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.