Comments:Supreme Court of the United States contemplates same-sex marriage
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Same Sex Marriage - marriage only for conception?||1||19:40, 23 June 2013|
|Same sex marriage||0||04:11, 1 April 2013|
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.
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.