From the transcript at the washingtonpost.com website
HUME: I just want to follow up with on the Defense of Marriage Act, which of course is the law of the land.
EDWARDS: Yes.
HUME: Does not the Defense of Marriage Act specifically say that the court rulings in one state, which might, for example, recognize a gay marriage, may not be imposed on anther state? In other words, doesn't the Defense of Marriage go to the very position which you yourself take?
EDWARDS: No, the Defense of Marriage -- first of all, I wasn't in the Congress, I don't claim to be an expert on this. But as I understand the Defense of Marriage Act, it would take away the power of some states to choose whether they would recognize or not recognize gay marriages. That's my understanding of it.
If that's Edwards' understanding of DOMA then he's not much of a lawyer. DOMA does 2 things: 1) Says that regardless of what the states do, the federal government will only give benefits based on heterosexual marriage; and 2) says that states do NOT have to recognize other states gay marriages if they don't want to.
What's weird is that Edwards initial response (before Hume's follow-up question excerpted above) to the DOMA question is right on the money and is correct. States SHOULD be allowed to decide whether they want to create gay marriage or not. Marriage is a state-defined institution. But DOMA is unconstitutional because states should NOT have the right to decide that they will accept heterosexual marriages but NOT gay marriages. If that's the case then what kind of federal system do we have??
What the conservatives are trying to do with the Federal Marriage Amendment is to try and prevent ANY state (court) or state legislature to enact gay marriage, which goes completely against their previously (racism-fueled) love of "states' rights." They basically want to change a states-based marriage definition, to a federally-based marriage definition.
Kerry, Edwards, Dean are all right in arguing AGAINST the FMA and against DOMA.