is an authentic philosophical anthropology [dealing with procreation] that proves these points.

2006, Jul 17 - "Procreation a losing argument" - in an article at advocate.com, John Sonego argues that requiring procreatability for marriage is discriminatory:

Those who advocate that marriage should be reserved purely for the purpose of procreation have argued themselves into a corner. If they truly want that as a standard, then it should apply it to everyone. ... The arguments to deny same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities afforded to opposite-sex couples are, at their core, expressions of prejudice, pure and simple.

2006, Jul 11 - "Court arguments begin on same-sex marriage" - some quotes from an article in the 11 July 2006 San Francisco Chronicle on a lawsuit before the state Court of Appeals over samesex marriage. According to Glen Levy of the anti-samesex marriage organization Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education fund:

"Procreation is the only reason that the state is justified in regulating adult intimate relationships relationships ... The state has an interest in trying to have as many children as possible born into marriage relationship".

According to Mathew Staver of the anti-samesex marriage organization Campaign for California Families:

Allowing same-sex couples to marry, despite their inability to procreate, is "a very powerful statement that children do not need moms and dad" ...

which is a logically false argument.

2006, Jul 8 - "Pope decries gay marriage in Spain" - in an article by CBS News, Pope Benedict XVI is quoted on the issue of gay marriage, comments he made while on a trip to Spain:

Asked about the role of gay marriage in society, the pope told reporters: "According to human nature, it is man and woman who are made for each other and to give humanity a future." [via procreation]

2006, Jul 6 - New York Judge slams anti-same sex marriage logic - On July 6th, New York State's high court upheld the State's ban on gay marriage, basically relying on the inability of same-sex couples to procreate. One Judge, Judith Kaye, in a dissent, severely criticized the illogic of such a decision (the dissent is at the end of the long main opinion). Some excerpts from her dissent:

Defendants primarily assert an interest in encouraging procreation within marriage. But while encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry before they have children is certainly a legitimate interest of the State, the exclusion of gay men and lesbians from marriage in no way furthers this interest. There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone.

Nor does this exclusion rationally further the State's legitimate interest in encouraging heterosexual married couples to procreate. Plainly, the ability or desire to procreate is not a prerequisite for marriage.

The elderly are permitted to marry, and many same-sex couples do indeed have children. Thus, the statutory classification here -- which prohibits only same-sex couples, and no one else, from marrying -- is so grossly underinclusive and overinclusive as to make the asserted rationale in promoting procreation "impossible to credit" ...

Of course, there are many ways in which the government could rationally promote procreation -- for example, by giving taxbreaks to couples who have children, subsidizing child care for those couples, or mandating generous family leave for parents. Any of these benefits -- and many more -- might convince people who would not otherwise have children [procreate] to do so. But no one rationally decides to have children [procreate] because gays and lesbians are excluded from marriage. In holding that prison inmates have a fundamental right to marry -- even though they cannot procreate -- the Supreme Court has made it clear that procreation is not the sine qua non of marriage. ...

Marriage is about much more than producing [procreating] children, yet same-sex couples are excluded from the entire spectrum of protections that come with civil marriage -- purportedly to encourage other people to procreate.

Indeed, the protections that the State gives to couples who do marry -- such as the right to own property as a unit or to make medical decisions for each other -- are focused largely on the adult relationship, rather than on the couple's possible role as parents [who can procreate].

Nor does the plurality even attempt to explain how offering only heterosexuals the right to visit a sick loved one in the hospital, for example, conceivably furthers the State's interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to have children [procreate], or indeed how excluding same-sex couples from each of the specific legal benefits of civil marriage -- even apart from the totality of marriage itself -- does not independently violate plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of the laws. ...

The State plainly has a legitimate interest in the welfare of children, but excluding same-sex couples from marriage in no way furthers this interest. In fact, it undermines it.

Civil marriage provides tangible legal protections and economic benefits to married couples and their children, and tens of thousands of children are currently being raised by same-sex couples in New York. Depriving these children of the benefits and protections available to the [procreated] children of opposite-sex couples is antithetical to their welfare, as defendants do not dispute. ...

2006, Jul 1 - "Gay marriage fight at NY's top court" - in an article in the Buffalo Outcome (www.outcomebuffalo.com/gmarriage-6-30-0630002.htm) about a gay marriage lawsuit before the highest court in New York State, there is quoted:

Catholic Bishop Edward Kmiec for the Buffalo area said in a prepared statement "basic meaning and structure" of marriage cannot be altered because it originated from God. "Through the union of a man and a woman, marriage provides a unique contribution to society, through the procreation and education of children, and this gift must not be redefined."

2006, Jul - "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws" - in the abstract from an article in the Summer 2006 issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Douglas Allen writes:

This article argues that marriage is an economically efficient institution, designed and evolved to regulate incentive problems that arise between a man and a woman over the life cycle of procreation. As such, its social and legal characteristics will provide a poor match for the incentive problems that arise in the two distinctly different relationships of gay and lesbian couples. Forcing all three-relationships to be covered by the same law will lead to a sub-optimal law for all three types of marriage.

2006, Jun 29 - Arkansas Supreme Court rules there is no link between parental sexual orientation and a child's well being - an article in the 30 June 2006 New York Times, page A15, titled "Court overturns Arkansas ban on same-sex foster parents" reports that the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that there is no link between the sexual orientation of parents and their child's well-being:

"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual on any individual who is homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual", the court wrote in its decision. Further the court stated that "the driving force behind adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals".

The court also said that contrary to what the state had argued, being raised by homosexuals did not cause academic or sexual identity problems.

2006, June 23 - "France: 51% oppose homosexual marriage; 60% oppose homosexual adoption" - www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06062301.html - a survey in France finds that 51% of those question oppose same-sex marriage, while 45% support same-sex marriage. 60% oppose adoption of children by homosexual couples. 54% oppose artificial procreation via artifical insemination or surrogate motherhood. A report commissioned by the President of the French National Assembly, released in February, concluded in part that medically assisted procreation for homosexual couples should not be legal.

2006, Jun 11 - "A historical perspective on Gay Marriage" - in an article by conservative columnist Matthew Roberts appearing in the June 11th News By Use (http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=3932_0_1_0_M), he writes:

... The definition of marriage has always implied heterosexuality. The word 'marriage', from the Latin maritare, linguistically has built into it the idea of procreation. Maritare not only means to marry but also to impregnate [a step in procreation], which is why commentators would speak of women simultaneously being married and impregnated. ... In natural law, for example, the teleological purpose of marriage is procreation. The very survival of the species depends on reproduction [procreation], so it is the goal of government to encourage fruitful [procreative] marriages. ... Reproduction [procreation], through and through, has always been central to the legality of marriage, which is why no culture, until very recently, has even considered 'gay marriage'.

2006, Jun 7 - "U.S federal marriage amendment vote fails despite religious leader's push" - an article on Catholic Online reports on the Senate's attempt to ban samesex marriage. The article quotes from a statement released by Philadelphia Catholic Cardinal Justin Rigali:

Those who would seek to redefine the institution of marriage are asking society to give up something it does not have the right to relinquish. Marriage is given to us by God. It is the sacred union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation, part of God's plan for the human race.

2006, Jun 6 - "Document on the family and human procreation" - the Vatican releases a 57 page document on families and procreation as part of an effort to attack samesex marriage. A press release describes the general ideas in the document:

The document opens with "an introduction to the theme of the relationship between ... the family and procreation." This theme is then developed over four chapters covering "procreation; why the family is the only appropriate place for it; what is meant by integral procreation within the family; and what social, juridical, political, economic and cultural aspects does service to the family entail". ... An understanding of human procreation, the text goes on [at one point], may be attained from various perspectives: "the historical," reaffirming the value historically attached to having descendants, "the anthropological, ... and the religious, ...

The explanatory note continues: "Procreation is the means of transmitting life by the loving union of man and woman", and it "must be truly human". This means that it must be the "fruit of the actions of man", and the "fruit of a human act, free, rational, and responsible for the transmission of life. ... The unitive [procreative] act of man and woman cannot be separated from its connatural dimension, which is that of procreation and which makes responsible paternity and maternity possible.

... The condemnation of abortion, the inseparable nature of the two dimensions - the unitive and the procreative - and the view of sexuality as a procreative function, "have their foundation in individual beings and their dignity." ... "The doctrine concerning integral human procreation," the note concludes, "is corroborated by the theology of creation and by the mystery of salvation ...

2006, Jun 5 - Senator Barack Obama opposes samesex marriage - during a Senate debate on same sex marriage (an election year political stunt by Republicans), Senator Obama states his objection to samesex marriage, put also states that the issue should be left to the states, not the federal government. Senator Obama is also on record as supporting civil union - "giving them a set of basic rights", but not marriage. In an interview in the Chicago Daily Tribune, he states:

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs, say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

2006, Jun 1 - "Marriage debate enters state's highest court - an article in the Albany Times Union reports on a lawsuit before the New York Court of Appeals filing by 44 samesex couples seeking to be legally married. State Deputy Solicitor General Peter Schiff, arguing the state's position against samesex marriage, responded at one point to a judge's question with:

"New York has long had an interest in channeling opposite-sex relationships into marriage so there would be families. (They) are the only ones who procreate by lying next to each other. Marriage is always correlated with procreation.

Other news articles report on other comments. One judge, Judge Robert Smith, asked a fairly naive question: "Can you think of a case where something that was well accepted for many centuries was found unconstitutional?" - well, how about segregration in the schools, and interracial marriage laws. Why wasn't slavery and the women's right to vote found unconstitutional by wise judges? Leonard Koerner, arguing against samesex marriage for the city of New York, reiterated that lower courts had affirmed the reason for marriage as "the begetting [procreation] of offspring", not, as the plaintiffs argued, as the sanctioning of a loving and committed union between two people.

2006, Jun - Lawsuit to legalize homosexuality in India - The NAS Foundation in India files a lawsuit to legalize homosexuality in India. One India law, Indian Penal Code Section 377, deems any kind of sex that is "against the order of nature", that is to say that doesn't result in procreation, to be unnatural and therefore illegal. IPC 377 bans sodomy, oral sex, bestiality and necrophilia. A good critique of IPC 377 can be seen in "India and Homosexuality". Further evil can be seen in Indian Penal Code Section 375, which legals marital rape, despite at least 40% of Indian wives being so raped.

2006, May 25 - No assisted procreation in Portugal - The national legislature of Portugal passes a law banning medical assisted procreation for single women and homosexual couples.

2006, May 23 - Costa Rican high court rules against samesex marriage - the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala IV) ruled against same sex marriage, reasoning that Costa Rica's constitutional norms on marriage do not apply to gay couples because "heterogeneous couples are not in the same situtation as homosexual couples". The difference the Court is referring to flows from the arguments made by lawyers opposing the samesex marriage case, arguments based on religion, morality and procreation.

2006, May 22 - "Beyond religion marriage act debate - Part II" - (www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196456,00.html). Father Jonathan Morris, a blogger for Fox News, writes:

5) There is no reason any given homosexual marriage will effect negatively a heterosexual couple's commitment to one another. Nevertheless, redefining marriage to make room for homosexuality, polygamy, or polyamery changes, ever so slowly, the value society places on the unique institution of marriage, including its two natural ends of procreation and complementary union of the spouses. Okay, I know this one is hard to swallow and we'll need more time to examine data.

2006, May 20 - "Workshop raises awareness of anti-gay Courage program" - (www.rcab.org/Pilot/2006/ps060519/CourageWorkshop.html). The online version of the Boston Catholic newspaper, the Pilot, quotes Father John Harvey, founder of the Courage Catholic ministry, which encourages gay people to not have sex. He is quoted as saying:

.... "From sacred Scripture it is clear that the two purposes of marriage, which always go together, are the union of man and woman and the procreation of children.", he said. "The solid basis for the argument against homosexuality is the teaching on marriage." He added that homosexual acts are "seriously immoral" because they are neither ordered toward unit nor procreation

The article does not mention whether Father Harvey thinks homosexual acts are more seriously immoral than the acts of many American Catholic Bishops who helped Catholic priests rape children by transferring these rapists from one Catholic parish to another.

2006, May 11 - "Pope sparks new 'gay marriage' row - ANSA.it reports on comments Pope Benedict XVI at a meeting at the Vatican on the family:

The pope said that marriage between men and women had a deep significance connected to procreation and the continuation of society. "It is especially urgent today to avoid confusing it with other types of union based on a weaker love.", he said, also stating that "Marriage reflects that form of love with which man and woman become one flesh, and realize an authentic communion of persons open to the transmission [procreation] of life.".

2006, May 10 - "Christian morality and test tube babies, part one - Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes about technology and reproduction (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=05/10/2006). Excerpts:

In the first place, human dignity is compromised by the artificiality of the IVF technology. The absolute separation of conjugal union and the sex act from the process of conception creates a new and artificial process of human reproduction [procreation] ...

Children are not the products of a technological process, like common consumer commodities, but are the gifts of a loving God whose intention is that children should be born [procreated] to a man and a woman united in the bond of marriage, and as the fruit of that marital bond realized in the conjugal act. They are neither by-products of the sex act nor mere "products" of our technological innovations.

Beyond this, the use of IVf to allow unmarried women and lesbian couples to achieve pregnancy outside marriage and heterosexual relatedness is a direct rejection of God's intention in the creation of humanity as male and female, and the limitation of sexual relatedness and procreation to a man and a woman united within the marital covenant.

2006, April 24 - 50 religious leaders sign anti-samesex marriage - petition. 50 religious leaders, including seven Roman Catholic cardinals and about a half dozen Catholic archbishops (who collectively helped thousands of priests rape children), have signed and distributed a new petition opposing same sex marriage. The petition was also signed by one Mormon church official, whose church believes that if a black and white couple have a child, the man should be killed. The petition has the usual dependency on procreation:

As such marriage is a universal, natural, covenantal union of a man and a woman intended for personal love, support and fulfillment, and the bearing [procreating] and rearing of children.

