Comments:Supreme Court of the United States contemplates same-sex marriage

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Same sex marriage123:56, 25 April 2023
Same Sex Marriage - marriage only for conception?119:40, 23 June 2013

Same sex marriage

Please explain to me how same sex couples do not have the same legal rights as everyone else, except legal marriage. My question is: If the majority of people vote for something they feel is right, why is it ok for the court to overturn that law? Do we really live in a democracy? Most people don't think of the unintended consequences of making gay marriage legal. (talk)04:11, 1 April 2013

I just have to wonder what these "unintended consequences" are supposed to be. The frogs will become gay?

Heavy Water (talk)23:56, 25 April 2023

Same Sex Marriage - marriage only for conception?

I think that the proponent view for the Defence of Marriage Act that marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage's intent is to concieve and raise children is going to be a hard sell. The idea that this is the only reason people get married seems to strike me as a very long reach. If this were the case, then why don't we deny marriage licenses to couples that have no intention of every having kids? Or to seniors that want to get married, knowing that they'll never be any kids out of that union? However, I don't think the court is going to make a sweeping, national type of ruling. I think they don't want to make it a national referedum, like the Roe v. Wade decision was. I think it'll be kept local to the CA case only at this point. (talk)17:17, 27 March 2013

Very true! It's a very outdated excuse for inequality the "marriage is for procreation" argument. I think that the vast majority of people nowadays agree that love is the important factor in marriage not sex!

Tmaester (talk)19:40, 23 June 2013