Do you agree or disagree with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?

Question

To familiarize yourself with DOMA (if you are not already), check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA
I am just curious. I would appreciate that you support your answer with specific text, or quotes, etc. Thanks for the answers.

Answer 1

I disagree with this Bill Clinton-approved law because it violates a traditional principle of Federalism, that some matters are to be left up to individual states. Marriage is supposed to be one of those matters. However, meddlesome Democrat presidents couldn't leave well enough alone and made an alliance with meddlesome Republican congresscreatures on this issue, to extend central government power.

Answer 2

DOMA is the stupidest law passed in the past decade. That is quite an achievement considering how many stupid laws have been passed. The sponsors of the bill had nothing, absolutely nothing, to say except for the bromide of "marriage is between a man and woman" blah blah blah. What was it supposed to accomplish? It is blatantly unconstitutional and attacks gays gratuitously.

Answer 3

God intended marriage to be a man and a woman, period. The old Testament is not abolished because we have the new Testament and it doesn't talk about a man lying with a man. We have yet to see the consequences in this country of legalizing the marriage of an abomination.

Answer 4

As it was written up in the link you provided, I support both of the major clauses EXCEPT for the phrase "same sex". I agree with the concept of states' rights expressed in the first clause and if the second simply said that the federal government doesen't recognize marriage for any purpose, I wouldn't have a problem with it either!

I have a HUGE problem with the discriminatory use of "same sex". Personally, I don't think the federal government has ANY business being involved in the marriage business in ANY way. The idea that they have the right to legally sanction and control who I (or any other adult) can marry (or divorce) is ludicrous! Frankly, it ticks me off if even one dollar of my income goes to support another person's decision to marry (and/or have children). Pure and simple, marriage is a lifestyle decision whether it is opposite sex or same sex and I don't think the government has any right to support (or punish) people who choose to share their life with another person OR people who choose to remain single.

HOWEVER, if the federal government is going to hand out differential benefits to people based on marital status, then they have NO right to discriminate against any two (or more) people that want to take advantage of those benefits by entering into a marital agreement. Saying that two people can't take advantage of the benefits of "married filing jointly" on their taxes because they happen to be the same sex is no different than saying that people of two different races (or even people of a specific race) can't enjoy the same benefit.

Of course, my solution would be for the government to STOP discriminating in any way based on marital status...then laws like this one wouldn't even be necessary because marriage would cease to be a legal issue!

Answer 5

I can't begin to detail the many, many reasons I am against this "Act." First and foremost, I worry about the children in such unrecognized relationships. Children can be taken away even with legal adoptions in place. And children don't care who loves them. Just that they are, in fact, loved and nurtured.

Families deserved to be recognized and protected whatever form they take. Beyond the religious objection that homosexuality is wrong, and let's be clear, this act is directed solely at homosexuals, it strikes at the fundamental guarantees of our Constitution. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines, but only if you are a man married to a woman. Otherwise, sorry, if you die, your partner who gave your life joy can't get what you've worked your whole life for in a pension. Why? Because of sexual orientation. If you are in an accident, your partner can't convey your wishes to the doctor if you didn't sign an advanced directive and even then, because you aren't in a recognized relationship that is, by the way, solely based on a RELIGOUS belief (which is in and of itself unconstitutional!), your family members or anyone the government does actually recognize as a legitimate relative can step in and disregard your wishes. Why? Because you aren't in an acceptable relationship.

Sorry to rant on so. This topic can really get me burned up. As a married heterosexual woman, when my husband dies, I will not have the stress of having to fight to be by his side and hold his hand as he leaves. I can be with him. I have that right. But someone who is homosexual cannot hold the hand of the partner they have loved for decades if a so-called "legitimate" family member decides to ban them from the room.

I myself believe that who you love is not as important as that you love. I think that any kind of loving relationship between two or more consenting ADULTS, and I mean over 21 years old, is valid and should be protected under the law. That is what our government is for, not to segregate and make second-class citizens of anyone because of popular demand. We've been there, done it several times, and apparently haven't learned our lesson. The government has a duty to protect us, not tell us as adults (and adults only) who we can and cannot let into our hearts and lives.

Here is a final question: With so much hate in the world, why should we care who someone else loves as long as there is mutual informed consent, respect, and love. Do we really think as a nation that we have that right?

Good journeys to all,

Asha

Answer 6

Defense of marriage? What are we defending? The 50% divorce rate or the fact that so many husbands and wives are committing adultery?

It matters not one iota in my life whom my neighbor marries. It does matter that my neighbor does not have the same rights as me.
To anyone who is for it- Change the words same-sex to interracial and see if your views change?

Answer 7

I said it once i will say it agen i dont wont any government us french British what ever telling me WHO I CANT LOVE OR MARRY OR NOT THESE PEOPLE ARE SUPID FOR LETTING PEOPLE IN LOVE NOT GETTING MARRIED WILL BRITNEY SPEARS GETS MARRED EVERY OTHER DAY.

if two people are in love then let them get marred woman man man man woman man it doesn't matter as long as there is love

Answer 8

I disagree. I think the US is a scar on the Western international face. And by passing laws such as these we are only making that scar deeper. We our increasing are intolerance rate, and basically saying, "Look out world, the US of A thinks intolerance is bliss, f*ck equality, I'm better than you so deal with it!" Surprises me that we ever let women and nonwhites vote, seeing how tolerant we are, especially the infamous GOP and their love of religion and politics and intolerance.

Answer 9

Dumb-***es for DOMA.

Answer 10

i agree with Kyle 100%.. it is bit weird

move to Canada, my dad's cousin did so he could get married to his partner