Saving Marriage as a Fundamental Institution Recognized by the State: CCCB Brief to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitution and Legal Affairs, July 13, 2005.

(...) As we have seen, however, marriage is a great deal more than a relationship of interdependence between consenting adults. It aims at much more than the well-being and fulfillment of the partners. It possesses another constituent element, namely, the procreative potential of the man and woman who are making the commitment.

The sexual relationship between two men or two women is not equivalent to the sexual relationship between a man and a woman because they do not have the biological capacity to generate new lives.

It must also be added that with regard to education of children, the same values cannot reasonably be attributed to both types of union. The principal right of children is to be born of an act of love and to live in complete communion with a father and mother.

Therefore, it is neither unjust nor discriminatory to name and treat differently two realities that are so intrinsically different both anatomical and psychoaffective perspective. On the contrary, it would be unjust and discriminatory toward married heterosexual couples to treat them this way.

The State must accord special treatment to a man and woman who marry, not because of the exclusivity, dependence, duration or sexual nature of their union, but because of its vital function of procreation and its function of socialization that encourages complementarity between man and woman for the greater good of their children. (...)

Letter to the Honourable Members of the Senate and the Members of the House of Commons: Proposed changes to the meaning and nature of marriage, June 2, 2005.

(...) It is in the interest of the state to retain the possibility of fostering, protecting and encouraging the type of relationships that are most beneficial to it – conjugal relationships between a man and a woman – unions whose procreative potential generates new citizens and thus ensures our collective future.(...)

CCCB Factum to the Supreme Court of Canada Regarding the Federal Government Reference on Marriage, August 6, 2004 (PDF format).

(...) Respected Canadian ethicist Margaret Somerville has it right when she notes: "Marriage involves the public recognition of the spouses' relationship and commitment to each other but that recognition is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of a human life and to protect and promote the well being of the family that results. It is not a recognition of the relationship just for its own sake or for the sake of the partners to the marriage, as it would necessarily become were marriage to be extended to include same-sex couples." (...)