There has been much discussion about the DOJ defending DOMA in a court of law. This has prompted many comments like this one:
The justice department must defend the law without prejudice.
Many have argued that the DOJ has no choice in this matter and therefore, Saint Obama has no blood on his hands. However, John Aravosis points out, over at AmericaBlog.com, that this notion is patently false.
In fact there have been several instances in recent times where sitting Presidents of the United States joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws they didn't like.
Here are those instances, courtesy of AmericaBlog.com:
George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.")
Mr. Aravosis, who is a lawyer, concludes:
It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.
I know there are a lot of people on this site who believe Obama can do no wrong. But in this instance, his actions are indefensible. While touting himself to be a "fierce advocate" for gay rights, his DOJ is not just defending DOMA, it is heralding it as a "good law" that saves the government money!
Obama has let the gay community down, big time. There can no longer be any denying that.