[gidget7]

The DOMA is not protecting the citizens of MA, or for that matter VT or CT, all of whom have been denied their constitutional rights to vote on marriage amendments in their states. A Fed. Amendment would state that no state can be forced to accept it, without a vote by the people.

THAT is why it is needed.

[MACVSOG68]

The DOMA is not protecting the citizens of MA, or for that matter VT or CT, all of whom have been denied their constitutional rights to vote on marriage amendments in their states.

I'm only aware of Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii. Hawaii amended its constitution and that ended the fray. Vermont and Connecticut permit legal unions but not marriage. And each of these states has within it the ability to handle its own constitution, as Massachusetts is currently doing through the amendment process.

The DOMA is intended to interpret Article IV, not to interfere in intrastate issues.

The federal Congress should concentrate on what it is being paid to do, and let the states handle those issues that rightfully belong there.