Under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" to the U.S. Constitution (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.

Why is this here? It was essentially a recognition by the Founding Fathers that the old setup -- the Articles of Confederation -- gave the states too much latitude to ignore each other. For example, under the clause above, if you win a lawsuit against someone in California, that judgment will still be valid in Nevada. Or if you signed a contract in which Oregon law controls, the contract is still binding in Texas.

And, if you let an Elvis impersonator marry you in Las Vegas, the marriage is still valid in Pennsylvania.

Or so we thought. Along comes the "Defense of Marriage Act," which has indisputably exposed how moronic, prejudiced and Consitutionally ignorant the U.S. Government truly is. Keep in mind as you read that the Congressmen quoted below have all taken a Constitutionally-required oath (not that that means anything apparently) to "support this Constitution."

Why is the Defense of Marriage Act so moronic? The answer is self-explanatory once you see the wording of the law:

"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."

Uhh... doesn't this trample on the plain wording of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, listed above? It sure does. It's so obvious you'd think it would even be clear to imbeciles like Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, but I guess it isn't. Not even after the Supreme Court agreed with its plain meaning (see Williams v. North Carolina 317 U.S. 287, 294 (1947) and Sherrer v. Sherrer 334 U.S. 343 (1948)). Not even after Rep. Patsy Mink of Hawaii gave us this eloquent summary of Constitutional history and law in the floor debates (in reference to the (then) upcoming decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court to affirm gay marriage in that state):

"Under the U.S. Constitution, laws of one State must be given 'full faith and credit' by every other State. Congress should not be enacting any bill to declare otherwise. If a State decides not to honor the Hawaii Supreme Court decision it must justify its decision before a court of law.... Congress can not pass a generic law to declare that every State may chose to ignore a duly decreed State court ordered decision. We all know that Congress cannot amend the U.S. Constitution. It is a sham to pass a bill that purports to amend the Constitution. When we took our oath of office here in the well of the House, we swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution was written by the framers of the Constitution explicitly to prevent the 50 States from acting as 'independent sovereign States' and instead require that they recognize each other's laws particularly as they set up contractual obligations and to act as a nation."

Well, I'm sure Bob Barr of Georgia, who sponsored this dreck, has thought through an equally valid constitutional position in support of his own bill. Right? Let's see:

"Mr. Chairman, as Rome burned, Nero fiddled, and that is exactly what the gentlewoman and others on her side who spoke yesterday and last night would have us do. Mr. Chairman, we ain't going to be fooled. The very foundations of our society are in danger of being burned. The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society: the family unit.... What more does it take, my colleagues, to wake up and see that this is an issue being shouted at us by extremists intent, bent on forcing a tortured view of morality on the rest of the country? .... The red herrings are flying. Yet we must be resolute. This is an issue of fundamental importance to this country, to our families, to our children.... We all must stand up and say we support this. Enough is enough. We must maintain a moral foundation, an ethical foundation for our families and ultimately for the United States of America."

Yes, Bob, the "red herrings" are certainly flying... but they weren't until you opened your inbred redneck mouth. Since when is the fact that a proposed bill is blatantly unconstitutional an invalid reason to argue against its adoption? And by the way, since when is anything you just said relevant to the law or the U.S. Constitution? Did you write this statement yourself, or did you just copy it off bumper stickers you saw on cars parked at a taping of "The 700 Club"? Were you asleep through your high school Government class, or did you drop out early to marry your sister? (Well, at least you thought enough to make sure such a marriage would still be permissible under your bill!)

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachussetts had a response to the "morality" aspect of the bill:

"Yes, there is a role for morality in Government. Of course there is. The Government has an absolute overriding duty to enforce morality in interpersonal relations. We have a moral duty to protect innocent people from those who would impose on them. That is a very important moral duty. But is it the Government's duty to say, divorce is wrong and there are strong biblical arguments that say if you are divorced, you should not remarry. And should the Government then put obstacles in the way? No. What we say in this society is, religion has its place. If you want a religious ceremony... you better abide by their rules. But if you as an individual say, I do not love that person anymore, I am walking out... civil law allows you to do that. Does civil law say that is a good thing? Does civil law, by allowing you to divorce and remarry, say, good, we approve of that, we sanction your walking out on that marriage and starting a new one? No, what civil law says is, in a free society that is a choice you can make....

