In Reynolds vs. the U.S., the Supreme Court upheld the majority's right to establish community standards in these areas. Once you throw out that decision, you impose polygamy (and all other forms of marriage) on society, against the codified will of the people.
I suppose next you'll be arguing in favor of the right of streakers to roam the streets. After all, we have no business interfering with their personal choice of dress--or lack thereof--right?
Are you referring to the 1878 case? Why would you throw out that decision. I find it fully consistent with the 11th Circuit decision I referenced. The distinction is that the DOMA was designed to interpret Article IV, not to impose anything on states. I simply see no reason at this time to support an amendment that may never be needed. Nor do I want to see one that could interfere with those decisions rightfully belonging to a state.
I suppose next you'll be arguing in favor of the right of streakers to roam the streets. After all, we have no business interfering with their personal choice of dress--or lack thereof--right?
So if your first argument won't fly you create an absurd straw man? What part of privacy do you not understand?
But let's get real here. This is not about ensuring that a state must recognize another state's non traditional marriage. It is an attempt by religious fundamentalists to try and impose their particular value system on everyone else. They know that DOMA is working, but they have another agenda.