Why the Defense of Marriage Act is Still Necessary; Secularizations Creeping Successes

"DOMA provides an important statement of the family policy of the United States....'Were it not for the possibility of begetting children inherent in heterosexual unions, society would have no particular interest in encouraging citizens to come together in a committed relationship. But, because America, like nearly every known human society, isconcerned about its children, our government has a special obligation to ensure that we preserve and protect the institution of marriage.”

Keep in mind that marriage between a man and a woman is an opposite-sexed union, and that every citizen, regardless of their stated sexual orientation, already has the right to enter into it.

Our govt. doesn't regulate and license every loving relationship; for example, siblings of either sex don't require a license to enjoy their private relationships with each other; nor do parents and their children, nor do private friendships require govt. regulation. It is not requisite that the govt. license and regulate every romantic relationship either, as is evidenced by the fact that polyamorous relationships aren't legally recognized. It is not unconstitutional to recognize and treat different kinds of relationships, differently, and same-sex unions are a different kind of relationship than opposite-sexed ones with distinct and unique implications, regardless of sexual orientation which, at its core, has NOTHING TO DO WITH defining marriage or establishing marital eligibility.

"[R]edefining marriage will inevitably create conflicts between the law and religious liberty, DOMA’s definition of marriage is an important bulwark in protecting this right."

This is already evident in states which have redefined marriage, such as New York, Mass., and in foreign countries like England and Canada. Haven't heard about that? Check out the blog for the National Organization for Marriage. They've documented the progressive loss of freedoms of speech and religion thoroughly.

"DOMA provides that states will not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in another state. This is an important protection of federalism and of pluralism among the states."

"[F]ederal laws that reference marriage were enacted on the understanding that marriage retained its ordinary meaning of the union of a man and a woman."

For example, paternity law is directly tied to the assumption that a married man is the father of any children produced by his wife. If marriage can include couples where there is no husband, then no married woman can assume the protections of paternity law; furthermore, no man can make the legal assumption of his own paternity, if marriage can exclude him so handily, by recognizing the union of two women (one who might be the mother of his child), which is an inherently non-fertile union. Same-sex "marriage" wreaks havoc with a child's right to both a mother and a father.

Freedom hangs on the thinnest of threads; interesting, isn't it, how the lynch pin to our freedom is marriage between a man and a woman. But it is the only public union which ties both parents to their offspring, unites the sexes, and provides a legal tie to both halves of a person's biological family tree, ancestors to posterity, roots to branches.