This law was a reflection of bias that was prevalent in 1996, when it was passed. It was enacted in response to activism and legal decisions in the state of Hawaii that indicated this state might be about to legalize same-sex marriage, which it did not.
At the time, it was enacted, the reasons cited were precisely these:
H.R. Rep. No. 104-664 at 12 (1996).
Currently, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group ("BLAG") cites these reasons:
On June 26, 2013, in striking down Section 3 of DOMA, the Supreme Court cited animus against gays and lesbians as the only apparent reason for enacting that section.
Its purpose was to enable the federal and state governments to deny recognition to legally married same-sex couples.
Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C.
Mr. Amash strongly supports the Defense of Marriage Act and opposes same-sex marriage.
It apparently became unconstitutional when the first same-sex couple married and were denied some federal benefit. On June 26, 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") was unconstitutional.
No. The Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") did not deal with civil unions. In any event, DOMA has been struck down as unconstitutional and is no longer in effect.
He believes in traditional marriage.
As a senator, he could vote to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA").
Senator McCain is opposed to gay marriage.
Senator Lugar does not support gay marriage.
Senator Blunt is against gay marriage.
He is a supporter of same-sex marriage.
Senator Sessions is opposed to gay marriage.
Senator Wicker is opposed to gay marriage.