Obama administration defends DOMA in court, again

[Bluebear]

via Americablog: The administration doesn't have to defend these bigoted laws in court - we established that a few months ago, once and for all (here, here, and especially here) - but they continue to do so.

Considering President Obama was for gay marriage in 1996, this ongoing defense of bigotry and discrimination is unacceptable. It comes across as playing politics with people's civil rights. And it's wrong.

http://gay.americablog.com/2011/01/obama-administration-defends-doma-in.html

[Crazy Dave]

1. Not to worry

Just wait until he starts campaigning in the Blue States. He'll promise the gay community that if they vote for him in masses, then this time, this time no kidding, he'll see to it that they have the same civil rights as any other American.

Oh yeah...and the "shut the fuck up until after the election so you don't chase off the moderates" posts should be plentiful again here on DU. It's like betting on the sun rising again.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. He's not with us.

And by 'us' I mean anyone who believes in a fair, free, worth-living-in America.

[SidDithers]

3. And all the same things were said about him wrt DADT...nt

Sid

[treestar]

4. Wrong, he signed repeal of DADT

Defending it in court did not stop that.

How you can baldfacedly say this when you did get the DADT repeal from Obama and were wrong about that issue the entire time is amazing.

Now you are starting the same exact thing. Yes they do defend federal laws. But that does not mean that they can repeal those laws by simply not defending court cases.

[EFerrari]

7. No, the OP is not wrong. It is accurate.

And I hope the administration continues to feel the same kind of pressure that resulted in a good outcome for DADT.

[Number23]

8. lol Because DADT repeal only came about because of "pressure" and not the president's

REPEATED statements saying that he would repeal DADT (including mentioning it in a SOTU) and his behind the scenes efforts to repeal it. Right?

[treestar]

9. Going on about the DOJ defending lawsuits again

It was explained many times back then.

[EFerrari]

10. And the explanation was inadequate back then, too. nt

[treestar]

13. Well perhaps to anyone who wants to believe the legal system

simply does not exist or is all about men and not laws.

Or that one overturning by a lower court is better than a statutory change.

[Number23]

11. You just have to love the efforts to demonize this president ONCE AGAIN

on this issue. It would be comical if it were not indicative of something truly... something.

Glad that reasonable, decent, thinking people now see this for what it is.

[inna]

12. what's wrong is defending DOMA. period.

[William769]

5. We get what we deserve.

Sound familiar?

[Starry Messenger]

6. recommended.

What did they compare it to this time?

[xchrom]

14. Lazy, cynical, and I'll considered every time

The Obama admin does some thing like this.