Other than procreation, samesex couples are capable of all of these other features of marriage. The Web site has a variety of anti-samesex marriage position statements from religious groups. This petition was organized in part by Prof. Robert George of Princeton University, a Catholic scholar with close ties to evangelical Protestant groups who helped draft the text of the proposed Constitutional amendment in 2004. Republicans are supporting the petition to whip up political support for the fall elections.

2006, March 22 - "Panelists debate homosexual civil rights" - in an debate at Kansas State University, one speaker, Joel Oster, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, stated:

Marriages are singled out for procreation so that babies can be connected to and raised by their biological mother and father.

2006, April 5 - "Same sex marriage lands before federal appeals court" - in an Associated Press article reported around the country, comments from judges are reported in a samesex marriage lawsuit before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. One judge, Judge Jerome Farris, agreeing with a lower court judge, Judge Gary Taylor, commented:

I think marriage is a bundle of sticks and sticks include procreation.

2006, April 3 - "Key threats to the Family" - in an interview for Catholic Online, Catholic theologian Michael Hull of New York comments:

Like divorce, artificial birth control seems to be the order of the day. On the one hand, it is utilized by those who are married, frustrating or limiting God's plan of procreation.

2006, March 22 - "The Meaning of Marriage" - in an interview for Catholic Online, law professor Robert George of Princeton University comments on marriage and procreation:

I have already remarked that married love and the institution of marriage are naturally ordered toward procreation and the upbringing of children. ...

A man and a woman pledged to permanent fidelity to each other must become "one flesh" by virtue of the consummation of their union by intercourse in which they fulfill the behavioral conditions of procreation - whether or not the non-behavioral conditions necessary for conception to take place happen to exist. ...

It is by performing marital acts - acts that are procreative in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect; and even, if, due to disease, defect or a woman's age they cannot result in procreation ...

The biological union of spouses in procreative type acts can be true personal communion, precisely because we are our bodies ...

2006, March 4 - "Uphold traditional marriage for a healthy nation" - in a letter to the editor, Misty Mealey of Roanoke, VA, writes:

"... If they succeed, two of the perennial marks of marriage - complimentarity and procreation - will have fallen by the wayside. ... The biological complementarity may bring a child into existence [be procreated], but the emotional and psychological balance of his parents is just as important for his wellbeing."

2006, January 27 - "Scottish Catholic bishops warn of cultural decay" - an article from the Zenit News Agency reports on a pastoral letter issued by the Catholic bishops dealing with law and family life. At one point, they write:

-- All sexual intercourse outside of marriage is wrong, and within marriage such intercourse must always be ordered to the procreation of new life. The act by which a man and woman love one another is the same act, in the design of the creator, by which the love of God beings to birth [procreates] new human life.

2006, January 19 - "Gay marriage legal in Maryland, Baltimore Judge Rules" - in an article in the Gay City News, it is reported a recent Maryland state court decision ruling that anti-same-sex marriage laws are unconstitutional for violating Maryland Constitution's Equal Rights Amendment. At one point in her decision, Judge M. Brooke Murdock writes about procreation issues:

"The Court concludes that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is not rationally related to the state interest in the rearing of biological [procreated] children by married, opposite-sex parents", responded Murdock. "Indeed, the prevention of same-sex marriages is wholly unconnected to promoting the rearing of children by married, opposite-sex parents."

2006, January 1 - "Archbishop hits out at 'undermining' of marriage" - in an article in the Sunday Post Online, Archbishop Sean Brady, head of the Catholic Church in Ireland attacks same-sex marriage, in light of the Civil Partnership Act which came into force on December 21st. He states:

"The legal recognition of marriage reflects the social commitment which husband and wife make for the good of society and for the procreation and education of children. That good needs to be promoted and supported, rather than eroded and undermined [by same-sex marriage].

2005, December 9 - "Court voids ruling backing gay marriage" - an article in the Dec. 9th New York Times (page A28) reports on a New York state appellate court decision. A 4-1 majority not only rejected the lower court's ruling that state law forbidding same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but said that the state had a legitimate interest in promoting heterosexual marriage. Quoting the decision:

"Marriage promotes sharing of resources between men, women and the children that they procreate. It is based on the presumption that the optimal situation for child-rearing is having both biological patents [the procreators] in a committed, socially esteemed relationship."

and that the definition of marriage in state law

"... expresses an important, long-recognized public policy supporting, amongst other things, procreation, child welfare and social stability - all legitimate state interests."

2005, October 25 - "Keep the ban [against gay priests]" - in an article in the Inside Bay Area newspaper, James Garcia, parish priest of the Catholic Church in Menlo Park, writes in part:

"First, the Church is never going to accept that homosexuality is part of the Creator's plan. Philosophically, the Church sees same-sex activity as a contradiction of natural law. Sexuality is ordered to procreation. Human anatomies are hard-wired to be complementary between man and woman. Scripture confirms this: Adam took for his wife Eve, not Everett.

2005, October 18 - "Sexual relations are not equally same" - in an article in the Aberdeen news, Martin Albi, a teacher of religious studies at the local Presentation College, writes:

So in this sense, homosexual relations can never be equated with male and female sexual relations. Biologically, naturally, and therefore in the purposes of the creator of nature, they are not the same. Wihle admittedly the could fulfill the purposes of bringing the couple closer together, they always lack that most profound, mysterious purpose of cooperating with God in the creation [procreation] of new life. Again, one must consider this issue in a larger context. There are many forces in our society that deny the sacred nature of sexual relations, and its profound link with procreation.

2005, October 15 - "Should Texas ban same-sex marriage?" - in an article in the Houston Chronicle, Linda Nuttall, a writer for the Defend Marriage organization writes:

"Is the only reason for opposing same-sex marriage homophobia? Clearly not. Seeing the value of procreating and raising children to adulthood is not homophobic; it is sensible."

2005, October 1 - "Reactions to [Maltan] archbishop's condemnation of IVF - an article in the 1 October Malta Independent Online reports on comments made by the Catholic archbishop of Malta, Joseph Mercieca, including that:

Mercieca described IVF as an illicit method of procreation in his message on Independence Day, delivered during Mass. He explained that it is the duty of the Church to teach that IVF was in itself an illicit method of procreation, as human lives were lost soon after being conceived. Responsible procreation should be done within marriage ...

2005, October 1 - "High powered local couple has civil union" - an article in the 20 October 2005 Bridgeport News reports on the 17 year relationship of Dennis Murphy and John Stafstrom, who were one of the first couples to register their civil union under a new Connecticut law that went into effect on October 1st. The Roman Catholic Church's state bishops issued a statement on October 1st, stating in part that marriage was an institution created by God:

".... for the mutual well being of the partners and the procreation of children. .. Civil unions and same-sex marriages deny children the benefits and uniqueness that a mother and father bring into the lives of their [procreated] children."

2005, September 21 - "Locals respond to Schwarzenegger's plan to veto gay marriage bill" in an article in the U.C. Berkeley School of Journalism news service (North Gate News Online), Mark Wiesner, pastor of Saint Augustine church and spokesperson for the Catholic diocese of the Bay Area said that the Catholic Church will never accept or recognize same-sex marriage:

"The church teaches that marriage and marital love, by their very nature, is intended for the procreation of children. A same-sex union is incapable of procreation and therefore invalid."

2005, September 16 - "Holocaust exhibition visits OKC, UCO professor to lecture - in an article about a Holocaust lecture by Kole Kleeman, talks about the Nazis and gays:

Kleeman said the Nazis believed the body as a part of nature. "His (Hirschfeld's) theories disrupted the wholeness of body in nature. Gays were a threat to procreation. Nazis wanted to produce babies. ... They (the Nazis) game [homosexuals] mega doses of testosterone to see if they could make them straight."

2005, September 14 - "Massachusetts rejects bill to eliminate gay marriage" - in an article in the Sept. 15th New York Times reporting on the State of Massachusetts legislature rejecting a bill to eliminate gay marriage (to date over 6600 gay couples have been married in the state with general public acceptance), one opponent stated:

Representative Philip Travis, a Democrat and opponent of same-sex marriage, argued Wednesday for the stricter amendment. "The union of two womean and two men can never consummate a mariage.", Mr. Travis said. "It's physically impossible [since they can't procreate]. We can't get around that."

2005, September 3 - "Ordination of gay bishops, crime against humanity" - an interview in the Tide Online (www.thetidenews.com) with Bishop Friday Nwator, first Pentecostal Bishop of the Trans Atlantic and Pacific Alliance of Churches, Bishop Nwator states:

Dr. Nwator said that for man to sleep with man to have intercourse is an abomination, noting that God knows why He created woman to have procreation with man. ... How can man and man procreate? ... Bishop Nwator called on the churches in Nigeria to maintain their stand against homosexuals and lesbians holding office in the churches because the homosexuals and lesbians are defective human beings.

2005, September 2 - "Senate OKs gay unions in California" - an article on a bill that passed the California Senate (www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/September/02/local/stories/03local.htm) approving same-sex marriage. Tim Morgan, a Santa Cruz attorney and a member of the Republican National Committee, said the bill was bad social policy, because he felt that the role of marriage in society is procreation and stable family units. "The whole notion of same-sex marriage is an ideologically driven movement."

2005, September 1 - "Church against same-sex relations" - an article on how the Methodist Church in Fiji has condemned homosexuality and lesbianism, saying that it is God's purpose for human beings to go forth and reproduce [procreate]. According to church leader Tuikilakila Waqairatu,

"In creating humanity of mankind in the beginning, God allowed Adam and Eve or a male and female to be through procreation. ... When we have a male and a male, and a female and a female, they cannot produce an offspring [procreate]."

2005, August 29 - "Same-sex marriage suit headed to Baltimote court" - in an article (www.thewbalchannel.com/health/4911381/detail.html") on how a group of Maryland religious leaders signed a statement in support of same-sex marriage. In opposition, Pastor Rick Bowers, chairman of Defend Maryland Marriage, stated that his group's firm belief is that procreation is a crucial aspect of marriage.

2005, August 28 - "Same-sex marriage suit set to open in city court" - an article in the 29 August 2005 Baltimore Sun reports on a same-sex marriage court case in the Baltimore courts. In the article, two religious opponents' views are reported:

But Pastor Rick Bowers, chairmen of Defend Maryland Marriage, said the issue didn't belong in a Maryland courtroom. ... Bowers said his group firmly holds to the belief that procreation is a crucial aspect of marriage. ... Douglas Stiegley, who heads two groups opposed to same-sex marriage, the Family Protection Lobby and the Association of Maryland Families, said he will be keeping a close eye on how the legal matter turns out. ... "Our stand is that marriage is already defined as one man and one woman for life and out of that comes children [via procreation] and families and anything else is a deviation and is not marriage."

2005, August 26 - "Marriage and the betrayal of Perez and Loving" - two Mormon lawyers, Monte Neil Stewart and William Duncan, write of the legal aspects of samesex marriage in light of two court cases, Perez and Loving. Despite the racist foundations of the Mormon church, the two writers attempt to associate advocates of samesex marriage with advocates of segregation and eugenics. The audacity of racists never changes. After a long and unethical article, their conclusion gets to the procreative requirement for marriage:

Third, the most effective means humankind has developed so far to maximize the level of private welfare provided to the children conceived [procreated] by passionate, heterosexual coupling.

Fourth, the effective means to make real the child's right to know and to be brought up by his or her biological [procreated] parents ...

Sixth, the power to officially endorse the form of adult intimacy - married heterosexual intercourse [procreation] - that society may rationally value above all other such forms.

2005, August 26 - "Gay Marriages in the Spotlight" - in an article in the Isle of Man Today, comments about marriage are reported from the island's Church of England clergy:

Bishop Graeme Knowles made a detailed submission [to a government consultation process] after the annual meeting of Church of England clergy in the island. It says marriage is defined as a 'faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman' which is for the procreation of children. Any sexual relationship outside marriage whether gay or straight, are regarded as 'falling short of God's purpose for human being'. [which apparently is for humans to procreate]

2005, August 23 - "... Children Still Need a Mother and Father" - in response to a California Supreme Court decision that same sex couples are considered parents, the Campaign for Children and Families releases a statement protesting the decision, writing at one point:

... This ruling goes against Nature. It ignores the self-evident truth that God designed a man and a woman to fit together and participate in the miracle of procreation.

2005, August 18 - "Why I object to homosexuality and samesex unions" - in a VirtueOnline article, the Most Reverend Peter Akinola, Archbishop and Primate of Church of Nigeria Anglican Communion, writes:

In this Church, we teach about the total depravity of man and his absolute need for salvation through faith in Jesus the Christ.

which, while having nothing to do with same sex marriage, I mentioned because it is totally insulting to all of my family and friends and my work colleagues, as well as the vast majority of people, none of whom depraved. Akinola should speak for himself, and the other Catholic and Anglican bishops who allowed priests to sexually abuse children. After some scientific nonsense and hate about homosexuals, he writes:

God instituted marriage between man and woman, among other reasons, for procreation. To set aside this divine arrangement .... Homosexuality or lesbianism or bestiality is to us a form of slavery ....

2005, August 3 - "Archdiocese says no artificial insemination for lesbians"- in a Catholic World News article, the Catholic Archdiocese of Cordoba (Argentina) condemns artificial insemination for lesbians. The archdiocese's spokesman, Father Pedro Torres, states in part:

The natural environment in which children are born [procreated] is marriage. Insemination as a scientific intervention [for procreation] cannot be a substitute for sexuality in marriage ... medicine exists in order to provide solutions, but not for replacing or manipulating that which is natural. ... procreation is participation in the creative work of God, with responsibilities and conditions. A child ought to have a father, a mother and a place of love.

