We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre. With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.
Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.
The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance. I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.
News flash Joe, this is NOT about Republicans or Democrats. There are liberal and conservative Republicans; liberal and conservative Democrats. What is conservative/classical liberal as it is understood in America today is an idea, a concept, a conviction that in order to be free, we must first have our rights secured, and then we must be able to live our lives as we choose without interference from a central government authority.
The Founders risked all that they owned, their blood, their treasure, their loved ones, their very lives to free us from monarchs, popes, or other authorities who would assign us the rights we would have, the beliefs we were required to profess, the lifestyle we would live.
So tolerance is a two way street. To deny another his intolerance, short of denying unalienable rights, is in itself a freedom robbing intolerance. There must be as much freedom to scorn and distrust the religious, for example, as there must be freedom to scorn and distrust the Atheist. And neither should be able to require the other to adopt or respect his/her point of view, much less adopt it.
The conservative may abhor another's prejudices, but knows that freedom requires us to not interfere with the other person's prejudices except when they deny others their unalienable rights. The Westboro Baptists, for instance, are held in utter contempt, but will be left alone in their narrow minded hatefulness. They will be resisted, however, when they attempt to force that narrow minded hatefulness on others.
But even as they too condemn a group like the Westboro Baptist, the modern American liberal too often demands that others accept their version of virtue or morality. Thus they see no problem with attempting to destroy the livelihood and peace of a Rush Limbaugh or a Chick fil a or a Paula Deen when such people fail to measure up to the liberal's version of what morality and/or virtue is. There is no live and let live--no tolerance--no understanding of what real liberty is--in most of the modern liberals' world. And to make matters worse the modern day liberal is rarely consistent. They are excessively selective in who will be forced to conform or who will punished if they do not, and reserve their contempt and coercion for those with whom they do not feel ideologically compatible.
And for those of us conservatives/classical liberals who see it as a dangerous thing for government to dictate to us how we must live our lives, it is only a natural consequence that we would hold in contempt a liberalism that would also dictate to us how we must think, how we must believe, how we must speak, how we must live our lives. The contempt is not for what the liberal believes. The contempt is for what the liberal would force upon everybody else by whatever means deemed necessary.
Maybe Mr Pogo needs to work on his 
bone
