D.O.M.A.

The Defense of Marriage Act.  D.O.M.A.

What is it really about?

One could argue that it all comes down to definitions.  What is marriage?  However, there is more to it than that.

Is it about fairness?  Perhaps.

Should governments define categories against which discrimination is acceptable?  Yes.  Criminals are discriminated against in almost every governmental system.

What determines which classes of citizens fall under categories for which it is acceptable to discriminate?  The government defines it.  Under a Sharia-based government, all who are not Muslim are on the receiving end of discrimination.

Under a Libertine government it is likely that no one would be on the receiving end of discrimination.

In the United States there is a concerted effort to redefine the basic principles of government as established under our Constitution and succeeding Amendments and Legislation.  A re-reading of those documents is in order as we consider the question.

The U.S. Constitution
The Bill of Rights
Amendments

The only item in those documents that could be construed to address the institute of marriage (as far as I can determine) is Amendment I which is the first item in the Bill of Rights which were written according to their preamble "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" -- i.e. to limit the power of the government. 

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I personally believe that marriage is an institute defined by God in the Bible as between one man and one woman.  Our Constitution's only reference is to "law respecting an establishment of religion." I don't want the government dictating to me what church I should attend or what I should believe.  We are not a country of some form of Sharia-type Law. 

According to that same Constitution, the people have the right to vote.  We vote for Representatives who we hope will promote our interests.  If we want to create a Definition of Marriage that will become a part of the Law of the Land, we can do so.  The Constitution provides mechanisms for that.  I believe the Supreme Court made the right decision in this case.  It is now up to the voters -- both individually and as Representatives in Congress and the Senate -- to take the next step -- if we truly want to define marriage.  However, I believe we must ask ourselves, do we really want to head down that slippery path?  What then is next?

Marriage IS an institution defined by religious and moral norms.  It takes many forms depending on the religious beliefs of those involved.  It is recognized as a legal contract, much like a partnership, by most governments.  There is nothing in the Constitution or the Amendments attached to it that limits the recognition of other forms of partnership in like manner.  The law should apply equally to all except for those specifically designated as subject to discrimination.

As a Christian, I recognize that the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as sin.  So is adultery.  So are many other behaviors in which Christians as well as non-Christians engage.  Fortunately, I believe that Jesus has saved me from my sinful nature which is a product of this fallen world.  Should we condemn what we believe as sinful behavior?  Absolutely.  However, our task first and foremost, is to share the love of God that he so bountifully gave to us in the form of Jesus who washes us clean.  When we have a world of believers, the question of legislating definitions will go away.

Chris