Fear God (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)

FEAR GOD

Revelation 14: 7 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 8And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. 8And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. 9And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. 12Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Universality and Cosmology

ANALYZING UNDERLYING IMPETUSES AS REFLECTED IN HISTORY (1840's-present)
Religion Civil Rights Science and Technology Space Forms of government Wars and conflicts
Crimes against humanity Literature Entertainment

Universitarianism reflected in religions, military, and politics. (1800's) III

1833 (1) 1836 (1) 1844 (11) 1848 (2) 1850 (1) 1866 (1) 1898 (1) Brigham Young (1) Charles Taze Russell (1) Charles Whitman (1) Civil Rights Act of 1866 (2) Compromise of 1850 (2) Daniel Webster (1) Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1) Dmitri Mendeleev (2) Evolution of the British Empire (1) General Mills (1) George Orwell (1) Great Flood of 1844 (1) H. G. Wells (1) Joseph Smith Jr. (1) Kolob (1) military and religion (1) Military and Religion (1) Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (1) The Devil and Daniel Webster (1) The New World Order (Wells) (1) The War of the Worlds (1) The War of the Worlds (radio) (1) Will Keith Kellogg (1) William Miller (preacher) (1)

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Defense of Marriage Act [syntax]

Defense of Marriage Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"DOMA" redirects here. For the metabolite of norepinephrine, see 3,4-Dihydroxymandelic acid. For "doma", see Doma (disambiguation).
 This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (March 2009)
Defense of Marriage Act
Great Seal of the United States.
Acronym DOMA
Enacted by the 104th United States Congress
Citations
Public Law 104-199
Stat. 110 Stat. 2419 (1996)
Codification
Legislative history
Major amendments

Relevant Supreme Court cases

None
Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3).
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342–67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
At the time of passage, it was expected that Hawaii (and possibly other states) would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared—and many proponents hoped—that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Section 3 of the law—the part that defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman—was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in July 2010.[3][4]

Contents

[show]

[edit] Text

The following excerpts are the main provisions of the Act:
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states:
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.
Section 3. 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.[5]

[edit] Legal history

In the 1993 case Baehr v. Lewin (later changed to Baehr v. Miike),[6] the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. This prompted concern among opponents of same-sex marriage that same-sex marriage might become legal in Hawaii and that other states would recognize those marriages. The Defense of Marriage Act was intended to free states from any obligation to recognize the marriage of same-sex couples in other states.
Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, authored the Defense of Marriage Act and introduced it on May 7, 1996. It moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed it into law on September 21, 1996. Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."[7]
The legislative history of the bill asserts authority to enact the law under Article IV Sec. 1, which grants Congress power to determine "the effect" of the full faith and credit each state must grant to each other states acts. Proponents made clear their purpose to normalize heterosexual marriage on a federal level, while still allowing each state to decide individually whether to recognize same-sex unions from other states.
The 1996 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA, referencing only Section 2 of the Act: "We reject the distortion of [anti-discrimination] laws to cover sexual preference, and we endorse the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex unions."[8] The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or marriage.[9]
In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."[10] He did not mention the issue in his 2004 autobiography.[11] Over time, Clinton's personal views on same-sex marriage shifted. In a 2009 address he said: "I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [gay marriage]."[12] Clinton added that he does not believe that it is a "federal question", stating, "I think all these states that do it should do it."[13]
The 2000 Republican Party platform endorsed DOMA in general terms but introduced a concern about possible judicial action: "We support the traditional definition of 'marriage' as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages.[14] The Democratic Party platform that year did not mention DOMA or marriage in this context.[15]
President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of DOMA.[16][17] On June 12, 2009, the Department of Justice issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of Smelt v. United States of America in line with its constitutional duty to enforce and defend federal laws.[18] This action drew scorn from some organizations in favor of same-sex marriage, such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Empowering Spirits Foundation, with a heavy focus on the brief's specific arguments.[19][20] On June 15, 2009, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese sent a four page letter to President Barack Obama in response to the Department of Justice brief, in which he laid out the case of LGBT people as equal human beings and urged, "We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress."[21]
In 2008, Congressman Barr apologized for sponsoring DOMA and said he thought it should be repealed,[22] saying it violates the principles of federalism.[23]

[edit] Repeal attempt

On September 15, 2009, 3 Democratic members of Congress, Jerrold Nadler of New York, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Jared Polis of Colorado, introduced legislation to repeal DOMA called the Respect for Marriage Act. The bill had 91 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives.[24][25] However, Congressman Barney Frank and John Berry, head of the Office of Personnel Management, did not support that effort, stating that "the backbone is not there" in Congress. Frank and Berry suggested DOMA could be overturned more quickly through lawsuits such as Gill v. Office of Personnel Management filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.[26][27]

