The Defense of Marriage Act became effective on September 21st, 1996, when the president at the time, Bill Clinton, signed the law. This act defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. The law basically states that no U.S state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same sex marriage from another state. It also states that the federal government does not have to recognize a same sex marriage that is recognized by a state. This means they do not have to recognize any insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivor benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. I do not think that the Defense of Marriage Act should be in existence for multiple reasons. .
This act conserves the unequal treatment of homosexuals by not allowing them to marry. It is immoral to say that heterosexuals still have the right to get married but homosexuals cannot. Judge Joseph Tauro states it well. ""Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution will not permit." What he says is true, because homosexuality is still not widely acceptable in the United States, probably because we are a nation of homophobes; congress is looking to basically make life more complicated for them because they are not what they consider "the norm". This is clearly unethical and immoral. .
A huge reason that this act is filled with so much controversy is also because of people's different religious views. Many representatives have spoken about this debate and a common theme in most of their quotes refers to God and the religious view of marriage. Representative Hutchinson, representing the 64th legislative district said that "marriage is a covenant established by God wherein one man and one woman are united for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.