2005, August 3 - "Egocentric culture losing the purpose of marriage" - in an article in the online Agape Press Christian news service, Kathryn Hooks, the director of media and public relations for the American Family Association in Mississippi, states in part:

Traditionally, society has viewed procreation and the raising of children as a central purpose for the institution of marriage ... In chapter one of the Bible, God established the first marriage creating male and female, and then ".. blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the Earth and subdue it' (Genesis 1:28). God created marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation in order to fill the Earth.

Ms. Hooks doesn't not realize that the Genesis 1:28 command, without a restraint condition, is one definition of cancer.

2005, Aug 1 - "Changing public policy about marriage benefits" - in an article in the Catholic Sentinel (Oregon) criticizing equal civil benefits for same sex couples, Catholic Archbishop John Vlazny writes:

Marriage is from God. The creation of man and woman as described in the book of Genesis is intended to help us understand the divine origins of this institution. Marriage also makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, providing for the procreation and education of children. ... The future well-being of society demans that marriage continue to hold a special place in society's laws for the exclusive benefit of spouses and the procreation and rearing of children. Marriage is and must continue to be the preferred institution for conceiving [procreating] and raising children. Legalizing same-sex unions would weaken marriage as a social institution and thereby seriously debilitate the stability of the family and human formation [procreation] of children.

2005, Aug 1 - "Parent A + B = Baby C?" - in an article in the Orlando Sentinel (reprinted in the 1 August 2005 San Francisco Chronicle, page B5), Kathleen Parker writes:

Children are born [procreated] of man and woman. .... What we know but the courts apparently choose to ignore is that identity and selfhood are routed, in part, in our biological [procreative] origins. .... What's really behind the push for biology-neutral birth certificates isn't fairness, or equal rights, but the elimination of any biological/procreative connection to parenthood.

2005, July - "Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage" - in a position statement, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association endorses all efforts to make same-sex civil marriage legal, stating in part:

Civil marriage is associated with a unique set of benefits that provide legal and economic protections to adults in committed relationships and to their children. Equal access to the institution of civil marriage is consistent with the APA's opposition to discrimination based on sexual orientation. Therefore be it resolved that:

"In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits and responsibilities."

A similar position statement was released by the American Psychological Association one year earlier in July 2004 (see below).

2005, July 30 - "Reject Canada's same-sex marriage error" - in an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Tom Prichard (president of the Minnesota Family Council) writes:

Marriage has always been rooted in the relationship between a man and a woman -- a relationship that is essential to procreation and to successful nurturing of children. .... The need for a mother and father in a [procreated] child's life doesn't change once you leave the church, synagogue or mosque.

2005, July 29 - "Spanish bishops decry legislation weakening marriage" - in an article in Catholic World News, July 20th, Spanish Catholic Archbishop Braulio Rodriguez Plaza of Valladolid is quoted as saying:

Archbishop Braulio underscored that the new legislation is not only an attack on the Church and on canonical marriage; it is an attack on the human person because in the end "it denies the anthropological and social reality of the union of man and wife in all its specificity and unique value for the common good and concretely for the personal realization of the spouses and for the procreation and education of children."

2005, July 25 - "House of Bishops issues pastoral statement on Civil Partnerships - in an article from The Anglican Communion News Service, the House of Bishops of the Church of England, in commenting on new civil partnership laws, write:

3. The Church of England's teaching is classically summarised in The Book of Common Prayer, where the marriage service lists the causes for which marriage was ordained, namely: 'for the procreation of children, ....

4. In the light of this understanding the Church of England teaches that 'sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively' ... Sexual relationships outside marriage, whether heterosexual or between people of the same sex, are regarded as falling short of God's purposes for human beings.

2005, July 21 - A homily on the federal legislation on so-called same sex marriage - in an article from their September 2005 (published 21 July), the staff of the Canadian Catholic Insight writes:

The astounding truth that Genesis teaches us is that at the moment God created the universe, he decreed that marriage was to be a lasting and exclusive union of one man and one woman and the procreation of children - the bringing forth of new life - was to be an essential element of marriage. ...

Reason also tells us that the emotional and physical complementarity of a man and a woman are essential to the purposes of marriage - that is, the growth of spousal love and the procreation of children. ...

The distribution of contraceptives was made legal in 1967. That opened the door to artificially separating the act of intercourse from procreation - the unitive from the procreative. This did not go unnoticed by gay activists. If heterosexuals can separate sexual intercourse from procreation and still call their union marriage, they reasoned, why can't we?

2005, July 13 - Religious freedom from same sex marriage - in speaking to a Canadian Senate committee, Catholic Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Canada's leading Roman Catholic clergyman, argues that same-sex marriage threatens religious freedom in Canada. An article from Globe and Mail reports:

But [Ouellet] said the homosexual lifestyle does not lead to procreation and does not deserve the same status as marriage. "The homosexual lifestyle does not contribute to society.", he said, explaining Catholic doctrine on the issue. "It's not a sin to be a gay. But it may be a sin to perform homosexual acts."

2005, July 5 - "Destruction of family a step toward fascism" - Fort Wayne's Journal Gazette columnist Kathleen Parker writes:

Sanctity aside, the traditional family is the front-line defense of liberty, the Maginot Line against creeping totalitarianism. Without the primary, autonomous unit of mother and father - whose duty is to protect and nurture their [procreated] offspring - government inevitably intercedes. .... The foundational purpose of marriage always had been a bond of duty cementing the mother and father to the [procreated] child. By separating sex and procreation from marriage ...

2005, June 16 - "Smelt v. Orange County (USDCCDCa)" - U.S. District Judge Gary Taylor rules that the federal Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the U.S. constitution's provisions for equal protection and due process. In defending his view that the federal government has a legitimate interest in not recognizing "gay marriage", he writes:

The Court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and legitimacy of what may be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents. .. Because procreation is necessary to perpetuate humankind, encouraging the optimal union for procreation is a legitimate government interest.

2005, June 14 - "Lewis v. Harris (state appeals court, New Jersey)" - by a vote of 2-1, a state appeals court in New Jersey refused to strike down the state's law banning samesex marriage. Judge Stephen Skillman, writing for the majority, states:

[O]ur society and laws view marriage as something more than just State recognition of a committed relationship between two adults. Our leading religions view marriage as a union of men and women recognized by God, and our society considers marriage between a man and a woman to play a vital role in propagating the species [i.e. procreation] and in providing the ideal environment for raising children.

Judge Anthony Parrillo states in concurrence:

[T]he binary idea of marriage arose precisely because there are two sexes. Plaintiffs simply have not posited an alternative theory of marriage that would include members of the same sex [who can't procreate], but still limit the arrangement to couples, or that would otherwise justify the distinction.

2005, June 6 - "Anthropological Foundation of The Family" - Pope Benedict XVI, in an address delivered in the Basilica of St. John Lateran, comments on marriage and procreation:

Also in the procreation of children, marriage reflects its divine model, the love of God for man. In man and woman, paternity and maternity, as happens with the body and with love, the biological aspect [i.e. procreation] is not circumscribed: life is only given totally when with birth, love and meaning are also given, which make it possible to say yes to this life [that was procreated]. Precisely because of this, it is clear to what point the systematic closing of the union itself to the gift of life [procreation] and, even more, the suppression or manipulation of unborn life is contrary to human love, to the profound vocation of man and woman [to procreate].

2005, June 6 - "Pope decries pseudo-marriage" - Pope Benedict XVI, in an article in Catholic World News (www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=37622), comments on same-sex marriage:

He explained that human sexuality "is not something apart from the person, but something belonging to him." For that reason, he said, the use of sexuality must be "integrated with the person." In marriage, the Pope said, the gift of sexuality is used for procreation. He observed that it is "contrary to human love, to the profound vocation of man and woman [procreation], systematically to close one's union to the gift of life [procreation], and still more so to suppress or alter the life of the unborn."

2005, May 22 - in an article the New York Times Sunday magazine, Republican Senator Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic, it is reported:

To Santorum, who is married and the father of six children (as well as one who died shortly after birth), marriage is primarily about procreation and child rearing, and a union without at least that possibility [of procreation] need not be legally sanctioned. "Society's interest in marriage is the future", he told me. "It is the next generation [that is procreated]. It is in providing a stable environment for the raising of children."

2005, June 13 - "Same-sex unions pose serious crisis in civilization" - in an article on same sex marriage, Catholic Bishop Odilo Pedro Scherer of Sao Paulo comments:

Unions of people of the same sex cannot lead to the birth of children [procreation] and so society cannot receive what it expects and receives from natural families.

2005, May 18 - "Essence of marriage questioned" - in an article on a South African lawsuit on same sex marriage, Gerrit Pretorius of the Marriage Alliance is quoted as saying:

"The reason why marriage was so successful because it addressed procreation and continuation of society in a particular form,", he said.

2005, May 14 - "Alan Keyes: abortion and same-sex marriage are logical outgrowths of contraception mentality" - in an interview, conservative activist Alan Keyes states:

By divorcing marital relations from the possibility of having children [procreating], Keyes said, society has spawned an ethic that not only sanctions abortion (because producing children [procreating] is deemed undesirable and irrelevant to sexual relations), but supports same-sex marriage - which centers in sexual activity without the possibility of procreation. The more that sexual activity has become deliberately separated from procreation, Keyes observed, ..... Keyes noted that the real cause of such absurdity is that God's plan for marriage - which according to scripture, centers in procreation - has been too-often removed from the sexual relationship.

2005, May 4 - "Vatican Cardinal Trujillo interview on homosexual marriage" - in an article, Vatican Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, states:

[The marriage bed] is the place where life is welcomed and childred are generated [procreated]. It expresses the character and signficance of marriage as described in the encyclical Encyclical Humanae Vitae (Paul VI 1968): union and procreation.

2005, April 28 - "States' bishops assess marriage, civil union and reciprocal beneficiaries" - in an article from the Catholic Sentinel about same sex marriage in Oregon, Catholic bishops from Oregon write:

"In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children." ....

[Marriage] is in society's own self-interest and self-propagation [procreation] to do so. ....

With the passage of a law legalizing same-sex civil unions, marriage will no longer hold a special place in society's laws for the exclusive benefit of man, woman and the procreation, rearing, and education of children. Marriage between one man and one woman, then, will no longer be held up as society's preferred institution to conceive [procreate] and raise children.

2005, April - Procreation, sacrament, fidelity and companionship - In her PhD these for the University of Vriginia, Catherine Ann Griffith examines the Western Christian theology of marriage as it applies to same sex marriage. She focuses on the four attributes originally identified by Saint Augustine: procreation, the sacramental bond, a remedy for concupiscence, fidelity and companionship. Of course, Augustine also wrote that ".. for a couple to copulate for any purpose other than procreation was debauchery. Augustine also cruelly wrote that original sin (of Adam) "... is passed along in the very fluids of procreation and that sexual intercourse, and because it involves a loss of rational control, is always at least venially sinful.", and also wrote that a woman's embraces are "sordid, filthy and horrible". Augustine had his emotional disturbances, didn't he.

On the other hand, a Celtic monk named Pelagius argued that there was no original sin passed down the generations via procreation, that Adam's sins were his responsibility and no one elses. This view so threatened Rome that in 418 the Pope declared Pelagius a heretic.

2005, March 18 - "San Francisco judge's ruling on same-sex marriage draws Catholic criticism" - in an article in the weekly Catholic San Francisco (page 5), Bill May, chairman of Catholics for the Common Good, is quoted as saying:

"This ruling attempts to redefine marriage as something solely for the benefit of adults and dilutes the understanding of the special place marriage holds for the birth [procreation] and nurturing of future generations of citizens."

In the same article, Ned Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference is quoted as saying:

"Yet marriage, by both custom and biology [procreation], is the source of family and children."

2005, March 16 - "Men in Black" - the Editorial for this day's issue of the Commerce Business Daily criticizes a California judge for ruling that marriage can't be constitutionally limited to heterosexuals, and in general criticizes judicial activism. About same sex marriage, they argue:

[Heterosexual marriage is] an institution sanctioned by all successful nations and cultures because of a compelling interest in a stable, growing society with heterosexual marriage providing a stable framework for both procreation and the orderly upbringing of children - the future of any society. That constitutes a "rational purpose".

2005, March - "Towards an established theory of gay personhood" - an article in the Vanderbilt Law Review by Jeffrey Kershaw. The abstract:

This article reports that the Catholic Church remains, like so many institutions, troubled by its inability to explain the origins of homosexuality. In the face of its confusion, the Church has justified continuing condemnation of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals as living in opposition to natural law. It was the Church itself, led by figures that popularized a natural law outlook in medieval Western society and originated the view that engaging in sexual activity is immoral unless it occurs within the confines of marriage to an opposite partner and for the purpose of procreation. A significant proportion of Americans today share this natural law stance; a majority, while eschewing a distinction between procreative and non-procreative sex, disapprove of homosexual sex under any circumstances. Such views can be justified in part because homosexuality genesis remains largely unexplained despite the fact that various disciplines, including biology, psychology, and sociology, have had more than one hundred years to wrestle with the issue.

2005, January 28 - "B.C. Catholics urged to get into same-sex debate" - in a letter to Canadians in British Columbia, Roman Catholic Archibishop Raymond Roussin urges Canadians to oppose laws that allow same sex marriage. At one point he writes about the definition of marriage is that of an institution:

"... whose natural purpose is the good of the couple and the procreation and education of children. .... This is not a human rights issue, it is about recognizing the biological basis for the social structure that protects the procreation and nurturing of children in our society."