[edit] Constitutionality

 This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2010)
DOMA’s two effective sections raise separate constitutional issues.
Section 2 of DOMA explicitly addresses the constitutional requirement expressed in the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution, quoting its language directly. That clause establishes that the states have certain reciprocal obligations to one another, specifically to recognize each other's "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings." That same section of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to legislate on the question of those obligations. Section 2 of DOMA excludes same-sex marriages from the state "acts" that any other state needs to recognize. Whether DOMA is an appropriate exercise of Congress’s power is disputed.[citation needed]
Section 3 of DOMA defining "marriage" and "spouse" for federal purposes raises a more extensive variety of constitutional issues. First, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to the states any power not delegated to the federal government. Debate turns on whether or not the states retain the sole authority to define marriage, as a power not granted by the Constitution to the federal government. Some opponents of same-sex marriage who argue that the definition of marriage is a power reserved to the states do so in anticipation of a time when the federal government might substitute language that would recognize same-sex unions for DOMA's definitions.[citation needed] Similarly, proponents of same-sex marriage, particularly those in states that recognize same-sex unions, argue that the federal government has no authority to define marriage, but must defer to each state's definition.[citation needed] Libertarians also take this view, consistent with their general philosophy of limiting the role of the federal government and favoring local decision-making.[citation needed]
Second, the two sides debate whether or not the right to marriage can be restricted to a traditional definition—the right to participate in the historically accepted institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman—and whether the right to marriage can be denied to those who choose same-sex partners. All agree that the Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to marriage in Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley. Critics of DOMA Section 3 contend that denial of the right to participate in marriage with the partner of one's choice, irrespective of gender, violates both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With respect to the Equal Protection Clause, critics contend that DOMA unfairly discriminates against one class of citizens, homosexuals, who have suffered from a history of discrimination.[citation needed]
Proponents of DOMA argue that Congress is under no obligation to recognize marriages solemnized by the states that do not fulfill a federal rational basis. Though, historically, Congress has recognized states' marriages despite their differences (i.e. different marriageable age laws), proponents argue that the fundamental understanding of marriage remained intact – a heterosexual, monogamous union.[citation needed] Proponents reject Equal Protection and Due Process claims against DOMA given the lack of criminal sanctions (i.e. anti-miscegenation laws which were struck under Loving) on same-sex marriages performed by states that opt to recognize them, as well as reject the claim that traditional marriage exists as a by-product of animus towards gays and lesbians.[citation needed]

[edit] Challenges in federal court

Federal Courts that first heard direct challenges to DOMA disagreed with the law's critics. See: In re Kandu[28], 315 B.R. 123, 138 (Bankr. D. Wash. 2004) and Wilson v. Ake 18 FLW Fed D 175 (2005).
In 2009, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt declared DOMA unconstitutional in an employment dispute resolution tribunal, where the federal government refused to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson.[29] As an employee of the federal judiciary, Levenson is prohibited from suing his employer in federal court. Rather, employment disputes are handled at employment dispute resolution tribunals in which a federal judge hears the dispute in their capacity as a dispute resolution official.
Several challenges[citation needed] to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but so far the Court has declined to review any such case. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages.[citation needed] Only Iowa,[30] California, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have issued licenses for same-sex marriages.
On March 9, 2009, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed a lawsuit, Smelt v. United States of America in Orange County, California, seeking to reverse DOMA and California's Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.[31] On June 12, 2009, the Department of Justice issued a brief in the case defending the constitutionality of DOMA.[32]
On March 3, 2009, GLAD filed a federal court challenge, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management based on the Equal Protection Clause and the federal government's heretofore consistent deference to each state's definition of marriage. The case questioned only the DOMA provision that the federal government defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.[33][34] On May 6, 2010, Judge Joseph L. Tauro heard arguments in the U.S. District Court in Boston.[35]
On July 8, 2009, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a suit, Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. The suit claims that Congress "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."[36] Judge Tauro heard arguments in Massachusetts on May 26, 2010.
On July 8, 2010, Judge Tauro issued his rulings in both Gill and Massachusetts, granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs in both cases. He found in Gill that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Massachusetts he held that the same section of DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and falls outside Congress' authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution.[3][4] Those decisions were automatically stayed for two weeks by federal court rules and were stayed further after the Department of Justice entered an appeal on October 12, 2010.[37]

