The Supreme Court will hear two cases this week that could decide the future of gay marriage. Comments from Facebook:
I'm all for same-sex couples having all the same benefits that a traditional married couple does, and on a federal level. Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not. Marriage is between a a man and a woman. Coin a new word for "same-sex marriage." I'm not for the random changing of the definition of words in the dictionary.
What two consenting adults who love each other and want to spend their lives together want to do is fine with me. People who claim it will harm the "institution of marriage" need to do a gut check. Look at the divorce rate in this country.
Your Say Interactive: Where should gay marriage be headed
Gay people pay the same taxes as married people, yet are treated like second-class citizens. For the government to deny them equal rights and benefits is appalling.
Homosexuality is immoral behavior.
Sandy LJ Beach
People can believe what dogma they want, but it does not apply to everyone else. We all are not required to live by another person's beliefs.
The government should not be involved with marriages at all - just civil unions. What is so hard to comprehend? Marriage implies a social contract while a civil union represents a financial one.
Civil unions aren't the same as marriage.
Allowing gays to marry would be good for American civil society by allowing these couples to try to establish stable households. Stable households are better than unstable households.
David A DeFreese
Letters to the editor:
Leading Democrats, such as President Obama, Vice President Biden and former secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have had an evolutionary experience and now support same-sex marriage. But using the word evolution in this context only suggests a period of time and not a reasoned rationale.
Voters are entitled to know if the Democratic marriage revisionist movement is founded in a principled enlightenment or in political expediency. If the broadened definition of marriage is inclusive, non-discriminatory and welcoming to all, it is principled. If these marriage revisionists are selective and exclusionary, their expanded definition of holy matrimony is merely an attempt to garner votes.
USA TODAY reporters could help lift the veil regarding the definition of marriage by asking the obvious questions at news conferences. Does your revised definition of marriage also include consenting adults who are practicing polygamy? If not, why do you include some alternative marital life styles and exclude others? The answers would help voters discern what has evolved from the primordial swamp.
David L. Rose; Canton, Mich.
I am pleased that Hillary Clinton has joined the bandwagon in support of same-sex marriage. As long as two people are committed to one another, no government should stand in their way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If it were not for all the contributions made by our gay brothers and sisters, our world would not be the diverse and multifaceted universe it is. Instead of oppressing gays and lesbians, my suggestion is to love, embrace and celebrate them. And besides, Republicans are eager to talk the talk about a less intrusive government. It's time they walk the walk.
JoAnn Lee Frank; Clearwater, Fla.