Meaning the role of the law is to protect an individual's choice to enter into or dissolve a marriage. Its role is not to place moral guidelines on the partners' marriage itself -- that is left up to the partners and what is dictated by their religious beliefs.

Barney Frank had a bit to say on the subject of red herrings also:

"We heard one argument [supporting the bill] yesterday. He said, well, it might lead to polygamy.... Yes, it is true polygamy as an option for heterosexuals would weaken the current option of monogamous heterosexual marriage. That is why I do not know anyone who is advocating polygamy. Why are they then debating polygamy? Because they are cannot argue over here.... There is a story about a guy who is on his hands and knees under the streetlight, and he is walking around, looking around. Somebody stops to help him, says, what is the matter. He said, I lost my watch. He said, I will help you. After 5 minutes, he said, gee, I do not think your watch is here. He said, I know, I did not lose it over here. He said, why are we looking here under the streetlight. He said, well, the light is better. They want to debate polygamy because the argument is better. But there are no arguments about same-sex marriage."

I think it's clear where Georgia Bob stands in Frank's scenario: Attack the straw man rather than address the real arguments against the bill (such as those laid down by Patsy Mink, above).

Since there were so many opponents of the bill, certainly some of them actually stayed awake through Government class and came up with decent responses... right?

Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida:

"Mr. Frank says by abandoning the true definition of marriage, traditional marriages are not threatened. You are right Mr. Frank you are not threatening my marriage. You do not threaten my marriage but you do threaten the moral fiber that keeps this Nation together. You threaten the future of families which have traditional marriage at their very heart. If traditional marriage is thrown by the wayside, brought down by your manipulation of the definition that has been accepted since the beginning of civilized society, children will suffer because family will lose its very essence. Instead of trying to ruin families we should be preserving them for future generations."

This really cleared up a lot of questions for me. Here I was thinking things like divorce, spousal abuse, child abuse, incest, abandonment and addiction were the kinds of things that tore at the "very essence" of families. But I must have been wrong because I don't see any federal legislation about those things. What a relief for those millions of Americans who suffer with the scars of traumatic family lives. Now they can sit back, smile, and say "Yeah, having my stepfather sodomize me with a broomstick every Saturday night was pretty bad, but just think how much worse it would have been if homosexuals had been allowed to marry!"

Some last words of enlightenment from Rep. Ron Lewis of Kentucky:

"Mr. Chairman, 220 years of history in this Nation where we have not had to define what marriage is. It has been pretty common knowledge and it has been understood by most people. But now we have reached a period in our history when we are going to have to define what marriage actually is. We have to allow the States to define and Hawaii is going to be making that decision and I think in order to allow the other States to have that opportunity, then we must proceed with this Defense of Marriage Act to make sure that they are not bound by the full faith and credit clause to accept something that would not be acceptable to the majority of the people in those particular States, or in this Nation for that matter. But again, I think it is a sad day that we have to stand here in the Capitol of the United States and define what marriage actually is."

Gee, after 220 years we thought the Constitution was "understood by most people" too, especially by those who take oaths to support it. So let's look at this moronic argument step by step:

• Hawaii is soon going to be defining what marriage is, for itself.
• The Full Faith and Credit Clause is bad because now the other states may have to honor marriages performed in Hawaii.
• The Defense of Marriage Act is good because it amends the Full Faith and Credit Clause to prevent that.

At least this moron admits that they are attempting to amend the Constitution by circumventing the clear and well-established amendment process. Note also that Lewis, unlike his fellow opponents and presumably in a rare fit of mental clarity, at least thought to throw in mention of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. (Leaving aside the fact that he actually defeats his own argument by doing so.)

In conclusion, I'd like to say that it's very enlightening to see this modern, streamlined Constitutional amendment process in practice. How tiresome it was in the past to have to get all those pesky state approvals! Given that the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act was a model of efficiency and intellect, perhaps the Congress could now take aim at some of those other annoying "Amendments" that continue to clutter our outdated Constitution...