2005, January 22 - "Quebec Cardinal's letter on Same-Sex Marriage Legislation" - in a letter to Canadians, the Roman Catholic Primate of Canada, Marc Cardinal Ouellet, urges Canadians to oppose laws that allow same sex marriage. At one point he writes:

"The fact is that making such a change [allowing same sex marriage] would alter the institution of marriage by ignoring two of its essential finalties: the procreation and education of children, within the context of the love of a man and a woman, guarantee the future of society. The union of persons of the same sex cannot make this essential contribution to soceity, because it lacks this properly conjugal complementarity [including the ability to procreate] that defines the institution of marriage."

2005, January 20 - Indiana Court of Appeals upholds same-sex marriage ban. In a unanimous 3-0 decision (Morrison v. Sadler), the Indiana Court of Appeals upholds the state's same sex marriage ban. At one point the judges write:

"... [O]pposite-sex marriage furthers the legitimate state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment."

2005 - "Divorcing Marriage from Procration" - in an article in the Yale Law Journal, Jamal Greene argues that in the same-sex marriage debate, too many people are ignoring the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's Turner/Safley prisoner marriage decision:

I join those commentators who find Goodridge's reasoning [a court decision from Massachusetts supporting same-sex marriage] flawed but its outcome correct. Where I part ways is in recognizing the vital importance but untapped potential of the Supreme Court's decision in Turney v. Safley. The Turner Court held unconstitutional a Missouri prison regulation denying inmates the right to marry except for "compelling reasons". ... Because the Turner Court struck down a marriage ban that applied to a population with no legal right to procreate and that provided an exception for pregnancy, the decision undermines any claim that marriage is fundamental because of an inexorable connection to procreation.

2005, January - "Loving sets a precedent for same sex marriage" - Phyl Newbeck, author of a book on the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia (in which bans on interracial marriage were ruled illegal), writes on how Loving sets a precedent in support of same-sex marriage.

2004, December 24 - "Lawyer says gays are unfit: same sex marriage" - an article in the 24 December edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, page B1, reports on a hearing before a San Francisco Superior Court judge with regards to the legality of same sex marriage. At one point, Rena Lindevaldsen, an attorney for the Campaign for California Families, spoke as follows:

"They [homosexuals] can't perform the basic functions of marriage. There is a basic difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples ... the ability to procreate and, therefore, insure the existence and survival of our species."

2004, December 23 - "Tradition vs. equality argued in S.F. court" - an article in the 23 December edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, page A1, reports on a hearing before a San Francisco Superior Court judge with regards to the legality of same sex marriage. At one point, Glen Lavy, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund argues with judge as follows:

... Lavy argued that the ban on same-sex marriage was justified by the nature of marriage as an institution to promote the bearing [procreating] and raising of children. The state has a legitimate interest, he said, in "encouraging procreation to occur within the marital relationship so that those children can grow up with their own mom and dad". Judge Kramer broke in. "Will they be deterred from procreating if the people in the condo next door are a same-sex couple?", he asked. Lavy didn't answer directly but argued that the state is entitled to favor opposite-sex parents, who can raise their own biological [procreated] children over same-sex parents, one of whom has to adopt the other's child.

2004, December 23 - "[Anglican Archibishop's] Views on homosexuality ridiculous" - in an interview in the Botswanan MMegi, Archbishop Bernard Malango, head of the Anglican Church in Central Africa, comments that:

"... God's approach is that he created a man and a woman for the sake of procreation."

2004, November 4 - "Gay marriage ill-suited for kids, groups argues" - an article in the 5 November edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, page B2, reports on papers filed in San Francisco Superior Court opposing same sex marriage laws, Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund writes:

"No same sex couple will ever procreate ... If procreation has nothing to do with marriage, then why should the state refuse to recognize a 'marriage' between two brothers or two sisters?"

2004, Oct. 28 - "Sex, marriage and procreation: the judicial decimation of American family law" - in a paper presented at a Christian Law conference (www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/scaperlanda/sexmarriageandprocreation.pdf), Michael Scaperlanda, Associate Dean at the Univ. of Oklahoma Law School, writes about same sex marriage, in part with:

"The critical question is whether the qualitative attributes of man and woman are essential to marriage [in light of the Supreme Court case Lovings v. Virginia dealing with interracial marriage]. At the point in the debate, I stated the obvious and undeniable fact that biologically one male and one female constitute one reproductive [procreative] whole. The biblical two shall become is a literal truism - at least biologically. ... I took the position that the biological completeness of the human reproductive [procreative] organism signifies a deeper reality, suggesting that we all know in our heart of hearts [as opposed to our brains?] that although men and women have equal dignity, there are deep and abiding differences between man and woman - that a complementarity exists such that two men or two women are no substitute for husband and wife, father and mother. ... [But] After all, for decades sex has been divorced from its procreative potential. And, now procreation is or can be divorced from sex. So what difference does it make if it is two men or two woman or one of each? Technology has freed us from these old constraints."

2004, Oct - "Marriage and Procreation: On Children as the First Purpose in Marriage" - Allan Carlson, a fellow at the Family Research Center in Washington DC, in an essay based on a lecture given to the FRC on 24 October 2004, writes:

Turning to the first question - where did the bond between marriage and procreation come from? - my answer is simple: it is no less than the foundation for what we might call the unwritten Sexual Constitution of our Civilization. .....

"Between 50 and 300AD, an dout of this same chaos, the Fathers of the Christian Church crafted a new sexual order. Procreative marriage served as its foundation. ... But virtually all Gnostics did share two views: they rejected marriage as a child-related institution; and they scorned procreation. .....

In this way, the bond of marriage to procreation became the social and moral foundation for emerging Western Christian Civilization. ... Even the tremors of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century probably did more to strengthen, than weaken, this powerful tie between procreation and marriage. .....

The decline and fall of the concept of "illegitimacy" also points to the disappearance of the bond between marriage and procreation. ... The leveling "right of privacy" in America; the triumph of socialism over the home in Sweden; both contributed to the successful repeal of the Sexual Constitution of Western Civilization, which had rested on the fundamental bond of marriage to procreation. .....

Can we still defend the purpose of marriage as procreation? ... Are there other political acts that would reconnect procreation and mariage? ... Perhaps we should restrict some of the legal and welfare benefits of civil marriage solely to those married during their time of natural, procreative potential: for women, below the age of 45 or so. ... Another, and perhaps more realistic way to rebind marriage and procreation would be, counter-intuitively, to take some of the benefits currently attached to marriage and reroute them instead through children.

2004, Oct - "Same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right" - in an article in the 23 October 2004 online edition of The Christian Post (www.christianpost.com), a decision unfavorable to same-sex marriage from a New York state court is reviewed. In his decision, Judge Alfred Weiner writes:

"The institution of marriage is a fundamental right founded on the distinction of sex and the potential of procreation. Homosexual marriages do not fall within those guideposts or serve such ends."

2004, Oct - "Barroso offers compromise to resolve EU appointment crisis" - an article in the 21 October 2004 online edition of The Advocate (www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=14143&sd=10/22/04) reports on a controversy on the incoming European Union executive. One of the incoming members, the next EU justice commissioner, Jose Manuel Barroso from Italy. Barroso plans to allow his conservative Roman Catholic views shape his policy, as revealed in his confirmation hearing, views which are upsetting many in Europe. In those hearings, Barroso called homosexuality a sin and said marriage was intended

"... to allow women to have children [procreate] and to have [the] protection of a male."

2004, October 20 - "First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage" - in a statement issued by the Mormon church, they state:

We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.

As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.

2004, Sept - "Gay Republican castigates party over marriage vote" - an article in the San Francisco Chronicle (11/01/04, page A3), reports on how Jim Kolbe, Republican Representative from Arizona, denounced his own party over the issue of gay marriage. The article quotes comments from Texas Republican Representative and House Majority Leader Tom Delay:

This nation knows that if you destroy marriage as the definition of one man and one woman, creating children [procreation] so that we can transfer our values to those children and they can be raised in an ideal home, this country will go down.

2004, July - "The [anti-samesex] marriage amendment is the democratic way" - in an article in the National Review, Mormon and Nevada Senator Orrin Hatch concludes in part with:

For a simple and compelling reason, traditional marriage has been the norm in every political community for 5,000 years. Society has an interest in the future generations created [procreated] by men and women. Decoupling procreation from marriage in order to make some people feel more accepted denies the very purpose of marriage itself.

2004, July 30 - "Sexual Orientation and Marriage" - in a policy statement, the APA Council of Representatives lends it support to the legality of same-sex marriage. They state, in part:

WHEREAS APA has a long-established policy to deplore "all public and private discrimination against gay men and lesbians" and urges "the repeal of all discriminatory legislation against lesbians and gay men", ...

WHEREAS "anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide[s] no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution", ... THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights and privileges;

2004, July - "Defining Marriage" - in a letter to the editor published in the Wall Street Journal (7/24/04, page A18), Frank Russo, state director of the American Family Association of New York writes:

In accusing Congress of voting "to deny the federal courts the ability to decide a key constitutional issue involving gay marriage", you got it backward.

Marriage has for all time and in all societies been understood as a serious commitment between a man and a woman, with benefits accorded because of the important role marriage plays in the procreation and education children. Any radical change in this natural and historically legal definition of marriage is the responsiblity of the people's elected representatives in the legislative branch, not the courts.

2004, July - U.S. House of Representatives - in a floor debate for a proposed bill to strip federal court jurisdiction over the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, Republican House Majority Tom Delay states:

"... the consensus of the American people is simply that marriage is the union of one man and one woman ... It is not a contract of mutual affection between consenting adults. It is instead the architecture of family, the basic unit of civilization and the natural means by which the human species creates [procreates], protects and instills its values in its children."

2004, July - "Questions for William F. Buckley" - in an article in the 7 July 2004 Sunday New York Times Magazine, conservative publisher (National Review founder) William F. Buckley is interview. One question is: "Why do you oppose gay marriage?", to which he answered:

It is extraconstitutional, marriage being a union between opposite sexes usually intending procreation.

2004, June - "The Threat of Same Sex Marriage" - in an article in the 7 June 2004 edition of America - the National Catholic Weekly, Robert Sokolowski, professor of philosophy at the Catholic University of America writes:

Marriage has traditionally been understood to be a human relationship ordered toward reproduction [procreation]. The "end" of marriage is procreation. ... Sexuality has as its end the procreation of children, ... People who separate sexuality from procreation, whether in their thinking of their actions, live in illusion. They lie about this matter, ... The continuation of the population [through procreation] is a condition for the survival of the body politic. It is this focus on population and reproduction [procreation] that justifies laws concerning marriage. ... By its actions, therefore, the state has traditionally recognized reproduction [procreation] as the end of marriage.

2004, May - "Australian Prime Minister defends ban on gay marriage" - an online article from ABC Radio Australia quotes a leader of the Catholic church:

The chairman of the Bishops Committee for the Family and Life, Bishop Eugene Hurley, says marriage is the backbone of society, and is ideal for the raising of children.

"It's by nature a heterosexual union with a certain dimension of commitment required, especially ... for the procreation of children and of course for their proper care and development.", Bishop Hurley said.

2004, May - "10 reasons to oppose 'gay marriage'" - in an article for the online Baptist Press News (www.sbcbaptistpress.org), James A. Smith Sr., executive editor of the Florida Baptist Witness, writes:

3. A primary reason for marriage is procreation - bringing children into the world. Children need both mothers and fathers.

2004, May - "Same-sex unions are not marriages" - in an article for the online CBC News (www.cbc.ca/news), Gwendolyn Landolt, National Vice-President of REAL Women of Canada, writes:

There is a vast difference between the infertility of some heterosexual couples and the impossibility of all same-sex couples to procreate through same-sex bonding, except in cases when they require a third party outside of their union to assist in procreation.

Marriage is an institution, and one of its main purposes is to procreate - and specific incidents of infertility within it for whatever reason, are irrelevant.

.... Opposite sex-marriage is also the affirmation of the unique bonding that arises in a heterosexual relationship, which serves as the bridge between past, present and future generations [through procreation].

2004, May - "Gay marriage opponents keep low profile for now" - an article in the 17 May 2004 edition of the New York Times, page A18, about same sex marriages in Massachusetts.

To some parishioners attending the Trinity Evangelical Church near here [Boston, MA], the advent of same-sex marriage called to mind the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorroh. ....

Peter Grasso, another parishioner, interrupted. "It makes me ashamed", he said. "This used to be the most moral state in the union. You couldn't even have a dirty picture in the state until the liberals got into it." "Until they can prove that two men or two women can have children [procreate], to me it is not marriage. It is filth."

2004, May17 - "Same-sex marriage is a feminist issue - in a position statement, the National Organization of Women argues that the issue of same-sex marriage is a feminist issue.

2004, Apr - "The battle over same-sex marriage" - An article in the 15 April 2004 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle reporting on how dozens of fundamentalist preachers (Baptists and Presbyterians), from California met with San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. They presented him with a letter signed by 200 pastors demanding that Newsom reverse his order authorizing same sex marriages and to renounce the institution of same sex marriage, The letter states at one point:

"More serious is your brazen defiance of God's holy immutable law."

2004, Apr - "Changing Marriage" - Catholic priest John Malloy of Saint Peter and Paul's Church in San Francisco, in a letter to the editor in the 23 April 2004 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, page B8, writes:

.... But there is nothing erroneous in the fact that it takes a man and a woman to found a family. Two men or two women may take care of children, but in no way are they capable of begetting children [procreating], which is the essence of marriage. What gives them or us the right to change marriage?

2004, Apr - "Biology Argument" - Frank Gibson, a resident of Cambridge, MA, in a letter to the editor in the 7 April 2004 edition of the Boston Globe, page A22, writes:

I believe there is a glaring omission of something fundamental in the debate over the definition of marriage - human biology. It is apparent that the concept of marriage did not appear arbitrarily, but arose as an institution for human reproduction [procreation] and survival.

