The Defense of Marriage Amendment (DOMA) was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

In a MTV interview, Bill Clinton acknowledged that at that time, he and his wife were concerned that a repeal of the entire DOMA would result in more states passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage; doing so, out of fear that the repeal would force them to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts.

The following is a transcript of Bill Clinton's DOMA remarks:

Q: The gay community has traditionally been a huge base of support for the Democratic Party. But recently Melissa Etheridge accused you of throwing the gay community under a bus. And I think that she was referring to the fact that in 1996 you signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriage. Given that my home state of Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage, in the interim period I wanted to know what your position on same-sex marriage is today and how you would hope the---

Clinton: Well, I think it is a slight re-writing of history. Let me just say, let me remind you that one of the reasons that the Republican Party used to get its base out - I think it was in 2004 - was to have all these amendments on the ballot to change the constitution of these states to ban gay marriage.

There wasn't the time for a serious effort to argue that the Congress ought to present to the states a national constitutional amendment on gay marriage. So the idea behind the Defense of Marriage Act was not to ban gay marriage but just simply to say that just because Massachusetts recognized gay marriage that they - Hillary and I at the time defended their right to do - that marriage had always been a matter of state law and religious practice. The Defense of Marriage Act did nothing to change that. All it said was that Idaho did not have to recognize a marriage sanctified in Massachusetts.

And that seemed to be a reasonable compromise in the environment of the time. And it's a slight rewriting of history on the part of Melissa, who I very much respect, to imply that somehow this was anti-gay when I had more openly gay people in my administration and did more for gay rights and tried to provide an opportunity for gays to serve in the military and did provide an opportunity for gays to serve in civilian positions involving national securities that they previously had been denied from serving in. That's a little bit of rewriting history.

Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the commonly-used name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state. The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Q: Even if it's a rewriting of history, what is your position in 2008, given that people see this as an equal opportunity problem at the federal level, not just at the state level.

Clinton: The important thing is what's Hillary's position. Hillary's position is that she doesn't support it and if we have the votes to repeal it she'll be happy to repeal it. But let me ask you this. Do you believe there will be more or fewer efforts to ban gay marriage constitutionally around the country if a Massachusetts marriage has to be sanctified in Utah? Yes or no. Answer the question. We live in the real world here.

Q: It's a political backlash, I know -

Clinton: No, not a political backlash. It's a substantive backlash. The lives of gay people - will there be more or fewer gay couples free of harassment if the law is that every gay couple in America could go to Massachusetts and then have to be recognized in Utah?

Q: But when is that going to change if you're not willing to set a firm stand -

Clinton: So you don't care what the practical implications are?

Q: No, I'm not saying there aren't pragmatic concerns -

Clinton: What I'm saying is - I'll tell you what Hillary's position is. What Hillary's position is she's opposed to it and she also believes that - she's also opposed to the ban on gays serving in the military.

WHOOPSY

At the time of passage, it was expected that at least one state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Including the results of the 2006 midterm elections, one state (Massachusetts) allows same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-six states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.