The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

I'd like to first thank the instigator for starting a debate on a topic that has certainly seen little light recently. Just so we're on the same page, let's define what the Defense of Marriage Act is. To quote http://www.lectlaw.com...: "The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex 'marriage.' Second, it defines the words 'marriage' and 'spouse' for purposes of Federal law." The full text of DOMA can be found here: http://en.wikisource.org.... I'd also like to put forth a definition of marriage as quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org...: "Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority." 1. The equal protection clause states that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." DOMA does not force any state to deny any person from experiencing the protection of its marriage laws, since all people have the right to enter into heterosexual union. What DOMA does do, is clarify marriage to be understood as a being between one man and one woman. As such, a law granting protections to a heterosexual marriage does not automatically carry over to that of a same sex union in the same way that a law granting protections to a biological mother does not automatically carry over to that of a legal guardian. Equal protection does not mean that all people get all protections of all laws. The states are still granted the power to modify legislation in order to grant the same protections to same sex unions as that which are currently granted to marriages. Since DOMA does not prevent states from improving same sex unions nor prevents anyone from entering into marriage, DOMA does not violate equal protection. 2. The parallel between DOMA and Loving vs. Virginia is not direct. DOMA simply clarifies terms "marriage" and "spouse." All citizens are allowed to marry the opposite sex; therefore, there is no loss of civil rights. Any citizen can choose to marry the opposite sex without discrimination by the state. It may very well be argued that same sex unions lack the same benefits and protections as marriages, but this is not an issue DOMA seeks to address. Whether a state's same sex union laws are in violation of civil rights is a separate issue that must be addressed separately. Since the DOMA does not prevent anyone from entering into marriage, it does not violate civil rights. 3. Let's look at the Full Faith and Credit Clause again. It states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." As mentioned by the proponent, this means that a marriage in one state must be recognized by another. DOMA does not violated Full Faith on two counts: a) Since DOMA defines marriage to mean a heterosexual union, the conflict is erased. States like Massachusetts may choose to call a same sex union marriage, but the United States Code will not recognize it. If Massachusetts insists on defining marriage in their own terms, they violate United States Code. If they concede that what Massachusetts calls marriage can be considered merely a same sex union in other states, then the same sex union carries over. Since DOMA redefines marriage on a national level, and since states enter into self-contradiction when attempted to redefine marriage on their own, DOMA does not interfere with the Full Faith and Credit Clause. b) The second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause grants Congress the power to determine how things like records carry over. In fact, Congress used the second sentence to justify DOMA in the first place. DOMA was passed by Congress to avoid possible conflicts between states recognizing marriage as same sex and those not. In other words, Congress passed the Act to protect state rights. Since DOMA is permitted by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, it does not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Since DOMA does not violate equal protection, civil rights, or the Full Faith and Credit Clause, it is not unconstitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act is indeed controversial. While it may be considered unfair or non-progressive, it is not in violation of the Constitution.