It isn't so much the legal reasoning as it is the law. I know this sounds like a contradiction, but I don't think it is.

The real question (and maybe that is what Rob meant) is what is the rationale for enacting a law?

I don't know. For some reason, owing NOTHING to my religious upbringing, I am in favor of the defense of marriage act.

I am not at peace with my position on this though. For every reason I offer for support of it, I can easily refute myself.

I am not really down on homosexuality. I wish the GOP (to which I belong) would not focus on the gay issue so much. Sodomy laws are not a really critical issue and I wish the 'Pubs wouldn't expend political capital to hound the gays.

But in the end (no pun intended...ok maybe a little), the only real reason I can use to justify the DOMA here in the US is that "that's the way it has always been." I just don't know if that is good enough.

But as far as legal reasoning, I don't read anything in the Const. that prevents Congress from enacting legislation preventing same sex marriage.

If you look past his ridiculous comments, this is what Santorum was talking about. Unfortunately, a valid point soon gave way to talks on beastiality.

Nothing clouds an issue more than talk of a man lovin' a pig.