Defense Act of Marriage

http://www.latimes.com/classified/jobs/news/la-me-marriage-act6-2009feb06,0,870488.story

This article from Los Angeles Times reflects a number of issues surrounding gay marriage in addition to its story about a homosexual (married) couple and their fight for equality and justice. This particular couple succeeded in grabbing the attention of Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who ruled that the couple was entitled to the same benefits as any other heterosexual couple working as a “deputy federal public defender,” as which one of the partners in the marriage most certainly did.

The 1996 Defense Act of Marriage 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.’’

How does this Act pass as constitutional?
The wording and ambiguity of the Act does a few things: 1. It circumvents the constitutionality issue by giving each “State, territory, or possession of the United States” the right to choose whether or not it wants to “give effect to any public act, record…respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as marriage…” by saying “No State [etc]…shall be required to give effect. 2. The Act seems to disrespect the “State, territory (etc)” that allowed the marriage by saying that another “State” isn’t required to give the couple the same rights, which seems to violate due process and equal protection in many peoples’ eyes, in addition to some other constitutional issues like the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Of course, this is all assuming that same-sex marriage isn’t actually a marriage, because it is not the union of a man and a woman (also described in the underpinnings of this Act).

Why can’t a marriage be between people of the same sex? Is it for religious reasons? Other reasons? It seems to me that our Founding Fathers were so focused on equality and liberty, and isn’t this Act of 1996 inhibiting that equality and liberty? Do the majority of faiths that generally disagree with homosexuality have power and precedence in this situation? Or is it something else?

The case of this particular homosexual couple is virtually pointless for other couples, seeing as how it was determined in the “court’s administrative dispute process, rather than in lawsuit judgments.” However, in contrast to the article’s opinion, I thought this case was definitely not “meaningless,” per se. If some justice could be served in a small case that received widespread attention, who’s to say that larger and larger cases won’t receive the same rulings and judgments in the future? On the other hand, as the article did mention, if a case concerning this Act were to reach the federal court, it probably would be repealed and deemed unconstitutional.