" But the government only has a role in the civil institution of marriage, not marriage as a religious ceremony. Though certain religious groups still will not accept homosexual marriage that does not mean the government should or can follow along. The only way that the government can deny civil sanction to homosexuals is if there is a secular reason for doing so. So far there has been no legitimate reason for denying them the right to marry. .
Many people make the argument that homosexual marriage is forbidden in the bible. True, the bible does state that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman". It also states that if a man were to lie with another man, they shall be put to death. What people don't take into account is many other things that the bible says but people just don't remember like they remember that part. The bible states that "You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness." It goes on to say that "If a man lies with a woman having her sickness and uncovers her nakedness both of them shall be cut off from their people." Being homosexual and having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle both have detrimental repercussions. So why is it that we take into account the part about homosexuals, but when it comes to other things the bible says, we let it slide? If we are going to bring the Bible into this argument, then Congress should at least be consistent. .
Another problem with the defense of marriage act is that gay couples who are already married will not receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples, even if the marriage is recognized by the state. Though courts have ruled this unconstitutional, the ruling will not be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the case. This means that until that happens, same sex married couples are still not eligible to receive the same economic benefits denied by DOMA until the higher court rules.