[Capricorn2481]

> Defense of Marriage Act is actually an exception. The people supporting it honestly thought it was defending marriage

Seems arbitrary. There is nothing about that act that even borders on defending marriage, and people supporting it know that. It's a comic misnomer.

[gurumeditations]

It’s defending when you view gay people as subhuman animals.

[pyuser583]

It was, and is, absolutely clear to everyone what this bill was about.

If it had been called the “Support Healthcare for Veterans Act” or even “Interstate Marriage Consistency Act” it would have been dubious.

But the 70% of Americans who opposed gay marriage correctly understood its meaning, as did the gay rights activists who saw gay marriage as unobtainable.

This wasn’t a confusing or misleading title, as is evidenced by the fact that nobody was confused or misled.

[Capricorn2481]

I think people weren't confused because its details were covered repeatedly by the news, not because the name was clear. I, for instance, figured a name called "The Defense of Marriage" act would be defending everyone's right to be married. It does the opposite. So count me as someone that considers that name misleading.

[davidhaymond]

Not all people who subscribe to the definition of marriage as put forth in the Defense of Marriage Act also believe that gay people are subhuman animals.

[rlt]

Technically it only requires you view marriage as being between a man and a woman.