.... In all the families of same sex couples, not one child carries the genes of both parents [not procreated]. This is not the case in heterosexual and interracial families.

.... The obvious reason for the disparity is the factt that animals of the same sex cannot mate [procreate]. No amount of argument can alter that fact of nature. As a result, the civil rights of homosexuals must be considered in the context of this biological impediment [non procreation], which cannot be circumvented.

2004, Apr - "Arguments against gay marriage" - Boston-area resident Joe Cavanaugh, in a letter to the editor in the 9 April 2004 Boston Globe, page A18, writes:

.... However, marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples who commit to long-term monogamous relationships for one reason: children. .... The government favors marriage between a man and a woman because that monogamous, long-term relationship creates the best environment in which to create [procreate] and nurture children who will become productive citizens, pay taxes and contribute to society.

.... Moreover, Social Security survivor benefits, as well as other benefits associated with marriage, exist for a reason: to help a man and a woman raise their [procreated] children in the best possible environment.

2004, Mar - Prof. Douglas Kmiec - Kmiec, law professor at Pepperdine University, the 14 March 2004 Sunday Los Angeles Times, in an op-ed article titled "Marriage is based on procreation, a fact no claim of gay 'equality' can avoid", writes:

... No one on either side of the debate contends that same-sex marriage is biologically compatible with reproduction. Absent artificial insemination or some other third-party means of conception, homosexual couples cannot physically produce children. It is upon this pivotal point, with all its implications for family and society, that the [same-sex marriage] debate turns.

.... Although it isn't required of every husband and wife, marriage cannot be separated from procreation and the development of a child's character within a stable family.

.... Marriage has purposes besides procreation, but many are aimed at supporting it.

.... Whatever the cause of homosexuality, those who cannot maintain the necessary relationship among sexual intimacy, procreation and child rearing cannot in fact accomplish an essential object of marriage, and therefore should not be held out by law to be married.

2004, Mar 18 - "Gay Marriage and Procreation" - in an article in the Bay Area Reporter, Dale Carpenter argues that requiring procreation for marriage, in practice, is purely anti-homosexual:

A common argument against gay marriage is that marriage is for procreation and gay couples cannot procreate. ... But gay couples, note the procreationists, cannot procreate as a couple. ... So the procreationist rule, refined in light of actual lived experience, is this: Nobody is required to procreate in order to marry, except gay couples. It's a rule made to reach a predetermined conclusion, not for good reason.

2004, Mar - Bruce Fein - Fein, a Washington lawyer, testifed on 30 March 2004 to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee subcommittee on the Constitution with regards to the "The Defense of Marriage Act ( article text ), stating:

.... At present, every State but Massachusetts confines marriage to opposite-sex couples to advance compelling societal interests in optimal procreation and child nurturing. Procreation is necessary for the preservation of the species. Traditional marriage laws encourage procreation by offering both material legal advantages and social esteem for opposite-sex unions. Same-sex couples cannot procreate.

.... For the reasons elaborated above, DOMA rationally advances the government interest in optimal conditions for procreation and child nurturing. ....

2004, Feb - "Same-sex marriage undermines foundational institutions" - in a statement issued Feb.12, Catholic Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco (who in 2005 was supoenaed to testify about his role in helping Catholic priests sexually abuse children) writes:

Marriage is a relationship defined by nature, a reality which takes its origin in creation [procreation] itself. Heterosexual marriage, procreation and the nurturing of children form the bedrock of the family, and the family unit lies at the heart of every society. To extend the meaning of marriage beyond a union of a man and a woman, their procreative capacity, and their establishment of family represents a misguided understanding of marriage itself. It is not discriminatory to limit "marriage" to heterosexual couples, as same-sex couples cannot bring into existence [procreate] what marriage intends by its very definition. ... While the Catholic Church affirms that God created marriage as a union of a man and a woman, giving them co-responsibility to establish a family by bringing [procreating] children into the world, this tenet is not solely a Catholic one.

2004, Jan - "Christians should act before the courts impose homosexual marriage" - Michael Francisco, of the Evangel Society, in writing about opposing samesex marriage, states in part:

Christians ought to take note of future implications from the homosexual marriage issue. Severing procreation and child rearing from marriage, even if only in principle, will drastically change the way society views single parenthood and out of wedlock children. God created the institution of the family, the married man and women with [procreated] children, as the basic bedrock of society.

2004, Jan - "Gay marriage: theological and moral arguments" - at a panel on Gay Marriage held at Santa Clara University, Fred Parrella, associate professor of religious studies, at one point comments (www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/gay_marriage.html):

Second, the act of procreation within a marriage (until recently seen as a duty so the race may survive) is no longer the only purpose of marriage. In marriage, the partners, as the Council says, also "render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and their actions." Since not all marriages between a man and a woman end in offspring due to physical problems or personal choice, it is clear that the concept of procreation as essential to the marriage bond should be explored in a wider sense and include the creative spheres of the spiritual, moral, and cultural.

2004, Jan - William Murchison - Murchison, a syndicated columnist, in an article in Washington Times article (3 Jan 2004) titled "The cult of non-procreation" ( article text ) writes:

.... As it happens, a man and a woman go together in a way - blush, blush - that same-sex couples find utterly impossible and always will. There must be a reason, right?

Right. No heterosexual relationship, no procreation. No procreation, no human future. That is where the state's interest in this thing comes in. .....

You can say, of course, so what? Marriage for the non-procreative, ah. Why should that be skin off the nose of the procreative? Because to contradict the underlying reason for marriage is to ask who needs this thing anyway. ...

.... We shouldn't be surprised today to see the essentially procreative nature of marriage called irrelevant to the "purposes" of marriage - ....

2004 - "The Ten Offenses" - in his new book, Pat Robertson writes at page 151:

First of all, marriage is God's chosen mechanism to bring forth life created [procreated]. God made the sex act enjoyable so that married couples would have an incentive to procreate and, therefore, sustain the human race.

2003, Dec - Jennifer Roback Morse - in an article in National Review Online, Dec. 2003, titled "Love and ... marriage and the meaning of sex" ( article text ) writes:

... So, what is the meaning of human sexuality anyhow? Sexual activity has two natural, organic purposes: procreation and spousal unity. Babies are the most basic and natural consequences of sexual activity.

... Both of these organic purposes, procreation and spousal unity, have something in common: they build up the community of the family. Procreation literally builds the community by adding new members to the family.

... This is why it is utterly reasonable for the law of marriage to take into account the natural purposes of human sexuality.

2003, Nov - Eve Tushnet - in an article in the National Catholic Register, titled "Defending marriage, after Massachusetts" ( article text ) Tushnet writes:

Marriage - civil marriage, not just sacramental marriage - is essentially a procreative union in two ways. First, marriage only exists because of procreation. Marriage developed as a universal human institution because when a man and woman have sex, very often a baby is conceived.

Second, marriage is procreative because marriage is society's way of ensuring that as many children as possible have mothers and fathers. ... Two men, however can't replace a mother, nor can two women replace a father.

Amending the Constitution of the United States is a major project and not a step to be taken lightly. But if we do not take this step, we may lose the fundamental building block of society.

2003, Nov - "One Man and One Woman" - Princeton law professor Robert George, in the 28 November 2003 edition of the Wall Street Journal, in an article about the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage, writes:

Third, having radically redefined marriage to remove the requirement of sexual complementarity that links marriage as an institution to procreation and helps to provide its intelligible moral structure, the judges failed to provide any "rational basis" for their declaration that marriage should be closed ("to the exclusion of all others"), even if spouses happen to prefer an "open" marriage; nor did they offer any reason for treating marriage as intrinsically limited to two persons. These are the Achilles' heel of the movement for "same-sex marriage".

2003, Oct - "Marriage Protection Week" - Washington DC-based Family Research Council issues a sample letter to send to Congress, a position paper and a sammple sermon that all oppose same sex marriage. In its sample "Letter in Support of a Federal Marriage Amendment", they write:

Marriage is the most fundamental institution of human society. .... It is the usual and by far the best context for the reproduction [procreation] of the human race itself and for raising [procreated] children to be responsible adults.

In a paper, "Marriage: One Man, One Woman", Robert Knight (who helped draft the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, and Peter Prigg of the Family Research Council, write:

Marriage is the union of the only type of couple capable of natural reproduction [procreation] of the human race - a man and a woman. Children need both mothers and fathers, and marriage is society's way of obtaining them. .... Even when a couple is past the age of reproduction [procreation], the marital commitment may keep an older man from fathering a child with a younger woman outside wedlock.

Comparing current laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman with the laws in some states that once limited inter-racial marriage is irrelevant and misleading. The very soul of marriage - joining of two [procreatable] sexes - was never at issue when the Supreme Court struck down laws against inter-racial marriage. .... What [homosexuals] should not obtain is identical recognition and support for a relationship that is not equally essential to society's survival [non-procreative].

In "Sample Sermon Outline for Marriage Protection Week 2003", the Baptist Reverend Peter Sprigg write:

What is Marriage For? Marriage is an institution created by God. That much is clear from Genesis 2:18-24.

Universal Purposes of Marriage - Procreation and Child Rearing.

That reproduction [procreation] of the human race is one of the central purposes of marriage is clear from God's mandate to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 .... For the human race to "be fruitful and increase in number", it was clearly necessary that man and woman come together in a procreative act.

Throughout church history there have been disagreements, however, about whether procreation is an absolutely essential purpose of marriage. .... Through artificial or natural family planning, some couples simply choose not to have children [to not procreate]. Yet almost no one ever questions that such couples are legitimately married.

This has led some to dismiss procreation as a central purpose of marriage at all. Homosexual activists are particularly fond of this argument, for the obvious reason that same-sex couples are inherently incapable of reproducing [procreating] without outside help.

.... There is no need or reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is intrinsically incapable -- ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intent -- of producing babies [procreating] naturally. ....

2003, Jul - "Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons". The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issues this Church opinion letter that complete opposes same sex marriage, a letter approved by Pope John Paul II in March 2003. Repeatedly throughout the letter is the observation that homosexuals can't procreate:

2. ... In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

3. ... Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness [procreatability] belong to the very nature of marriage.

7. ... Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. ... Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life [procreation].

8. ... The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality, for example, procreation and raising children.

9. ... Because married couples ensure the succession of generations [can procreate] and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition.

2003 - "Standhardt v. Superior Court" - in a decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals involving Arizona's state marriage law, a three judge panel stated (77 P.3d 451, 463-464) writes:

Petitioners have failed to prove that the State's prohibition of same sex marriage is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. We hold that the State has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the marital relationship, and that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is rationally related to that interest. Even assuming that the State's reasoning for prohibiting same sex marriage is debatable, or arguably unwise, it is not 'arbitrary' or 'irrational' [because same sex procreation is impossible].

2003, April - "The case against same-sex marriage" - in a brief submitted to a Canadian government standing committee, Margaret Somerville, professor of law at McGill University, writes in part:

Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation [via procreation] .... To change the definition of marriage ... it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair bonding. ...[Procreation] is the fundamental occurrence on which, ultimately, the future of human life depends. ... would eliminate marriage's role in symbolizing and protecting the procreative relationship. We now need the procreative symbolism of marriage more than in past ... Marriage between opposite-sex partners symbolizes, however, the reproductive [procreative] potential that exists, at a general level, between a man and a woman.

Marriage's role in upholding respect for the transmission of life - which is the first event in procreation - is of unusual importance at present. ... Rather, the exclusion of [same sex marriage] is related to the fact that it is not inherently procreative .... After all, if exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is found to be discrimination by way of comparison with opposite-sex couples, not providing same-sex couples with the means for procreation - that is, excluding them from procreating with each other - when procreation is possible between opposite-sex couples, is a related discrimination.

2003, Mar - "Same-sex marriages: an assault on marriage" - in a commentary published by the Christian Heritage Party of Canada, Reverend Royal Hamel writes:

Historically and traditionally, marriage as meant that one man and one woman come together in an exclusive relationship for the purpose of companionship, sexual intimacy, mutual support, and procreation of children. ... Homosexual liaisons, in and of themselves, cannot produce children [procreate]. Since an integral part of marriage is procreation, then a liason that is incapable of producing children - both potentially and actually - cannot possibly qualify as a marriage.

2002, Sep - Canadian Justice Department - the Canadian Justice Department in a legal submission to the Ontario Court of Appeal case challenging anti-same-sex marriage laws, argues:

.... Historically and across major religions and cultures worldwide, the purpose of marriage has been the uniting of the two opposite sexes for the purpose of procreation, the raising of children and companionship.

.... The fact that same-sex couples do not come within the current meaning of marriage - relates to the fact that their unique relationship does not meet the core, opposite-sex requirement of marriage.

2002, Jun - "Bill to remove certain doubts regarding the meaning of marriage - Marisa Ferretti Barth, a member of the Canadian Parliament, in a debate about a Canadian bill on marriage, states:

... Marriage is the public joining together of a man and a woman who want to found a family, to have children [procreate] and so ensure that the family will continue into future generations.

However, its ultimate raison d'etre transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biologial and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate.

I would like to conclude with the thoughts of Monseigneur Bertrand Blanchet, Bishop of Rimouski, who said that marriage has for centuries represented a unique symbolic whole implying a number of realities, including sexual difference, the ensuing language of bodies, a special communication of spirit and heart, a creative force open to the gift of a new life [procreation].

2002 - "On Marriage" - Sometime in 2002, the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America released an encyclical letter on marriage, in which they write:

The greatest miracle of this divinely sanctified love of marriage is the procreation of good, fair and holy children. In the image of God who brings forth life in love, the Christian marriage, a unity in love established by God, brings forth holy and good life (1 Cor. 7:14).

.... As the bearer of life in the conception of children [procreation], the wife has an immediate concern for life and its quality.