[edit] DOMA and state legislation

Since the passage of DOMA, there has been an increased focus on the variety among states with regard to the legal status of same-sex marriage. Some states have proactively, by legislation or referendum, determined that they will not recognize same-sex marriages.[38]
Currently only Connecticut,[39] Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia allow marriages between persons of the same sex. The California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage on June 16, 2008,[40] but on November 4, 2008, voters passed a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex.[41] The amendment has since been declared unconstitutional in federal court, but same-sex marriages have not resumed in California because the case is still being appealed.[42]
New York, Maryland, and the District of Columbia recognize such marriages from other jurisdictions. Other states may recognize such a marriage as a civil union or domestic partnership (Nevada, California,[43] and New Jersey).
Some states recognize civil unions to represent same-sex relationships, considering them equivalent to marriage. Other states (including Nevada) have domestic partnerships in place to grant same-sex relationships some of the benefits the state bestows on married couples. However, there are procedural differences such as differing age limitations (in many states, the legal age to marry is 16, while the legal age to enter into a domestic partnership is 18), residential requirements (married individuals are not required to live in the same residence with their spouse, while domestic partners are required to share a residence, although in states such as Nevada such co-residency may be part-time).[44]
A majority of the states, including those that have some benefits for same-sex relationships, have restricted recognition of marriage to unions of one man and one woman in state law, have some law defining marriage as such, or have an amendment to their state constitution to that effect. As of April 2009, 29 states have enacted constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and another 13 states have statutory bans, including Maine, which approved a same-sex marriage law that was repealed by referendum in the United States general elections, 2009.[38]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ "On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3396)". United States Senate. 1996-09-10. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280. Retrieved 2009-01-18. 
  2. ^ "Final vote results for roll call 316". United States House of Representatives. 1996-07-12. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml. Retrieved 2009-01-18. 
  3. ^ a b Geidner, Chris (2010-07-08). "Federal Court Rules DOMA Sec. 3 Violates Equal Protection". Metro Weekly. http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/07/federal-court-rules-doma-viola.html. Retrieved 2010-07-08. 
  4. ^ a b DOMA decisions released
  5. ^ "Defense of Marriage Act". United States Government Printing Office. 1996-09-21. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104. Retrieved 2009-01-18. 
  6. ^ "State of Hawaii Report of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law, Chapter 2 Footnotes". State of Hawaii. 1995. http://hawaii.gov/lrb/rpts95/sol/cpt2ftn.html. Retrieved 2009-01-18. 
  7. ^ Lect Law: "Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis, accessed July 15, 2010
  8. ^ American Presidency Project: "Republican Party Platform of 1996," August 12, 1996, accessed July 15, 2010
  9. ^ American Presidency Project: "Democratic Party Platform of 1996," August 26, 1996, accessed July 15, 2010
  10. ^ Moss, J. Jennings. Bill Clinton interview, 1996. The Advocate. June 25, 1996. Archived by Wayback Machine.
  11. ^ Washington Blade: "Clinton says gays overly critical of DADT; Memoir omits DOMA fight, Mixner, many out gay appointees," June 25, 2004, accessed February 12, 2010
  12. ^ Galloway, Jim (July 14, 2009). "Bill Clinton drops opposition to same-sex marriage". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2009/07/14/bill-clinton-drops-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway. 
  13. ^ Tracey, Michael (July 14, 2009). "Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage". The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090720/tracey. 
  14. ^ "American Presidency Project: "Democratic Party Platform of 2000," July 31, 2000, accessed July 15, 2010
  15. ^ American Presidency Project: "Democratic Party Platform of 1996," August 14, 2000, accessed July 15, 2010
  16. ^ Barack Obama on LGBT Rights
  17. ^ Open Letter from Barack Obama Concerning LGBT Equality
  18. ^ "Obama Admin Moves To Dismiss Defense Of Marriage Act Challenge". Huffington Post. 2009-06-12. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/obama-defends-antigay-def_n_214764.html. Retrieved 2009-06-12. 
  19. ^ "Gay Blogosphere Erupts Over Obama's DOMA Defense". On Top Magazine. 2009-06-12. http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=4002&MediaType=1&Category=26. Retrieved 2009-06-12. 
  20. ^ "ESF Condemns Obama for Defending Defense of Marriage Act" (PDF). Empowering Spirits Foundation Press Release. 2008-06-12. http://www.empoweringspirits.org/PRDocServer/DOMA_Obama_Defense_061209.pdf. Retrieved 2009-06-12. 
  21. ^ Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese Letter to Obama on DOMA, June 15, 2009 "Open Letter to President Obama" (PDF). Human Rights Campaign. 2008-06-15. http://www.hrcbackstory.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Solmonese-letter-to-Obama-re-DOMA-brief-June-15-2009.pdf. Retrieved 2009-09-07. 
  22. ^ Richardson, Valerie (May 26, 2008). "Barr tops 9 others for Libertarian nod". Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/26/barr-tops-9-others32for-libertarian-nod/print/. 
  23. ^ "U.S. Moves To Dismiss Gay Marriage Case". CBS News. Associated Press. June 12, 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/12/national/main5084328.shtml. 
  24. ^ New York Times: Bernie Becker, "House Dems Take Aim at Marriage Law," September 15, 2009, accessed July 15, 2010
  25. ^ Eleveld, Kerry (2009-09-15). "Respect for Marriage Act Debuts". The Advocate. http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Washington_D_C_/Respect_for_Marriage_Act_Debuts/. Retrieved 2009-09-15. 
  26. ^ Frank Will Not Support DOMA Repeal
  27. ^ Johnson, Chris (2009-09-28). "Berry- ENDA should be LGBT priority". Washington Blade. http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27385. Retrieved 2009-09-28. [dead link]
  28. ^ "Kandu Bankruptcy Decision" (PDF). http://www.domawatch.org/cases/9thcircuit/InreKanduBkrDecision.pdf. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  29. ^ "Federal judge rules denial of health coverage to same-sex spouse unconstitutional". Los Angeles Times. 2009-02-09. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/gay-marriage.html. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  30. ^ Davey, Monica (2007-09-01). "Iowa Permits Same-Sex Marriage, for 4 Hours, Anyway". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/us/01iowa.html. 
  31. ^ "Smelt v. United States of America Notice of Removal". United States District Court – Southern Division. http://www.scribd.com/doc/15097245/Smelt-v-United-States-of-America-Notice-of-Removal. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  32. ^ Egelko, Bob (2009-06-12). "Obama Angers Gays With Marriage Law Defense". San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/12/MND5186EV8.DTL&tsp=1. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  33. ^ Goodnough, Abby; Zezima, Katie (2009-03-02). "Suit Seeks to Force Government to Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Couples". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  34. ^ ""DOMA" Means Federal Discrimination Against Married Same-Sex Couples". GLAD. http://www.glad.org/doma/lawsuit. 
  35. ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (2010-05-06). "Marriage Law Is Challenged as Equaling Discrimination". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/07doma.html. Retrieved 2010-06-05. 
  36. ^ Finucane, Martin (2009-07-08). "Mass. challenges federal Defense of Marriage Act". Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mass_to_challen.html. Retrieved 2009-11-06. 
  37. ^ Boston Globe: "Feds Appeal Mass Rulings against U.S. Marriage Law," October 12, 2010, accessed October 13, 2010
  38. ^ a b Human Rights Campaign: "Statewide Marriage Prohibitions," January 13, 2010, accessed July 15, 2010
  39. ^ New York Times: Lisa W. Foderard, "Gay Marriages Begin in Connecticut," November 12, 2008, accessed July 11, 2010]
  40. ^ "California Supreme Court Denies Rehearing and Stay in Marriage Cases" (PDF). 2008-06-04. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR31-08.PDF. Retrieved 2008-06-04. 
  41. ^ "Election Results: State Ballot Measures". 2008-11-07. http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm. 
  42. ^ "California gay marriages on hold again". 2010-08-07. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/17/2984912.htm?section=world. 
  43. ^ http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/10/12/daily8.html
  44. ^ [1]

