Any court that can find a constitutional right to partial birth infanticide will have no problem finding a way around the Defense of Marriage Act. It is ludicrous to think otherwise.
The constitutionality of this act is even questioned by some who believe in the original interpretation of the Constitution.
So then let's make a list of all the things we fear a court could ever rule on that we wouldn't like, and have a whole series of amendments. I fear that one day a court somewhere might find capitalism unconstitutional. Should we start an amendment process?
Silly? Yes, and so is the unwarranted fear of the loss of DOMA. Sure a district judge somewhere might rule against it, but no circuit court including the 9th will ever rule DOMA unconstitutional. And if per chance that ever happened, no USSC would agree. So you are worried about something that has less of a chance of happening than you winning the lottery.
The constitutionality of this act is even questioned by some who believe in the original interpretation of the Constitution.
Who? Here is the wording of Article IV:
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
The DOMA was enacted pursuant to that clause by Congress and signed by Clinton. On what basis is DOMA inconsistent with the original intent of the article?