Comments on: Why the Supreme Court May Not Recognize Same-Gender Marriage

By: Debra

Debra — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:42:04 +0000

“..the Supreme Court’s hesitation stems from the idea of creating monumental changes to societal practices in one fell swoop”. “There was a genuine concern about going too far, too fast,” … Thank the greater power in the universe that President Lincoln wasn’t “hesitant” or “concerned” when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation”…talk about a monumental change to societal practices! It took some folks a while to come around to that one…but it was still the right thing to do. If all are CREATED EQUAL…all should enjoy equal rights. By definition, doesn’t having a larger membership (married couples) make the institution stronger… regardless of race, creed, gender, ability or sexual orientation? That’s the true defense of marriage.

By: Luke Visconti

Luke Visconti — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:14:57 +0000

I found Justice Alioto's comments to be particularly out of touch. I expect more from a Supreme Court Justice. Luke Visconti, CEO, DiversityInc

By: Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey

Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:52:07 +0000

Justice Alioto said “Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years”? Even for Alioto, that’s a shockingly inaccurate statement. Polygamy is if anything an even older tradition, still legal in many of this world’s countries; concubinage is almost as old; and many nominally Christian countries have institionalized the mistress as a recognized status.

The American-style DOMA marriage (one man, one woman, theoretically monogamous, recognized [or even performed] and regulated by the state) is a fairly new innovation, and judging by this country’s divorce rates it may arguably be said to be breaking down on its own without the legalization of gay marriage in most states and territories.