Unfinished Business: The Defense of Marriage Act

Except for this preface, the entirety of this post was written a few weeks ago when I got back from camp. Instead of posting, it has merely been saved as a draft. I think I previewed it and, seeing the fun purple text of the posts we've all come to love, thought I was ok. Alas. Pardon the wait.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/opinion/sunday/03sun1.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=defence%20of%20marriage%20act&st=cse

New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Iowa (and the District of Columbia and the Coquille Indian Tribe) are the six states (and two district-types) that have legalized gay marriage.

Huzzah.

However, despite this legalization of same-sex marriage at the state level, there is a greater federal standard that's been put in place by the Defense of Marriage Act. Enacted in 1996, the act is still on the books and defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" thusly:

`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.'.

Since then, a Massachusetts federal judge said that definition of marriage violated the equal protection clause of the constitution and a California bankruptcy court also said it was unconstitutional. This article argues that a congress with any real respect would repeal the law, but with the balance of congress where it is right now, the current congress is not the one of which she speaks. However, as is pointed out in the article, "The issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court, possibly in the next term. In the meantime, many married couples will have to hope for the kindness of strangers."

This challenged my thinking, for despite growing up in a household with great interest in the gay marriage debate, until reading this article, I wasn't fully aware of the effects of DOMA. Now, I can't believe it still exists.

What do you all think? Should there be a federal mandate prohibiting gay marriage? Or should the federal government allow individual states to determine their own status (popular sovereignty style-APUSH shout-out)? Or should there be legalization of gay marriage at the federal level?