The "Defense of Marriage Act" is an Orwellian piece of legislation in that it doesn't really defend marriage unless you define the term to mean something differently than what millions of Americans (including many faiths and now multiple state and local governments) have determined the word to mean. Also, fwiw, what I think it does mean. As the matter works its way through the courts, as was the case with DADT, political efforts are in place to correct the situation.
I was recently informed my senator was involved in introducing the title piece of legislation in the Senate. It is a truth in advertising sort of thing in that it true does have "respect for marriage." Wikipedia provides text for a House version:
When they do so illegitimately, proper court action and other pressure is appropriate. I'm vague there advisably. At some point, federal pressure (other than court action) would be appropriate too. Now, it's good to go somewhat slowly. The political situation seems to be going in a positive situation.
---
* As with other matters of local concern, the federal government does regulate marriage in certain instances, including means to obtain child support payments from parents who cross state lines. But, these are narrow situations, states regulating the matter overall. Thus, the 10A implications.
I was recently informed my senator was involved in introducing the title piece of legislation in the Senate. It is a truth in advertising sort of thing in that it true does have "respect for marriage." Wikipedia provides text for a House version:
(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State. (b) In this section, the term `State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United StatesThis is the right and constitutional path to take, Congress also having a duty to uphold the Constitution. But, shouldn't equal marriage rights be in place for all? As the website notes:
Nor does it obligate any person, state, locality, or religious organization to celebrate or license a marriage between two persons of the same sex. This legislation only requires the federal government to equally apply its policy of looking to the states in determining what legal relationships are eligible for federal benefits.D.C. has same sex marriage now via legislative action. Congress provides them local home rule and gave them the ability to do that. Puerto Rico, on the other hand, does not have same sex marriage, though it must follow the U.S. Constitution. And, I think it is unconstitutional for them to do that. But, marriage is also traditionally something handled locally. The federal government does not generally regulate marriage,* including singling out one class as not being part of it; this is one reason DOMA was so unique and misguided. Putting aside pragmatic considerations (which are important too), therefore, it is correct for the legislation to let localities define marriage.
When they do so illegitimately, proper court action and other pressure is appropriate. I'm vague there advisably. At some point, federal pressure (other than court action) would be appropriate too. Now, it's good to go somewhat slowly. The political situation seems to be going in a positive situation.
---
* As with other matters of local concern, the federal government does regulate marriage in certain instances, including means to obtain child support payments from parents who cross state lines. But, these are narrow situations, states regulating the matter overall. Thus, the 10A implications.