The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

As far as definitions go:the definition of DOMA you have is from framers of the bill. The fact is that the bill does more than make it so that a state is not forced to recognize same sex marriage. It ensures that no state (even one that legalises same sex marriage) can recognize same sex marriage. There are 1,138 federal rights for married couples. Gay couples in California and Massachusetts, where marriage is recognized, are given state benefits, but are not afforded the 1,000+ federal benefits. This is the fault of the DOMA. I use your sources, because we say the same thing. I, of course, give the whole story. I accept your definition of marriage to this point. __________ Here are some points I've forgotten: 4. DOMA violates state's rights. The 10th amendment guarantees state's rights. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) There are 1,138 federal marriage benefits. However, DOMA makes it impossible for the state to give same sex couples these rights. This clearly violates the state's rights to regulate marriage as it chooses. 5. The DOMA is a reaction to the FACT that banning same sex marriage equality is unconstitutional. Hawaii had realised that same sex marriage inequality was unconstitutional. In a reaction, the federal government decided to make a law to make sure that states were not binded to listen to the constitution. However, a law cannot overrule the Constitution. Just more proof of the unconstitutionality of DOMA. (http://www.answers.com...) 1. A) CON says that DOMA does not force any state to deny any person protectino of its marriage laws. But this is unrealistic. Realistic science tells us that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is not a choice. (http://www.apa.org...) (http://www.healthyminds.org...) To deny gay, lesbian or bisexual persons the right to marry who they want to is to discriminate against them. Because it is unfair and unrealistic to expect a gay, lesbian, or bisexual person to marry a heterosexual person. Giving a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person the option only to marry a person of the opposite sex is no different than giving heterosexuals the right only to marry people of the same sex. It is discriminatory and unfair and it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. B) DOMA is an obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause, because it makes heterosexual marriages and sam sex marriages unequal. A heterosexual marriage gets 1,138 federal benefits that a same sex marriage is not allowed to get due to the unfair law of DOMA. (http://equalitywithoutmarriage.org...) C) CON states that "equal protection does not mean that all people get all protections of all laws." This is true. However, Supreme Court cases in the past have proved that it is unconstitutional to discriminate against homosexuals in a way that takes away civil rights. Those cases include the famous sodomy case, Lawrence vs. Texas, and the civil rights case, Romer vs. Evans. (http://www.nyblade.com...) D) Also, previous cases have shown that marriage is a civil right protected by the Constitution. The best example is the case of Loving vs. Virginia. The opinino of the court unanimously is that marriage is a civil right. (http://www.law.umkc.edu...) 2. A) CON says "it may very well be argued that same sex unions lack the same benefits and protections as marriages." Well, I am. DOMA takes away 1,138 federal marriage benefits from same sex couples. If this is not unequal, nothing can be considered unequal. B) It is discriminatory to say that gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons must marry a person of the opposite sex. It would be equally discriminatory to force heterosexuals to marry persons of the same sex. This violates the Equal Protection Clause. C) DOMA is discriminatory. It does not allow the federal government to recognize same sex marriages, which is not equal protection under the laws. 3. A) The fact that DOMA defines "marriage" a certain way does not mean anything, because the entire law is unconstitutional. B) If Massachusetts defines "marriage" on their own terms, they are doing so for the purpose of their state. The definition of "marriage" in Massachusetts is altered to give same sex married couples state marriage benefits, which is the evident right of the state. If Massachusetts defines marriage as one way, it is the duty of all 50 states to recognize the marriage license. This is the purpose of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause." C) Finally, Congress does not have the power to decide exactly when and which licences are in effect. The Congress can only generally say that certain licences are unrecognized. The Full Fath and Credit Clause allows the Congress to make "general laws" about the application of licences. However, DOMA attempts to tell when marriage is allowed and when marriage is not specifically. D) Also, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is still CLEARLY violated. Because sure, DOMA defines "marriage" a certain way for the federal government. But if California defines "marriage" to include same sex couples, then it is still the responsibility of Georgia to recognize that marriage. The DOMA allows states to ignore other states' marriage licenses. --- There are 1,138 federal marriage rights and DOMA takes away those federal rights from same sex couples. This is blatant inequality. And Loving vs. Virginia has ensured that equal marriage is basic civil right. While discriminating against homosexuals has been proved unconstitutional by cases including Romer vs. Evans and Lawrence vs. Texas. Finally, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals should be afforded equal rights in marriage, because it is unreasonable to expect them to join a heterosexual union, just like it is not reasonable to expect heterosexuals marry a person of their sex.