Urging the Supreme Court not to legalize gay marriage for all 50 states, supporters of California Prop 8 say in a court brief that opposite-sex couples’ unique ability to procreate — thus benefiting society by “creating and nurturing the next generation” — provides states with a rational reason to define marriage in the traditional sense.

The 65-page opening brief by ProtectMarriage.com — the official proponents of Prop 8 — asserts that children need a mother and a father, and it even quotes President Obama, a supporter of gay marriage, as he underscored the need for fathers in children’s lives.

The Supreme Court will hear two cases March 26-27 that could either affirm the historical definition of marriage or legalize gay marriage for the entire nation. One case concerns a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage for the federal government, while the other case involves Prop 8, a 2008 state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It is the Prop 8 case that could lead to the most wide-sweeping ruling, potentially wiping out similar constitutional amendments and laws in 41 states — and, overnight, legalizing gay marriage. Currently, only nine states recognize gay marriage. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Prop 8.

The ProtectMarriage.com brief does not mention Roe v. Wade, the 1973 law that legalized abortion nationwide, but in a series of paragraphs it does make the argument that a Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage would be viewed as illegitimate by a large segment of the population — similar to how many people still view Roe. The ProtectMarriage.com brief even mentions that just last November, three states legalized gay marriage at the ballot. If gay marriage is to be legalized, it should be done by the people, not the courts, the brief says.

“Controversial social policy issues such as this are particularly well suited, of course, for the give and take of the democratic process, where individuals may persuade or be persuaded, and where broad public participation, compromise, and incremental change are not only possible but likely,” the brief states. “Decisions reached through this process are more likely to be regarded by a free people as legitimate and to be widely accepted than decisions reached in any other manner.”

Governments have not limited marriage to opposite-sex couples out of any hatred of gays, but instead out of a desire to ensure children are raised in stable homes, with a mother and father, the brief repeatedly states.

“The gendered definition of marriage has prevailed in all societies throughout human history not because of anti-gay animus but because marriage is closely connected to society’s vital interests in the uniquely procreative nature of opposite-sex relationships,” the brief says. “It has always been, and is now, supported by countless people of good faith who harbor no ill will toward gays and lesbians.”

States provide marriage licenses and benefits to opposite-sex couples because society has a “vital” interest in “responsibly creating and nurturing the next generation,” the brief states.

That unique ability to procreate can either help or harm a society, the brief asserts. It becomes harmful when children are born out of wedlock, without a mother or father, and grow up in an unstable home.

[Editor’s note: This article is incomplete. The source for this document was originally published on bpnews.net—however, the original URL is no longer available.]