Flavin, RebeccaTandy, LewisBeckwith, Francis.Baylor University.2015-06-252015-06-252015http://hdl.handle.net/2104/9442In US v. Windsor (2013) the Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, meaning the federal government can no longer refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that are deemed legal under state law. Some scholars argue Windsor foreshadows the inevitable demise of Section 2 of DOMA, which currently permits a state to both define marriage as between one man and one woman and to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages consecrated outside its boundaries. On the contrary, in this thesis I will argue that Section 2 of DOMA is perfectly consistent with both constitutional and legal precedent, as well as the decision made in Windsor. Furthermore, Windsor has no dire implications on a state’s right to define marriage when one considers principles of federalism.en-USBaylor University projects are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. Contact libraryquestions@baylor.edu for inquiries about permission.Same-Sex Marriage.Defense of Marriage Act.DOMA.Gay Marriage.United States v Windsor.Windsor.ThesisWorldwide access