Supreme Court and gay marriage
- Our view
- Opposing view
- Here's what readers said on Facebook and Twitter at USA TODAY:
- Listen to audio excerpts of the Supreme Court gay marriage case:
- No. Why is marriage only MF? I've heard arguments from "it's always been that way" - at one point it had "always been that way" that women couldn't vote - to "marriage exists for the purpose of supporting children" - What if 2 hetero's get married and *choose* not to have children, is that marriage "not a marriage"? What if they *can't* have children?. Some conservatives say that allowing MM or FF marriages "diminish" their own marriages. Do you really think you'll love your spouse less because Adam and Steve (or Madam and Eve) get married?
- I agree that we need to separate the church way of thinking and the civil way of thinking. The civil marriage is different from the church marriage.The church does not have sole rights to the term marriage. In fact, civil marriage existed before church marriage. However, in the modern world a civil marriage is not differentiated from a church marriage, except in the case of same sex couples.All that is being asked is to allow same sex couples the same benefits and protections under the law as opposite sex couples.To the best of my knowledge, no one is asking the government to force priests to marry a same sex couple.
- Conversations outside of USA TODAY: