Vaughn R. Walker, Perry v. Schwarzenegger — 4:Proponents' Defense of Proposition 8 (2010)
“ Because same-sex couples' sexual activity does not lead to procreation, according to proponents the state has no interest in encouraging their sexual activity to occur within a stable marriage. Thus, according to proponents, the state's only interest is in opposite-sex sexual activity. ”
Vaughn R. Walker, Perry v. Schwarzenegger — 4:Proponents' Defense of Proposition 8 (2010)
“ Denial of marriage to same-sex couples protects children; The ideal child-rearing environment requires one male parent and one female parent; Marriage is different in nature depending on the sex of the spouses, and an opposite-sex couple's marriage is superior to a same-sex couple's marriage; and Same-sex couples' marriages redefine opposite-sex couples' marriages. ”
Vaughn R. Walker, Perry v. Schwarzenegger — 4:Proponents' Defense of Proposition 8 (2010)
“ Perhaps recognizing that Proposition 8 must advance a secular purpose to be constitutional, proponents abandoned previous arguments from the campaign that had asserted the moral superiority of opposite-sex couples. Instead, in this litigation, proponents asserted that Proposition 8:Maintains California's definition of marriage as excluding same-sex couples; Affirms the will of California citizens to exclude same-sex couples from marriage; Promotes stability in relationships between a man and a woman because the naturally (and at times unintentionally) produced children ”
