Staver gives some reasons in his press release, which presumably LionsDen shares. Also, there is this, pursuant to Staver's appearance before a CA appellate court next Monday:
The two traditional-values lawsuits, which will be argued in the afternoon part of the court session, go a step farther than the attorney general's position in defending the state laws. They contend that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals because it "is socially and culturally a child-rearing institution.''
Mathew Staver, a Florida lawyer who will argue on behalf of the Campaign for California Families, said this week that what is at stake is "the best interests of children and the stability of the family.''
"If you look at human relationships, obviously men and woman procreate. That's how children are born,'' Staver said.
The attorney wrote in a brief submitted to the court that "marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for approbation and support, but about the well-being of children and society.''
By contrast, the state attorney general's office takes a middle ground, contending that the traditional definition of marriage can be justified in part because California is committed to providing equal rights and benefits through its domestic partner laws. * * *
The lawsuits by the traditional values groups, which were originally filed to halt the San Francisco marriages, were allowed to continue in Superior Court for the purpose of seeking validation of the state laws.
That's what Staver is arguing in CA next week. While what Staver says in his press release is technically true, he is only being allowed to address the appeals court on a very narrow issue related to one of two ancillary suits.
It's become typical of Staver to overstate his role in litigation, beginning with his very limited participation in one of the notorious Florida vote counting cases in November, 2000, which he exaggerated out of all reasonable proportion at the time.