Skinner v Oklahoma is one of the standard cases cited in defense of the
"fundamental right to marry." In this 1942 case, the Court stated, "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."

The facts of this case have nothing to do with marriage. Skinner stands for 
the idea that procreation is a central feature of marriage. Hence, Skinner
 supports natural marriage, not same sex marriage.

Mr. Skinner had been convicted of 3 felonies: two counts of armed robbery, 
one count of chicken theft. Under Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal 
Sterilization Act, these three felony convictions were sufficient for the 
state to sterilize him as a habitual criminal.

The state of OK did not propose to prohibit Mr. Skinner from ever getting
 married, only to render him incapable of ever siring children. Marriage was
 so closely linked to procreation in the Court's view, that rendering him
 sterile presented a serious barrier to him ever marrying.

The Court did not say what the advocates of same sex marriage imply that it
 said: that Mr. Skinner had the right to marry anyone he wanted.

What the court did plainly imply is that marriage and procreation are
 tightly linked, both in experience and in logic. By sterilizing Mr.
Skinner, the state of Oklahoma would make him "damaged goods" and unlikely 
to succeed in finding a marriage partner for himself.

Hence, this case really stands for an understanding of marriage that links 
marriage, sex and procreation. Skinner v Oklahoma took this position for 
granted. This case supports natural marriage.