ic acts, records, and judicial proceedings of everyother state, shall be proved." However it would seem that by allowing individualstates to alter and change what the meaning of marriage is, it could create adisaster if even heterosexuals want to wed. The underlying principle in DOMA isthat states now have the right to redefine what they feel is or is notappropriate behavior and shall be allowed or illegal in their state. It is alsoapparent that the signing of DOMA by President Clinton was more of apresidential campaign gesture then an actual change in policy. While he hasshifted considerably from his platform in 1992 this move was specificallydesigned to change his image among more conservative voters. It is also apparentthat this move did not work because a majority of conservative Americans stillvoted for Bob Dole in the 1996 Presidential election. Clinton, now that he hasbeen re elected, partially under the front of a more moderate administration,should seriously rethink its policy on social change and whether he wants to goout as the President that denied hundred of thousands of people the opportunityfor equal rights.In 1967 the Supreme Court announced that "marriage is one of the mostbasic civil rights of man....essential to the pursuit of happiness." Having thehighest court on the land make such a profound statement about something whichcurrent politicians think they can regulate like phone or tv's is somethingshort of appalling. For who is to say what happiness can be created from wedlockbut the people that are in the act itself, per couple, household and gender. TheUniform Marriage and Divorce Act proclaim that "All marriagescontracted....outside this State that were valid at the time of the contract orsubsequently validated by the laws of the place in which they werecontracted...are valid in this State". This Act has been enacted in seventeenstates and could be the foundation for full faith and credit if marriages wereto take...
