The Defense of Marriage act was introduced into
Congress on
May 7, 1996, by
Representatives Bob Barr-GA,
Steve Largent-OK,
Jim Sensenbrenner-WI,
Sue Myrick-NC,
Ed Bryant-TN,
Bill Emerson-MO,
Harold Volkmer-MO, and
Ike Skelton-MO.
It serves two purposes. The first is to write into law that no state shall be required to recognize a same-sex marriage that is performed in another state, as the "full-faith and credit" clause would require - as Java-Fox properly points out below.
The second purpose is to define the term marriage in the U.S. Code. Marriage is defined to mean a legal union of a man and a woman as a husband and wife. It also means that a person's spouse is defined as a person of the opposite sex.
The act passed both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and was summarily signed by President Clinton.
I previously commented that I felt this law was a violation of the First Amendment. I shall state that again, with my reasoning, though it may be a little tenuous to some, and may have been dismissed in the courts if something similar has been argued there.
One of the parts of the first amendment is the free exercise clause - that an American is entitled to the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs (within limits - they can't violate another's rights in the process). The way I see it, this law is entirely founded in religious beliefs, and serves no secular purpose. I have never seen an argument that claims homosexuality is wrong, except for those based on religious principles. I have challenged people in various places to offer a non-religious line of reasoning against homosexuality, and one has never been brought forward.
Now, if this law only serves the purpose to deny something because certain people have religious objections, isn't it the same as legislating religious belief? By legally requiring people to adhere to the beliefs of a religion, or group of religions, aren't they violating peoples' right to exercise their religious beliefs?
104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION
H.R. 3396
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms.
MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON)
introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee
on_____________
A BILL
To define and protect the institution of marriage.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
thereof
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C.
Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 6 the following new item:
"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."
Editors note:
On June 26, 2013 the SCOTUS ruled Section 3 of The Defense of Marriage Act unconsitutional. The vote was 5-4.