Why doesn't the 'Protect Marriage Act"....?

Question

Make it harder for people to marry and ban divorce?

Seems like to me if you want to protect marriage from same sex couples you would want to take these other steps. Why should two drunk straight people be able to get married in Vegas and get divorced 20 hours later?

Seems like straight people want to protect something they don't even cherish!

Answer 1

Hey, finally a simple question here. Because the people who promoted DOMA don't really want to protect marriage. The goal is to ban same-sex marriages. But this way, they can deceive people into thinking that what they want to do is protect marriage, when that is NOT the issue at all. It will make people want to approve of it more than otherwise. I equate the name with something like Focus on the Family. It REALLY should be called Focus on the STRAIGHT Family, because, quite frankly, they couldn't care LESS about a family that is made up of gay parents, and they would prefer to ban those entirely.

Answer 2

Tab H, I am totally against the whole idea of 'gay marriage' but you are so dead right you mightn't believe it yourself!

Marriage is meant to be about one man and one woman, in a permanent union, open to accepting as many children as God sends.

Sixteenth century: divorce becomes an acceptable possibility

1930: Anglican bishops at Lambeth Conference give the thumbs up to contraception within marriage

20th century: divorce and remarriage much more common than ever before - serial monogamy

1960s: sexual revolution - if it feels good and it's harming no one, do it - mainly a heterosexual thing at first - wife swapping, 'open' marriages etc

1970s, 80s, 90s: sex without babies becomes babies without sex - invention and refinement of the techniques of IVF

Question: how has this all altered the traditional view of marriage in the minds of the people who have taken all this on board?

Question: how can any reasonable who accepts that heterosexual marriage can be contracepted, violated by outside partners (on occasion or frequently!), ended at will and accepts that sex can be just for fun and babies should be made available in test-tubes, deny the same legal privileges to homosexuals?

Mystery ( to me at least): what is their problem with two people of the same sex doing exactly what they are willing to do (and maybe MORE if the same sex couple are willing to give shelter to somebody else's children)?

The queerest thing out there isn't the homosexual community by a long shot!

Answer 3

The Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional, but has not YET been challenged at the level of the highest court.

This challenge is inevitable, though, and it's likely the Court would be forced to rule for that the Act is unconstitutional because it does not show a compelling reason to treat otherwise equal citizens, unequally when it comes to marriage.

Conservatives know that the bill is subject to being over-ruled by the Court, so that's why they want to pass a Federal Constitutional Amendment, to further codify their bigotry. But this will probably never happen, since amendments are almost impossible to pass.

Answer 4

You argue a great point, However, The sanctity of marriage was orginally suppose to be between man and woman...thats what they are protecting...

I do believe the should crack down on people marrying and divorcing like that, but usually that only happens on T.V.

Answer 5

I agree with this. I think if Christians wanted to preserve marriage that they should have done something before half of all marriages ended in divorce. Christians are such hypocrites, they say they dont judge but ban people for loving one another in a way they dont understand or want to understand.

Answer 6

I agree!

Marriage is a religious ceremony that's become a government-sanctioned rite of unity... which is really strange. Gay people aren't allowed to have the same rights that drunks and abusive morons can have for $20 in Vegas. That certainly seems odd to me!

Answer 7

To answer your initial question: the Defense of Marriage Act (DMA) is not really about protecting "marriage" at all. The DMA is a last-ditch attempt by conservative radicals to gain and grow their power by rallying support for a far more illusive and dangerous ideology - institutional "family values".

What are those family values? Love? No. Committment? No. Honesty? No. Unity? No. Faithfulness? No. In fact, the DMA promotes unloving, uncommitted, dishonest, and unfaithful marriages by limiting marriage to ANY man and ANY woman instead of fighting to limit marriage to ONLY committed, loving relationships. There is nothing "family" oriented about the DMA!

So why are conservatives touting "family values" and pushing for the DMA? Simple: they are preying on the fears of millions of Americans who are terriffied that homosexuals are "corrupting" society. And NOTHING works better than fear when it comes to rallying votes, money, and press!

So, by trotting out the outrageous DMA in the name of preserving "family values", conservative radicals hope to harness more power for themselves. They don't give a rat's *** about two men getting married or about preserving straight marriages!

Answer 8

I cannot fathom why any Christian would bring up the "sanctity of marriage" when they use marriage as a punishment for rape, along with a 50 sheckel fine (Dt 22:28).

Answer 9

Tab;

I've been wondering that myself ever since Clinton signed it.

Oh, and it's the "Defence Of Marriage Act" aka DOMA. Just an fyi!

Answer 10

Oh well done, Dearest, well done. Seems the so-called Religious Right might have missed that...oh yes, they were out soliciting the mesdames de nuit and the young lads when they should have been thinking about the sanctity of marriage. (naughty naughty me.....)