All eyes are now in the U.S. Supreme Court as it discusses same-sex marriage for the second consecutive day. With the court's nine justices questioning the constitutionality of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Washington Post reports that there is a chance the court may strike the DOMA which limits the definition of marriage between one man and one woman.

Outside the court, the Supreme Court debate has attracted a number of people who are most in favour of repealing DOMA.

DOMA, approved in 1996, stopped gay couples who married in nine states to enjoy the same federal rights and benefits that heterosexual pairs enjoy.

Edith Windsor, 83, challenged before the Supreme Court Section 3 of DOMA, claiming it is discriminatory because it limits marriage to male and female couples. Ms Windsor was ordered to pay federal inheritance taxes of $363,000 in 2009 after the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer, whom she married in Canada in 2007.

The debate over same-sex marriage continues to rage across the country, even as several Supreme Court justices indicated on Tuesday they are not in a rush to issue a landmark decision which would affect all 50 states.

Cartoonists across the country see gay unions as a rich minefield to share their thoughts on the controversial subject, but in a humorous way without deflecting from the central message that it is time for a change.

Since marriage is traditionally between male and female couples, even marriages of that kind have their own same-sex issues, meaning same routine every time they shack up in bed.

which some gay couples are now beginning to also experience.

But for long-time married couples, it actually meant a platonic relationship.

Actually, the discrimination that gay couples are going through was experienced by white and black heterosexual couples years back.

It would be recalled that the White House initially opposed Ms Windsor's legal challenge to repeal Section 3 but since then, U.S. President Barack Obama who has been accused of not lifting a finger for gay unions, have changed sides,

leaving the battle against same-sex marriages to the Republicans and some rightist groups.

If the court's decision would favour same-sex unions, it would involve a lot of change in thinking from parents of future brides

to friends of the two grooms

and even bakers.

A common complaint of same-sex couples who want to marry but couldn't or could not get the same federal benefits that heterosexual pairs get, is at the heart of their argument for recognition.

Gay couples pointed out that while in many cases, male or female pairs get hitched because they are truly in love, heterosexual couples' intention in tying the knot are often not questioned by society, even if the church or civil ceremony was motivated by financial reasons, the spirit of alcohol

or some other hidden agenda on the part of one or both partners.