The Defense of Marriage Act, proposed by Bill Clinton, makes it so that there is no redefining.
Wrong.
DOMA was codified in two different sections of the US Code. Here's what they say:
quote:
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.
1 U.S.C. 7
quote:
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.
28 U.S.C. 1738C
Neither of these provisions prevents "redefining" anything.
I suspect that 1 U.S.C. 7 defined marriage for the first time for federal purposes. The reason it had never been so defined before is because traditionally the definition and regulation of marriage was left to the states.
28 U.S.C. 1738C is pure political pandering. There was no need to pass a law saying that states didn't have to recognize gay marriages from other states. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require states to recognize acts from other states that go against their public policy.
They certainly do not prohibit the Supreme Court from holding that the 14th Amendment prevents discrimination in the issuance of marriage licenses on the basis of the gender of the person one wishes to marry, which is what I suspect you mean when you talk about preventing "redefining" of marriage.
BTW, I'm fairly certain that Bill Clinton didn't "propose" DOMA. He did sign it, but that comes at the end of the legislative process, not the beginning.
Surely, in your infinite wisdom, you can understand that no such specifics ever had to be penned in the Constitution. Why? Because it was considered, and always has been, an absurdity of the highest order.
Well, lest your infinite ignorance lay unchallenged, the reason nothing was ever put in the Constitution about marriage is because it's a matter for the states to regulate. Perhaps you've never come across the term "federalism." It's the idea that some things are reserved to the states to determine, and marriage is one of those things, subject of course, to the dictates of the 14th Amendment.
[Ron Paul is] against gay marriage. It should also be known that I happen to agree with him. He gives a great response.
Wow. Did you actually listen to the clip that you linked upthread, or did someone else tell you what he said and you just believed what they said? He said that any voluntary association should be protected by law, and that the question of marriage should be left to the states. In that clip, he never said a single thing against gay marriage, and his argument for the protection of "voluntary associations" can only be understood as an endorsement of the right to gay marriage. And, given the fact that he said he was against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, I'm completely at a loss how you could conclude that he's against gay marriage, absent some neurological condition that prevents you from accurately perceiving reality.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2