2002, May - Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health - In a case turning down applicants request for a license for a same sex marriage (2002 Mass. Super. LEXIS 153 [2002]), the Suffolk Superior Court for the State of Massachusetts relies on non-samesex-procreation to reject the request. The decision is overturned by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003, which writes about the Superior Court decision:

A Superior Court judge ruled for the department. In a memorandum of decision and order dated May 7, 2002, he dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the marriage statutes should be construed to permit marriage between persons of the same sex, holding that the plain wording of G.L.c. 207, as well as the wording of other marriage statutes, precluded that interpretation. .... He concluded that prohibiting same-sex marriage rationally furthers the Legislature's legitimate interest in safeguarding the "primary purpose" of marriage, "procreation". The Legislature may rationally limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, he concluded, because those couples are "theoretically . . . capable of procreation", they do not rely on "inherently more cumbersome" noncoital means of reproduction, and they are more likely than same-sex couples to have children, or more children.

2002, Jan - "Counterfeit Marriage: how 'civil partnerships' devalue the currency of marriage" - in their position statement, the Christian Institute (London) writes:

.... The State has an interest in marriage. Marriage involves a public undertaking to stay together for life and, as [UK Home Secretary] Jack Straw said, it is a union for the procreation of children.

.... Children are conceived [procreated] through heterosexual intercourse. The most basic unit of society - the family - is based on biology [procreation] not ideology. Children need a father and a mother to nurture them. We are made that way. ...

2001, Sum - "Multiply and Replenish: Considering Same Sex Marriage in Light of State Interests in Marital Procreation - by law professor of the Brigham Young University, in the Summer 2001 edition of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. In a lengthy essay, Prof. Wardle condemns same sex marriage, for which one key issue she repeatedly emphasizes is the connection between procreation and marriage. Her ties to racism undermine, though, any ethics she argues. Click here for lengthy excerpts from her article.

2001, Mar - Richard Wilkins - Wilkins, a professor at Brigham Young University, in an article in the Mormon magazine Meridian titled "The Federal Marriage Amendment - why families should act to preserve marriage" ( article text ) writes:

.... But however ornate the rhetoric, the Supreme Court's discussions of marriage emphasize again and again a surpassingly important reality that (quote curiously) is often overlooked in the modern debates surrounding same-sex marriage: the unquestionable biological and historical relationship between marriage, procreation and child-rearing.

.... As a result, organized society has a substantial interest in drawing legal lines that responsibly channel and encourage procreation. .... All the family cases recite that individuals have a unique interest in marriage because of its close connection to procreation and child-rearing.

.... Traditional marriage, unlike any other sexual relationship, furthers society's profound interest in the only sexual relationship that has the biological potential of reproduction: union between a man and a woman.

.... sexual relationships between a man and a woman (even if infertile) differ in kind from couplings between individuals of the same sex; heterosexual couplings in general have the biological potential for reproduction; homosexual couplings always do not. This potential procreative power is the basis for society's compelling interest in preferring potentially procreative relationships over relationships founded primarily upon mutually agreeable sexual sensations.

.... Thus, the sexuality that unites a man and a woman is unique in kind. This uniqueness, in fact, is the very basis of the religious, historical and metaphysical notion that "marriage" indeed joins two flesh as one.

2001 - British Columbia Supreme Court - In a case on whether legal impediments to same-sex marriage were contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Justice Ian Pitfield writes:

It cannot be denied that marriage remains the primary means by which humankind perpetuates itself [by procreation] in our society. ... The state has a demonstrably genuine justification in affording recognition, preference, and precedence to the nature and character of the core social and legal arrangement by which society endures [through procreation].

2000, Oct - UK Home Secretary - UK Home Secretary Jack Straw comes out against government reforms for same sex marriage. In an interview on a television program, he comments at one point:

Marriage is "about a union for the procreation of children, which by definition can only happen between a heterosexual couple. So I see no circumstances in which we would ever bring forward proposals for so-called gay marriages."

1998, Aug - Anglican bishops condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage - the BBC reports that at the 1998 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, that the bishops have condemned homosexuality and same-sex marriage (text of the condemnation). They write in part:

b) in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, ...

d) ... rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, ...

e) ... cannot advice the legitimising or blessing of same-sex unions, not the ordination of those involved in such unions; ...

g) notes ... the authority of Scripture in matters of marriage and sexuality ...

1998, Jun - Southern Baptist Convention - adopts a statement on the family and marriage:

... Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is God's unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church, and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel for sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race. ....

1997, Fall - "Cloning, Procreation and the Family" - Theology graduate student Brent Waters, in an essay in the book "Human Cloning: Religious Responses" edited by Ronald Cole-Turner, writes:

.... The family involves the ordering of natural and social affinity. Ideally, this entails a genetically unrelated wife and husband producing offspring [procreating] who are genetically related to each other and to both of their parents. It is this ordering of natural and social affinity which gives procreation its full meaning; collapsing either dimension deprives the roles of spouse, parent, child, and sibling of their complete and mutual significance.

.... The family is built upon the one-flesh unity of a wife and husband, who out of the totality of their shared being bring into life a new being [procreate] who is part of them and yet who is also wholly other than them.

.... Rather than ordering procreative practices within a normative familial context, which takes into account delimiting and defining natural qualities, the family is instead distorted into an outcome of reproductive decisions. Consequently, the means of attaining children [procreation] are not morally significant so long as no one is harmed in the choices that one makes.

1997, June - "Should the Church bless committed same-sex couples?" Reverend David Scott, professor of theology at the Virgina Theological Seminary, writes in an article that

... Because heterosexual, life-long marriage unites in a mutually reinforcing way covenent-, procreative-, and one-flesh self-giving. ... While not every heterosexual marriage can, or in certain circumstances, should be procreative, Christians see procreative sexuality as a fundamental blessing intended by God and one of the basic good purposes of marriage. Anglicanism has never taught that procreation is irrelevant to the meaning of Christian marriage and sexual union. Same-sex unions cannot, inherently, be sexually procreative. They therefore, cannot inherently image the fullness of God's [pro]creative, covenental and unitive love as well as heterosexual unions inherently can. ... Declaring procreation morally and theologically immaterial to Episcopal moral evaluation would slowly drain religious and moral significance from procreation in the context of heterosexual marriage. ... By morally equating non-procreative and procreative sex, the Episcopal Church would relegate child-bearing, parenting and children to a limbo of religious irrelevance.

1997 - "The Narrow and Shallow Bite of Romer and the Eminent Rationality of Dual-Gender Marriage" - Robert Duncan in an article in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, volume 6, pages 140, 159-60, writes:

Procreation can and (all too frequently) does take place outside of marriage; but isn't that precisely the point? Surely it is not irrational to think that procreation within marriage is preferable to procreation outside marriage. The privileges and benefits of civil marriage serve the legitimate - some would say compelling - goal of encouraging heterosexual unions (and therefore sexual acts of the procreative type) to take place within a stable and protective institution."

1996, Sep - "RE: Gay marriage, a societal storm" - Lorelei Kilgour, in a letter to the Hamilton (Ontario) Spectator, 27 September 1996, writes in part:

I strongly disagree with Barbara Amiel's column in her conclusions about the purpose of marriage being exclusive to heterosexuals. ... She says that married couples who have no children [have not procreated] by fate or by choice do not change the specific purpose of marriage as being that of procreation and raising a family. Then she goes on to advocate excluding gay couples from the privilege of marriage because they "cannot create life" [procreate]. By what logic does the legal protection of marriage stop, then, if one does not procreate. And who says procreation was the primary requirement?

1996, Jul - "When John and Jim Say 'I Do'" - Charles Krauthammer, in an article in the 22 July 1996 issue of Time magazine, writes:

Or consider another restriction built into the traditional definition of marriage: that the married couple be unrelated to each other. ... For gay marriage there are no such genetic consequences for their offspring. The child of a gay couple would either by adopted or the biological product of only one parent [no procreation]. Therefore the fundamental basis for the incest taboo disappears in gay marriage.

1996, Jul - National Conference of Catholic Bishops - July 1996 statement on same sex marriage:

The Roman Catholic Church believes that marriage is a faithful, exclusive, and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love. This union was established by God with its own proper laws. By reason of its very nature, therefore, marriage exists for mutual love and support of the spouses and for the procreation and education of children. These two purposes, the unitive and the procreative, are equal and inseparable.

.... Thus, we oppose attempts to grant the legal status of marriage to a relationship between persons of the same sex. No same-sex union can realize the unique and full potential [to procreate] which the marital relationship expresses.

1996, Jun - "Childless Marriage" - Shelly Groshan, in a letter to the editor of the Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA), on 15 June 1996, writes:

If - as so many of those opposed to same-sex marriage continue to purport - the primary reason for marriage is procreation, how come you all aren't protesting heterosexual marriages like mine? You see, my husband and I married with no intention of having children [procreating]. We married to make a public statement of our lifelong commitment to one another. We married to ensure certain benefits and rights would be entitled to one another, i.e., I can now be covered under his employer's insurance carrier. Why aren't you condemning us and fighting to disallow our right to enter the institution of marriage? The real reason you oppose samesex marriage is your bigotry toward a life style you think is incorrect. At least have the courage to look into your limited hearts and admit that much.

1996, Jun - "Leave Marriage Alone" - William Bennett, in an article in the 3 June 1996 issue of Newsweek, writes:

Consider: the legal union of same-sex couples would shatter the conventional definition of marriage, ... send conflicting signals about marriage and sexuality, particularly to the young, and obscure marriage's enormously consequential function - procreation and child rearing.

1996, May - "The Role of Nature" - political science professor Hadley Arkes, in testimony at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on 15 May 1996, states:

Marriage has something to do preeminently with the establishment of a framework of lawfulness and commitment for the begetting [procreation] and nurturance of children. This is the plainest connection between the idea of marriage and what has been called the natural teleology of the body, the fact that we are all, as the saying goes, engendered. We are men and women, there are only two people, not three, only a man and woman can beget a child [procrete]. There is a coherence in this scheme that is not impaired in the least when the couple are incapable of bearing children.

1996, May - editorial in Commonweal - Commonweal, an American Catholic magazine, had a 17 May 1996 editorial opposing same sex marriage, in which they write:

.... But the justification and rationale for marriage as a social institution cannot rest on the goods of companionship alone. .... There are profound social goods at stake in holding together the biological, relational and procreative dimensions of human love.

.... In that context, heterosexual sterility does not contradict the meaning of marriage in the way same-sex unions would. If marriage as a social form is first a procreative bond in the sense that Meilaender outlines, then marriage necessarily presupposes sexual differentiation, for human procreation itself presupposes sexual differentiation. .... Consequently, sexual differentiation, even in the absence of the capacity to procreate, conforms to marriage's larger design in a way same sex unions cannot.

1996, Apr - "Altar-ed states: gay weddings are just a tripdown the aisle to moral ruin" - Robert Larimer, executive director of Washington for Traditional Values, writes in the Vancouver, WA, paper The Columbian (21 April 1996):

Procreation is necessary. ... While a small percentage of same-sex couples do raise children, it is a biological reality that our planet is repopulated [via procreation] by heterosexual sex. Some marriages remain childless by choice or medical necessity [i.e., no procreation], but family and [procreated] offspring supply the underlying motivation for our culture's improvement and its provision for future generations.

1996, Mar - "Gay Marriage, An Oxymoron" - Former Quail speechwriter Lisa Schiffren, in an article in the 23 March 1996 edition of the New York Times writes:

.... Same sex marriage is inherently incompatible with our culture's understanding of the institution. Marriage is essentially a lifelong compact between a man and woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation [procreation] and nurture of offspring.

.... In traditional marriage, the tie that really binds for life is shared responsibility for the children. (A small fraction of gay couples may choose to raise children together, but such children are offspring of one partner and an outside contributor [i.e. not procreated by the gay couple].

.... Finally, there is the so-called fairness argument. The Government gives tax benefits, inheritance rights and employee benefits only to the married. Again, these financial benefits exist to help couples raise children [that they procreated].

1996, Mar - "Against Homosexual Marriage" - James Q. Wilson, in an article in the March 1996 magazine Commentary writes:

The role of raising children is entrusted in principle to married heterosexual couples because after much experimentation - several thousand years, more or less - we have found nothing else that works as well. Neither a gay nor a lesbian couple can of its own resources produce a child [procreate}; another party must be involved. What do we call this third party? A friend? A sperm or egg bank? An anonymous donor? There is no settled language for even descibing, much less approving of, such persons.

1996 - "The Apprentice" by Lewis Libby - conservative Republican politican L. Lewis Libby has published his fiction book: The Apprentice. From 2000 to 2007, Libby is the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, during which time Libby helps organize efforts to legalize same-sex marriage around the country because of the "threat" of same-sex marriage to family values. In his book, Libby makes use of the following family values:

• a scene of incest between two uncles and their neice
• a hunter asking his companions if they should have sex with a freshly kill dear while it's still warm
• a story about a procreated 10-year old girl who's kept in a cage and raped by a bear to train her to become a sexually submissive prostitute

1995, Dec. - "State of Hawaii: Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law" - in a report of a state commission that was assembled to study how to extend more legal benefits to same sex couples, the Commission concludes in part that (Chapter 4: Findings and Recommendations):

c. The argument that same-sex marriage should be barred because it cannot lead to procreation is invalid, inconsistent, and discriminatory. Public policy should not deny same-sex couples the right to marriage and the right to raise a family if they wish to do so, on the excuse that they, between themselves, cannot procreate, when this reason is not applied to opposite-gender couples. State law does not require that opposite-sex couples prove that they are capable of procreation before they can be married, and many are obviously not, because of age, medical or other reasons. Individuals in a same-gender marriage may have children from a prior opposite-gender marriage, or can adopt children if they desire a family.

b. In the case which gave rise to the establishment of this Commission, Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530 (1993), the Supreme Court of Hawaii recognized the relevance of the United States Supreme Court's 1967 decision to strike down a Virginia statute which prohibited miscegenation, or interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). The Hawaii Supreme Court has found that denial of same-gender marriage was presumed to be a violation of equal protection of the law unless the State could show a "compelling state interest" for such denial. The Commission finds that the various reasons advanced for denying same-gender marriages, including religious, moral and public health and safety, are similar to the Loving case and do not constitute a "compelling state interest" and, as a matter of public policy, should not be used to deny equal rights under the law to same-gender couples.

d. Under our constitutional government the fact that some religions or churches condemn same-gender marriages does not mean that those religious beliefs can be imposed on others. Our separation of church and state prevents religious enforcement through state institutions, such as the Department of Health. Furthermore, the Constitution prohibits any religious group from having to perform the marriage of a couple that is not recognized by that religion.

