For the second straight day, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments on same-sex marriage.
And, for the second or third consecutive day, many Facebook users have changed either their profile photo or their cover photo to that of a pink equal sign on a red background.
We wanted to know why some folks are choosing to use this graphic and why others are not, so we asked. Here are what some Racine County readers had to say about it:
Gay marriage supporters
Jason Caira said he's using it to show his support of gay marriage because he has family members who are gay.
Area resident Jeff Woosley says he's using the symbol because he believes in full equality under the law.
"(I use it) to demonstrate solidarity with friends who the law and many people keep trying to say aren't deserving of the rights and privileges entitled to ALL Americans," he posted. "Civil rights should always trump bigotry."
Likewise, Kelly Gallaher of Mount Pleasant is using the photo because she wants all families to have the same rights and responsibilities under the law.
"I changed my profile picture because I support LGBT rights, but also because I believe the legal benefits and responsibilities afforded heterosexual marriages and their families must be extended to ALL families," she wrote. "The children and spouses in same sex marriages have the right to the same health and pension benefits, the ability to make health decisions and tax benefits I receive. All families are equal, all families should be treated the same."
Katie Uszler didn't change her profile photo, but she is using the equal sign graphic as her Facebook cover photo.
"Mine isn't my profile pic but it's my cover photo. I support equality for everyone. Just because a person is lgbt doesn't mean that they don't deserve equal rights. The love is the same. This isn't about the religious views of marriage," she posted. "This is about the rights married couples have and that no one should define marriage through a person's sexuality."
Gay marriage opponents
Caledonia resident Eddie Willing posted a different photo (attached to this story), one which features the equal sign and describes it as two indistinguishable pieces that "shall forever remain apart." The photo also features the two bars assembled as a cross, calling it two "different orientations which fuse perfectly into one single shape."
Willing told Patch that his stance on the subject is a little different from those strictly opposed on religious grounds.
"In a democratic society, the local laws reflect the local culture. And since the rights of marriage are essentially able to be duplicated, legally, I don't see the point in messing with it. But if my region changes, I don't think a national government should stop that or impose its will on us," he wrote. "I'm just saying that marriage is a church thing, a union is a government thing. So I acknowledge the position of the homosexual community on a legal basis, but recognize that traditional marriage is my religious conviction and has been tradition for thousands of years for most of mankind."
Michelle Sauer agrees, adding that if she wasn't required by law to get a license, she'd just get married in her church and move on with her life.
If the Supreme Court wants to make that piece of paper accessible to any couple, gay or straight, that's perfectly fine. But call it what it is, a civil union. Gay couple or straight couple, call that legal binding a civil union because it is literally a contract signed by two people for government recognition. Marriage, as laid forth by God and held up by the Church should be left out of government hands because it was established long before that paper was.
Tony Gulbrandsen does object on religous grounds, seeing gay marriage as a sin condemned by God, and, therefore, not to be sanctioned by government.
I am opposed to a government endorsement of gay marriage for the same reason I am opposed to a government endorsement of murder. I am opposed to a government endorsement of gay marriage for the same reason I am opposed to a government endorsement of lying. My position comes from a simple understanding of the Holy Bible. There is no distinction of sin in the Bible (Romans 3:23). And every sin is equal in that every sin, in God's eyes, has earned the death penalty (Romans 6:23). The government should not endorse that which God condemns. I believe Paul was very serious when he said that Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). All that to say that whether our government decides to endorse sin or not is not the point. It is about sin that needs forgiveness. It is about a death sentence that needs mercy. It is about unworthy people needing God's grace. And we are all unworthy sinners who deserve death.
After hearing challenges in the two cases, the high court could issue a ruling on same-sex marriage by the end of June.