Introduction Nowadays we live in the world, which is developing under the conditions of globalization and integration. Unarguably, these processes make a significant influence not only on the world politics and economy but also on the social stability, speeding up the dissemination of ideas and opinions, promoting discussions and debates as well as encouraging people to take active position in the social problems solving. Sexuality, marriage, and gay rights are actual social issues, the views of people on which are significantly divided. In this diversity of opinions with their own arguments it is difficult to give a precise answer what will be right doing and what will be wrong doing regarding these problems. It should be mentioned that the issues above mentioned did not appear in the modern time, quite the contrary; they have the long roots in the mankind history. Briefly stating, the attitude to the same-sex marriages was different in various parts of the ancient world including moral and ethical aversion of these marriages by the religious confessions and Christianity, in particular, along with Samurais tradition of homosexual relationships in ancient Japan, and the existence of the same-sex marriages in ancient India and China. Modern Pro and Cons Arguments The dissemination of democratic and liberal views in the world has led to the process of legalization of the same-sex marriages. The pro arguments essentially boil down to the promotion and protection of the freedom of personality, which is considered the key value of democratic society. The supremacy of law and protection of people right lie in the heart of the protection of the freedom of personality. “Part of the basis of democratic government in the United States is a system of checks and balances, based on the liberal democratic assumption that the rights of the minority are to be protected from the tyranny of the majority” (Riggle and Barry 2). Mohr states that there is a distinct possibility that “it will be through America’s engagement with lesbian and gay issues that the nation will decide whether it is fundamentally committed to the general values of liberty and equality,…. or whether the nation is committed to some specific vision of what constitutes proper living—be it Leftist or Rightist, populist or elitist, secular or religious, but which in any case the nation is willing to impose upon everyone” (Mohr 2) Mohr explanation of the problem provides the background for the debates around it. Michael Mello cites the opinion of Margaret Marshall, the Chief Justice, who touches upon the problem of children adoption and upbringing by same sex-unions (Mello 8). “Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples prevents the children of same-sex unions “from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized” (Mello 8). Marshall’s idea is unarguably based on the democratic principles; those which all of us are strive for. After all, the society should always care for children well-being and secure their happy childhood. Margaret continues her idea stating that “it cannot be “rational under our laws to penalize children by depr