Seems our fierce advocate is a fierce opponent

A gay couple married in Calif. last year have filed a suit in the US Supreme Court saying they want their legal Calif. marriage recognized by federal law and by other states. In other words, they are seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. This is not the famous case before the Supremes trying to get the current Calif. marriage ban overturned.

Alas, Obama's Department of Justice has written a legal brief asking the Supremes to dismiss the challenge to DOMA. It is filled with a great many of the Fundie talking points, such as the gov't will save money by denying marriage to gays (they’re worried about millions after spending 700 billion on banks?). Naturally, this has not gone down well with gay groups. Didn't Obama say he wanted to repeal DOMA? Where is our "fierce advocate?" Why is he supporting DOMA?

One of my sources, the Box Turtle Bulletin, is a bit more thoughtful and both the host and the commenters he attracts fill in a few holes.

* It seems the DoJ employee who is the author of the brief is a Mormon and a Bush era holdover, who wrote such briefs during that era.

* There is a debate on whether the DoJ is supposed to be independent from the president (knowing full well in the Bush years it wasn't). Does the Attorney General serve at the pleasure of the president and how should that affect his job? Should such briefs be reviewed by the prez. before being sent to the Supremes? Many gay blogs say the brief is Obama's personal rejection of us when it is likely he didn't see it before it hit the news.

* What is the difference between upholding the law (which the Constitution says is one of the jobs of the president and which Bush scoffed at) and defending the law before the Supremes (on which the Constitution is silent), especially if the law is seen as in conflict with the president's primary job of upholding and defending the Constitution?