1995, Sept. - "The Family: A Proclamation to the World - In a statement read at an annual meeting of the Mormon church, the head of the church, Gordon Hinckley, reads a message about marriage that includes:

"... We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. ... Children are entitled to birth [being procreated] within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

That is, unless the man is white and the woman is black. Then Mormons are told by God to kill the white man.

1995 - Egan v. Canada - In this Canadian Supreme Court decision, Justice Gerard LaForest writes that marriage is:

"firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, .... It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the social and biological realities [i.e., the ability to procreate] that underlie the traditional marriage."

1994 - Mexican Supreme Court: rape in marriage is legal - a amjority of the Mexican Supreme Court rules that it is legal for a husband to rape his wife. The justices agree that because the purpose of marriage is procreation, forced sexual relations by a spouse was not rape but "an undue exercise of conjugal rights". Prior to this decision, all forms of rape, including in a marriage, were a crime. In November 2005, the Mexican Supreme Court unamimously corrects this evil decision, ruling that rape within a marriage is a crime.

1994 - Catechism of the Catholic Church - Rule 1652:

By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.

1993, Jul - "The Closest Straight" - political science professor Hadley Arkes, in an article in the 5 July 1993 issue of National Review, writes:

In traditional marriage, the understanding of monogamy was originally tied to the "natural teleology" of the body - to the recognition that only two people, no more and no fewer, can generate children [procreate]. To that understanding of a union, or a "marriage", the alliance of two men would offer such an impausible want of resemblance that it would appear almost as mocking burlesque.

1992, Jul - "On Marriage, Family, Sexuality and the Sanctity of Life - The Tenth All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America in July 1992 released an affirmation on marriage, in which they state:

God wills that men and women marry, becoming husbands and wives. He commands them to increase and multiply in the procreation of children, being joined into "one flesh" by His divine grace and love. He wills that human beings live within families.

The procreation of children in marriage is the "heritage" and "reward" of the Lord; a blessing of God. It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union throuch which God Himself joins the two together into "one flesh".

The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the "sacrament of love".

.... The procreation of children is to take place in the context of marital union where the father and mother accept the care of the children whom they conceive.

1991, Oct - "Against Gay Marriage" Jean Bethke Elshtain, in the 22 October 1991 issue of Commonweal, writes:

.... But marriage is not, and never has been, primarily about two people - it is and always has been about the possibility of generativity [procreation]. Although in any given instance, a marriage might not have led to the raising of a family, whether through choice or ... the infertility of one or another spouse, the symbolism of marriage-family as social regenesis [procreation] is fused in our centuries-old experience with marriage ritual, regulation and persistence.

1991 - "Affirm the Church's Teachong on Sexual Expression - the Episcopal Church approves a resolution about sexual expression, which starts with

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the 70th General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirms that the teaching of the Episcopal Church is that physical sexual expression is appropriate only within the lifelong monogamous "union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind" "intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity and, when it is God's will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord" as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer; ...

1991, Jan - "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality" - a rather perverted, eight page report that multiply fails bioethics and unbiased statistics, produced by a committee of the United Methodist Church. The report concludes that because the human food procressing and reproductive systems are hygenically separate, it is perverted for men to have anal sex. Some quotes:

.... Reproduction [procreation] can occur only by utilizing the reproductive system, requiring both the female ovum (egg) and the male sperm.

.... Likewise it is clear that even primitive cultures understand the nature of waste elimination, sexual intercourse, and the birth of children [procreation].

1990 - "Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990", which established guidelines for fertility clinics in the United Kingdom, in one clause, has a requirement on the parents of procreated children that follows from marriage only being between a man and a woman - the mandatory need for a father:

Section 13(5): A women shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.

1988 - "The Importance of Naturalness and Conjugal Gametes" - in a paper in from a New York Academy of Sciences' seninar on In Vitro Fertilization and Other Assisted Reproduction (NYAS Annals #541), Prof. Richard McCormick of the theology department at Notre Dame writes:

The heart of [Ramsey's] argument, the base on which it stands or falls, is the identification of the "sphere of responsible procreation" as marriage. .... The second analysis in my dissent is that marital exclusivity ought to include the genetic, gestational, and rearing components [i.e., procreative] because any relaxation in this exclusivity could harm the marriage (and marriage in general) and the prospective child. .... Another form of this second approach is that third-party involvement separates procreation from marriage in principle. That separation opens the door, both by human proclivity and the logic of moral justification, to a litany of worrisome problems such as insemination of a single woman or a lesbian couple.

1987 - "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation" - Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Vatican City - in a document by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later to be Pope), the Catholic Church answers some questions on methods for medically-aided reproduction. One question deals with marriage:

WHY MUST HUMAN PROCREATION TAKE PLACE IN MARRIAGE?
Every human being is always to be accepted as a gift and blessing of God. However, from the moral point of view a truly responsible procreation vis-a-vis the unborn child must be the fruit of marriage.
For human procreation has specific characteristics by virtue of the personal dignity of the patents and of the children: the procreation of a new person, whereby the man and the woman collaborate with the power of the Creator, must be the fruit and sign of the mutual self-giving of the spouses, of their love and fidelity. .... The child has the right to be conceived [procreated], carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up within marriage; ....

WHAT CONNECTION IS REQUIRED FROM THE MORAL POINT OF VIEW BETWEEN PROCREATION AND THE CONJUGAL ACT?
a) The Church's teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the "inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation [procreation] of new lives, according to [procreation] laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman."

1986, Jun - Bowers v. Hardwick (478 U.S. 106) - In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process clause of Fourteenth Amendment does not confer a fundamental right on homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, even in privacy of home. The Supreme Court pretty much overturns this decision in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas). But in the decision, the Supreme Court makes a connection between homosexuality and procreation:

The latter three cases were interpreted as construing the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to confer a fundamental individual right to decide whether or not to beget or bear a child [procreate].

Accepting the decisions in these cases and the above description of them, we think it evident that none of the rights announced in those cases bears any resemblance to the claimed constitutional right of homosexuals to engage in acts of sodomy that is asserted in this case.

No connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated, either by the Court of Appeals or by respondent.

1984 - "The Naked Public Square" - then Lutheran and now Catholic priest Richard Neuhaus writes a book, "The Naked Public Square", in an effort to put religion back into the center of American politics, one of the first "theocons" religious conservatives. In part of his book, he argues that Christians must make arguments about the self-evident nature and purpose of human sexuality and how those purposes, including procreation, the nurturing of children, the natural superiority of heterosexuality - are incompatible with the acceptance of samesex marriage.

1977, Jun - Washington v. Glucksberg (521 U.S. 702, 720) - In a ruling dealing with the right to die, the Supreme Court writes:

In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, ... ; to have children [procreate]... ; to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, ... ; to marital privacy, ... ; to use contraception, ... ; to bodily integrity, ... ; and to abortion.

1977 - Smith v. Organization of Foster Families (431 U.S. 816, 843) - In a ruling dealing with the rights of foster parents, the Supreme Court writes:

First, the usual understanding of "family" implies biological relationships, and most decisions treating the relation between parent and child have stressed this element. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972), for example, spoke of "[t]he rights to conceive [procreate] and to raise one's children" as essential rights, citing Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

1977 - Carey v. Population Services (431 U.S. 678, 685) - In a ruling dealing with contraceptives and state laws, the Supreme Court writes:

While the outer limits of this aspect of privacy have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, ... procreation, ... contraception, ... family relationships, ... and child rearing and education.

The decision whether or not to beget or bear a child [procreate] is at the very heart of this cluster of constitutionally protected choices. That decision holds a particularly important place in the history of the right of privacy, a right first explicitly recognized in an opinion holding unconstitutional a statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives, ... and most prominently vindicated in recent years in the contexts of contraception, ... and abortion ... . This is understandable, for in a field that by definition concerns the most intimate of human activities and relationships, decisions whether to accomplish or to prevent conception are among the most private and sensitive. "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free of unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child [procreate]." Eisenstadt v. Baird.

1977 - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - a human rights agreement overseen by the United Nations, for which the United States became a signatory in 1977. Article 15 states:

Article 15 - 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone: (a) to take part in cultural life; (b) to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications; .... 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to respect the freedom indispensible for scientific research and creative activity.

1974 - Singer v. Hara (522 P.2d 1187,1995) - In a ruling dealing with a request for a same sex marriage license, the Court of Appeals of Washington, the court writes:

In the instant case, it is apparent that the state's refusal to grant a license allowing the appellants to marry one another is not based upon appellants' status as males, but rather it is based upon the state's recognition that our society as a whole views marriage as the appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and the rearing of children. This is true even though married couples are not required to become parents and even though some couples are incapable of becoming parents and even though not all couples who produce children are married. These, however, are exceptional situations.

The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race. Further, it is apparent that no same-sex couple offers the possibility of the birth of children by their union. Thus the refusal of the state to authorize same-sex marriages results from such impossibility of reproduction rather than from an invidious discrimination "on account of sex". Therefore, the definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman is permissible as applied to appellants, notwithstanding the prohibition contained in the ERA, because it is founded upon the unique physical characteristics of the sexes and appellants are not being discriminated against because of their status as males per se. In short, we hold the ERA does not require the state to authorize same-sex marriage.

1972, Mar - Eisenstadt v. Baird (405 U.S. 438, 453) - In a ruling dealing with contraceptives, the Supreme Court writes:

Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child [procreate].

1948, December - Universal Declaration of Human Rights - The General Assembly of the United Nations adopts and proclaims the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 16, section (1) states:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family [to procreate]. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

1942, June - Skinner v. Oklahoma - In a ruling dealing with sterilization of criminals (316 U.S. 535,541), the Supreme Court writes:

But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause .... We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

1927, May - Buck v. Bell (274 U.S. 200) - In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a Virginia statute providing for the sexual sterilization of inmates [making them unable to procreate] of institutions supported by the State who shall be found to be afflicted with an hereditary form of insanity or imbecility, is within the power of the State under the Fourteenth Amendment concerning due process.

1908, Feb - Muller v. State of Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 - In a decision about state laws regulating how many hours a woman can work at a business or factory, the Supreme Court writes:

Even [... if on ...] an absolutely equal plane with [a man/husband], it would still be true that [a woman/wife] is so constituted that she will rest upon and look to him for protection; that her physical structure and a proper discharge of her maternal functions [e.g., procreation] - having in view not merely her own wealth, but the well-being of the race [the state interest] - justify legislation to protect her from the greed as well as the passion of man.

1904, Mar - Tinker v. Colwell - In a ruling dealing with criminal conversations between a husband and wife, the Supreme Court writes:

Many of the cases hold that the essential injury to the husband consists in the defilement of the marriage bed, in the invasion of his exclusive right to marital intercourse with his wife and to beget his own children [procreation]. This is a right of the highest kind, upon the thorough maintenance of which the whole social order rests, and in order to the maintenance of the action it may properly be described as a property right.

1863 - Journal of Discourses of the Mormon Church - the Journals were written by the Founding Fathers of the Mormon Church, which according to the Mormon religion makes these writings the word of God. The Mormon Church to this date has not changed this view of the Discourses. Now, one of the leading opponents of samesex marriage is the Mormon Church, partly because samesex couples can't procreate, and procreation is oh so important to the Mormons. If the couple is white, that is, for a nasty secret of the Mormon church is the racism at the heart of their beliefs. Volume 10, page 110 of the Discourses, states the following bit of pure hate and evil from Brigham Young ("Cain" refers to black people):

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Until the Mormon Church removes this sentence from their writings and denounces the evil and hate in this sentence, Mormon views on marriage and ethics should be ignored.

1801 - Louis de Bonald - Along with Edmund Burke and others, de Bonald is a conservative author writing of the dangers of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. In his book, On Divorce, in Chapter 4, Of Marriage, he writes:

Marriage is the commitment made by two people of different sexes to unite in order to form a society called the family.

.... Thus, as long as the husband and wife have no children, they could still arrive; and since marriage is formed only for the children who are to come, there is no reason to break the marriage. Once the children have arrived, the marriage has attained its goal, and there is a reason not to break the marriage; for it is to be noted that impotence is not proved against the wife, even in the case of infertility.

In a word, the reason for marriage is the production of children [procreation].

.... [p]olitical power only intervenes in the spouses' contract of union because it represents the unborn child, which is the sole social object [procreation] of marriage, and because it accepts the commitment made by the spouses in its presence and under its guarantee to bring that child into being [procreation].

1690 - John Locke - In his book, Second Treatise on Government, in Chapter 7, Of Political or Civil Society, he writes:

78. Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman, and though it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another's bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation, yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common offspring, who have a right to be nourished and maintained by them till they are able to provide for themselves.

79. For the end of conjunction between male and female being not barely procreation, but the continuation of the species, this conjunction betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so long as it is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained by those that got them till they are able to shift and provide for themselves. This rule, which the infinite wise Maker hath set to the works of Her hands, we find the inferior creatures steadily obey. ......

