If arguing from a utilitarian standpoint, I will be able to prove that the Baldwin’s decision to push for the Respect for Marriage Act is in fact a morally good decision. I will be able to do this despite rebuttals from the critics of utilitarianism and the proponents of Kantian ethics. The issue of same-sex marriage has always been a moral issue in the United States, as well as in the rest of the world. In the United States, despite the American Psychiatric Association declaring in 1973 that homosexuality is not a disease (“Facts about Homosexuality,” UCDavis), religious and conservative groups in the country have maintained their stance on homosexuality despite the fact that European countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, as well as neighboring Canada, have instituted same-sex marriages (Robinson). Despite the fact that the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia have already begun issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, 37 states are still under the Defense of Marriage Act (“Same-Sex Marriage,” NCSL). This means that the majority of the states, as well as the federal government, still do not recognize the sanctity and legality of same-sex marriages even in those states that allow such kind of marital union. This is where Wisconsin Representative Tammy Baldwin comes in and her Respect for Marriage Act. This bill, which is sponsored by 108 members of the Congress (“Openly-Gay,” NPR.org), is, according to Baldwin, the answer to the “unconstitutional” and “un-American” Defense of Marriage Act (“Openly-Gay,” NPR.org). The Respect for Marriage Act, if enacted, will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and will restore the rights of same-sex marriage couples to receive the benefits of marriage as prescribed by federal law. Another purpose of the bill is for same-sex marriages in the states that institute them to be recognized by the federal government as well as the other states that do not institute such a type of marriage (“Respect for Marriage Act,” HRC.org; “Political Positions”). In fact, the bill was re-introduced in Congress on March 16, 2011 (“Respect for Marriage Act,” HRC.org). Representative Baldwin, who is one of the staunch defenders of the bill and one of the six representatives who reintroduced it in Congress (“Respect for Marriage Act,” Okeq.org), pushes for the approval of the bill with determination and conviction perhaps due to the fact that she herself is openly gay (“Openly-Gay,” NPR.org). The fact that Baldwin is homosexual herself may somehow account for her purely altruistic motives in pushing for the bill, whereas the heterosexual congressmen who cosponsor the bill may somehow do it only for hidden political agendas. Baldwin, however, may actually be motivated to do it purely for the sake of all her gay fellows. With around 9 million gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, adults in the United States who are ready to benefit from the institution of the act (“New Research,” The Williams Institute), the question now is whether this decision of Representative Baldwin is morally good or not. Based, however, on a recent Pew poll survey, 45% support same-sex marriage and 46% oppose it (“Respecting,” LA Times). This data is hopefully representative of the currently 310.5 million Americans (Schlesinger, USNews).