Meanwhile, 32 states have amended their state constitution to only allow marriage between one man and one woman, so that activist judges cannot change the laws and allow other marriages, which they have done in several states like Iowa and California.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law by Clinton and it protects states that have a constitutional amendment for natural marriage so they do not have to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.
President Obama’s administration has refused to defend DOMA, which has forced the House of Representatives to create a legal team to defend the federal law.
DOMA Second Appeal
A few days ago a federal appeals court in New York became the second appeals court to rule against DOMA, ruling (2-1) that the law is unconstitutional because it does not allow people to share the legal transfer of assets if they move to a state where only the union of one man and one woman is considered a legal marriage.
The argument for this ruling is very weak because there are many other ways in legally own assets without being married. The judges did not consider the constitutionality of the states that have redefined marriage, and yet they are willing to say that if any state creates a law, all states must abide by that law. Their ruling is clearly unconstitutional.
What these judges are saying is that because some states have redefined marriage, it is somehow unconstitutional for the other 32 states that have a constitutional amendment protecting marriage to only be the natural relationship of one man and one women.
In response to the first Federal appeals court ruling, 15 states filed a legal brief in support of DOMA.
The Supreme Court will soon have to rule on one of these DOMA cases, in which they are likely to rule in favor of DOMA and protect states’ rights based on the 32 states' constitutional amendments. But they could rule against DOMA and thereby force the federal redefinition of marriage across the nation.
The US Constitution
The real problem is not DOMA, but the seven states that have redefined marriage to be something that it is not. It is unconstitutional to redefine marriage in the first place, because the US Constitution was created to defend and protect natural rights that come from God so that no laws are created against them.
DOMA was created to protect states from other states that have unconstitutionally redefined marriage.
The government didn’t create marriage, God did by creating male and female and the natural union they form. Therefore the government has no right to redefine marriage, just as the government has no right to take life because it does not give life.
The role of the government as given in the US Constitution is to uphold and protect the natural God given rights. Our Constitution states that our rights are natural or "self-evident", that we all know what is right/wrong because our conscious tells us;
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
To change the marriage license that the state gives out into something that is not 'self-evident' by our Creator is unconstitutional. It is to create our own rights that are not self-evident, and by doing so we will have to force everyone to abide by them.
This is unconstitutional and it makes the government the enforcer of these new rights which are not part of the natural order of how we were created. And it promotes them above our 'self-evident' God given rights, of which the Constitution says no government should create laws against.
Redefining marriage does not move our nation forward, but backward. Instead of gaining rights, everyone loses the God given rights that the US Constitution was created to protect.
Creating laws that redefine marriage effects everyone and every aspect of life.
This is why it is very important to vote 'YES' for the MN Marriage Amendment on November 6th.