83. For all the ends of marriage being to be obtained under politic government, as well as in the state of Nature, the civil magistrate doth not abridge the right or power of [husband or wife], naturally necessary to those ends - viz., procreation and mutual support and assistance whilst they are together, but only decides any controversy that may arise between man and wife about them.....

1522 - "The Estate of Marriage" - noted Protestant leader Martin Luther writes an essay on marriage, in which he states amongst other things:

... In the second place, after God made man and woman he blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiple." [Genesis 1:28] From this passage we may be assured that man and woman should and must come together in order to multiply [procreate]. ... since God give [this command] his blessing and does something over and above the act of creation [procreation]. ... For this word which God speaks, "Be fruitful and multiply" [procreate], is not a command. It is more than a command, namely, a divine ordinance which is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore.

1260s - "Summa Theologica" - In the First Part of Summa Theologica, "Treatise on Man", Question 92 "The Production of The Woman", Thomas Aquinas (another prolific Christian author) writes on why women were created:

It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation [procreation].

In Question 44 of the Supplement to Summa Theologica, titled "Of the Definition of Matrimony", Aquinas' thoughts on marriage are summarized (by a colleague after his death) in Article 1 as follow:

I answer that, a joining denotes a kind of uniting, and so whenever things are united there must be a joining. .... Hence, since by marriage certain persons are directed to one begetting [procreation] and upbringing of children, and again to one family life, it is clear that matrimony there is a joining in respect of which we speak of husband and wife; and this joining, through being directed to some one thing, is matrimony, while the joining together of bodies and minds is a result of matrimony.

.... But the relations of matrimony, on the one hand, have unity in both extremes, namely on the part of the cause, since it is directed to the one identical begetting [procreation]; whereas on the part of the subject there is numerical diversity. The fact of this relation having a diversity of subjects is signified by the terms "husband" and "wife", while its unity is denoted by its being called matrimony.

1140 - The Marriage of Jesus and his beloved John - Saint Aelred, abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Rievaulx, writes in his book De speculo caritatis about the "gay marriage" of Jesus and the "disciple whom Jesus loved" ("One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; ... So, lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to [Jesus], "Lord, who is it [who will betray you]?", John 13:23-25 (RSV):

We can enjoy this in the present with those whom we love not merely with our minds but with our hearts; for some are joined to us more intimately and passionately than others in the lovely bond of spiritual friendship. And lest this sort of sacred [homosexual] love should seem improper to anyone, Jesus himself, in everything like us, patient and compassionate with us in every matter, transfigured it through the expression of his own love: for he allowed on, not all, to recline on his breast as a sign of his special love, so that the virgin head was supported in the flowers of the virgin breast, and the closer they were, the more copiously did the fragrant secrets of the heavenly marriage impart the sweet smell of spiritual chrism to their virgin love.

Although all the disciples were blessed with the sweetness of the greatest love of he most holy master, nonetheless he conceded as a privilege to one alone this symbol of a more intimate love, that he should be called the "disciple whom Jesus loved". (from "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality" by John Boswell, page 226).

Not surprisingly, none of this about Catholic Saint Aelred is mentioned in the entry for Aelred in the Catholic Encyclopedia, or in Catholic discussions of gay marriage.

410 - "On Marriage and Concupiscence" - Augustine of Hippo, an early prolific Christian author, writes circa 410 about marriage:

Book I, Chapter 5: The union, then, of male and female for the purpose of procreation is the natural good of marriage. ... With respect, however, to what I ascribed to the nature of marriage, that the male and female are united together as associates for procreation, .... For they entertain the firm purpose of generating offspring [procreate] to be regenerated -- that the children who are born of them as "children of the world" may be born again and become "sons of God".

Book I, Chapter 17: It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children [procreation], which is not sinful; it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring [procreation] is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance.

Book I, Chapter 18: Forasmuch, then, as marriage cannot be such that of the primitive men might have been, if sin had not preceded; it may be like that of the holy fathers of olden time, .... for the sole purpose of assisting in the procreation of children.

Not to say the Augustine wasn't all serious. In his book, "De Ordine", he writes: "Taking away prostitutes from human affairs would stir up all licentiousness." Yes, prostitutes help keep everyone else moral.

342 - Theodosian Code 9.7.3 - Law 9.7.3 of the Theodosian code, an attempt to organize the laws of the Roman Empire, for the first time outlaws gay marriages, "when a man marries as a woman who offers herself to men" ("quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam").

---

150s - early Christian scholar Justin writes:

We Christians either marry only to produce children [procreate], or, if we refuse to marry, are completely continent.

---

57 - "First Letter to the Corinthians" - Saul of Tarsus (then to be Saint Paul), who invents much of the foundation of Christianity, writes about marriage (despite being a closeted homosexual. The problem for later Christians writing about marriage is that Paul strongly believes that Jesus is to return in Paul's life ("the appointed time has grown very short") and end everything - so there is little reason to get married, let alone get married to have children. That is, there is no connection between marriage and procreation. So when modern Christians argue the exact opposite using other parts of the Bible, they are contradicting Paul. For the most part, these two views of Biblical marriage ethics cancel each other out. Paul writes in Chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians:

8. To the unmarried and the widows I say it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. .... 25. Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26. I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. 27. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. .... Yet those who will marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. 29. I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, .... for the form of this world is passing away.

32. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. .... 38. So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

His hatred of marriage (when he wasn't busy advocating that evil inventors be killed) was paralleled by another early Christian leader, Jerome, who in commenting on why widows shouldn't remarry, says of marriage in a letter to a widow, writes: "Why will you again swallow [get married again] what has disagreed with you? 'The dog is turned to his own vomit again and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.'".

Finally, Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong has a provocative theory that Saint Paul, pretty much the founder of Christian tenets, was a closet homosexual. Go figure.

---

20-50 - Stoics - procreation only in marriage - Much like other parts of the Bible, the New Testament's view of marriage and procreation are borrowed from Greek philosophy. The later Stoic philosophers Antipater, Hierocles, Musonius and Seneca argued that nature designed humans for heterosexual marriage. Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Elder) and then Musonius Rufus argued a strict view of procreation: sex is only proper within marriage, and even then only to achieve procreation. For example, Musonius writes in his "The Chief End of Marriage":

The husband and wife, he [Musonius] used to say, should come together for the purpose of making a life in common and of procreating children, ... The birth of a [procreated] human being which results from such a union is to be sure something marvelous, ...

Such attitudes evolved and were adopted by the early Christian church, as nicely documented in The Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics and Political Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christianity by Kathy Gaca, UCal Berkeley Press, 2003, with a nice book review by Amy Richlin of UCLA.

---

---

---

2001, Sum - "Multiply and Replenish: Considering Same Sex Marriage in Light of State Interests in Marital Procreation - by law professor Wardle of Brigham Young University, in the Summer 2001 edition of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. In a lengthy essay, Prof. Wardle condemns same sex marriage, for which one key issue she repeatedly emphasizes is the connection between procreation and marriage. Her Mormon ties to racism undermine, though, any ethics she argues. Until she helps eradicate racism from the Mormon church, she should shut up about the ethics of samesex marriage. She writes:

At least eight social interests (or groups of interests, since all of these interests are multifaceted) for marriage can be identified that relate to proposals for legalizing same sex marriage or domestic partnership. These include (1) safe sexual relations; (2) responsible procreation; (3) optimal child rearing; ....

The first three public purposes of marriage - the social interests in safe sex, responsible procreation, and optimal child rearing - are closely linked in our laws and social policies, just as they are closely linked in life. They are linked by human nature - "the ties of nature" - as Blackstone put it. ....

The balance of this Essay presents some of the evidence and analysis showing the importance of the contributions of traditional male-female marriage to the social interests in procreation, to suggest why it is very unlikely that advocates of legalizing same-sex marriage can show that same-sex unions make comparable contributions to achieving social interests in procreation. ....

Society has a compelling interest in preserving the institution that best advances the social interests in responsible procreation, and that institution is traditional male-female marriage. ... The social interests in procreation that are furthered by laws defining marriage as exclusively male-female unions include (1) perpetuation [procreation] and survival of the species; (2) public health and child welfare; (3) linking procreation with child rearing and connecting parents to offspring, and (4) protecting the social order and social institution that best fosters responsible procreation. ....

Irresponsible procreative behavior by persons afflicted with some serious diseases or genetic conditions may result in the birth of children afflicted with severe health problems, including deadly diseases and blindess. ....

Society also has an interest in linking procreation to child rearing. Because human childhood dependency is long lasting (legally presumed to last eighteen years) and labor intensive, the social consequences of procreation are substantial. ....

Thus, the third important social interest in procreation is to ensure that persons whose sexual behavior has resulted in the procreation of human children accept and fulfull the responsibility of parenting the children they have generated [procreated]. ....

Traditional male-female marriage is the institution that has functioned most consistently to facilitate, support and protect responsible human procreation. Deep historic and cultural linkage connects marriage with procreation. Society has compelling interests in protecting the social institution that has best furthured social interests in procreation, in maintaining the clear social identity of that institution, and in preserving the linkage that institution forges among sex, procreation, and child rearing.

American lawmakers have long regulated marriage in the interest of procreative health. .... Social interests in healthful procreation are furthered in other ways by marriage. ....

Traditional marriage facilitates procreation by increasing the relational commitment, complementarity, and stability needed for the long term responsibilities that result from procreation. .... Thus, for the sake of the child's bonds with its parents, procreation is best when it occurs within an existing, committed permanent, complementary relationship between the child's father and mother - that is, within marriage. ....

Traditional marriage strengthens the social interest in channeling and limiting procreative sexual behavior to responsible relationships of parental commitment and complementarity. More clearly than any other institution, traditional male-female marriage clearly links sexual behavior with child rearing through procreation. ....

However, that the procreative expectations and attitudes of many modern married couples are changing, does not mean that the link between procreation and marriage is disappearing. ... Likewise, it seems that most marrying persons still have the legally supported expectation that their prospective spouses will use their procreative capacities exclusively with the marriage partner during the marriage. Thus, procreation is still linked with marriage in the public mind. ....

Where is the convincing evidence that homosexual unions contribute to the social interest in procreation comparable to the traditional male-female marriage? What are their contributions to procreative interests of survival, health, parental connection to offspring, and social order? How will legalizing same-sex marriage enhance the institution which has best facilitated responsible human procreation, protected the social identity of that institution, and strengthened the linkage that institution forges among sex, procreation, and child rearing? ....

The most fundamental difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions and same sex unions with regard to procreation is that most heterosexual couples can for many years procreate as a couple (unless age, infirmity, or intervention has deprived one or both parties of fertility), but no same sex couple can ever procreate. Same sex human couples are categorically unable to procreate as unions. This difference relates directly to the social interests in procreation that justify the exclusive legal preference for heterosexual marriage. ....

Legalizing same sex marriage would weaken the nexus between procreation and parenting. ... The further separation of procreation from marriage implicit in legalization of same sex marriage would send a cultural message of parental disconnection from family duties that could further diminish the level of responsibility of absent parents. ....

Legalizing same sex marriage would undoubtedly increase litigation and conflict over child rearing. Procreative and parental rights claims by gay and lesbian partners of biological parents would mushroom, and they could only be satisfied at the expense of the parental rights of the actual biological [procreative] parents. ....

Certainly it is true that neither all married couples procreate nor do any states require marriage applicants to show ability to procreate. Nevertheless, the social interest is not that every married couple produce offspring. ....

First, same sex couples are categorically incapable of procreating with each other, but male-female couples are categorically capable of procreating with each other. Male-female married couples are clearly linked to procreation because they have the categorical potential to procreate. ... Same sex couples, in contradistinction, are permanently incapable of human reproduction. Changing their mind will not make them procreative couples. Allowing infertile heterosexual couples to marry but not same sex couples conveys a clear message of public policy - that responsible procreation is an important purpose of marriage, and that procreation should take place only within marriage. ... The procreative incapacity of any particular male-female couple due to sterilization, contraception, age or infirmity has not - in five thousand years of human history - confused or impaired the uniquitous understanding that male-female marriage is a potentially procreative union. On the other hand, to allow same sex couples to marry would seriously impair, confuse, and destroy the common understanding of the institution of marriage as a procreative union. ....

In many jurisdictions same sex and other couples may obtain children by means of medically assisted reproduction techniques such as artificial insemination, or by adoption. However, even in assisted procreation and adoption, the same sex couple are not procreating (with each other), nor can they ever produce offspring [procreate]. ... Since individuals in same sex unions can procreate only by leaving the union to couple (intimately or by utilizing assisted reproduction technology) with someone of the opposite sex, such technology does not show that same sex unions contribute anything to the social interest in procreation. ....

Moreover, legalizing same sex marriage would not strengthen in any way the social interest in procreation or preservation of the link between procreation and child rearing because same sex couples cannot procreate. ....

CONCLUSION

... This Essay has demonstated that advocates of same sex marriage have not produced and are unlikely to be able to produce evidence that same sex marriage unions have potential comparable to that of traditional male-female marriage to contribute toward fulfilling the social interest in procreation. Traditional male-female marriage furthers social interests in procreation including (1) physical survival and perpetuation of the species; (2) public health and child welfare; (3) linking procreation with child rearing and connecting parents to offspring; and (4) protecting the social order and social institution that hest fosters responsible procreation. Society has a compelling interest in preserving the clear social identity of the institution that historically has best advanced the social interests in responsible procreation, that best links procreation and child rearing, and that best bonds parents with their offspring. Not only do same sex unions not make comparable contributions to achieving the social interests in responsible procreation, but legalizing same sex marriage would weaken the institution best able to achieve those social interests. Claims for legalization of same sex marriage are, therefore, unjustified in terms of overall contributions to compelling social interests in, or any rational public policies relating to, responsible procreation, and should be rejected.