[edit] Bibliography

  • Feigen, Brenda. “Same-Sex Marriage: An Issue of Constitutional rights not Moral Opinions.” 2004. 27 Harv. Women’s L. J. 345.
  • “Litigating the Defense of Marriage Act: The Next Battleground for Same-Sex Marriage.” 2004. 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2684.
  • Manning, Jason (2004-04-30). "Backgrounder: The Defense of Marriage Act". The Online News Hour. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marriage/act.html. Retrieved 2007-01-13. 
  • “Same Sex Marriage in the U.S.” About.com. 2005. About, Inc. 1 June 2004.
  • “Same Sex Marriage Passage” CQ Weekly. Congressional Quarterly. 2 May 2005.
  • United States. 104th Congress. Defense of Marriage Act. House of Representatives Committee Report. 1996.
  • Wardle, Lynn D. “A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Claims for Same Sex Marriage.” 1996. 1996 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 1.

[edit] External links

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act"
Posted by MICHAEL at Thursday, October 28, 2010
Labels: ,

By Years

1833 (1) 1836 (1) 1844 (11) 1848 (3) 1850 (2) 1862 (1) 1863 (1) 1866 (1) 1867 (1) 1898 (1) 1932 (2) 1935 (1) 1938 (3) 1939 (1) 1947 (2) 1950 (1) 1958 (1) 1960 (1) 1961 (1) 1962 (1) 1964 (6) 1965 (1) 1966 (2) 1967 (2) 1968 (1) 1969 (1) 1972 (1) 1973 (1) 1976 (1) 1977 (3) 1978 (2) 1979 (15) 1980 (2) 1981 (9) 1982 (3) 1984 (1) 1986 (1) 1989 (6) 1990 (17) 1991 (10) 1992 (4) 1993 (15) 1994 (4) 1997 (2) 1999 (3) 2001 (3) 2002 (4) 2003 (2)

Search This Blog