I don’t have much to add to John Aravosis’ take on the recent Obama Administration about its recent defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, except to note one thing:
When the basic theory of the case is nearly identical* to those arguments used to defend the outlawing of interracial marriage, you really suck.
Particularly when the president–and the buck does stop with him–is not only a former professor of constitutional law, but is the child of an interracial marriage.
And for extra shitheaditude, guess who wrote the brief for the Obama administration? A Mormon Bush administration holdover. I guess this is what is meant by transcending partisanship….
Politically, this is a self-inflicted wound: the theopolitical conservatives will never support Obama, and all he has done is alienated part of his base.
*The Obama administration argued that individual states have the right to “refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State’s policy.” Two examples were given: incestuous marriage, and marriage to a minor (i.e., child rape). Similar arguments were made in the Loving v. Virginia interracial marriage case. Disgusting.