I guess this editorial is from a lying gay lawyer too

[dsc]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/opinion/16tue1.html?_r=1

The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.

These are comparisons that understandably rankle many gay people. In a letter to President Obama on Monday, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, said, “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”

The brief also maintains that the Defense of Marriage Act represents a “cautious policy of federal neutrality” — an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits — such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns — that heterosexual married couples receive.

In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. There is a strong presumption that the Justice Department will defend federal laws, but it is not an inviolable rule.

If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.

end of quote

So is this the unreasonable rant of a lying gay lawyer?

[cali]

1. Who here said anything about "lying gay lawyers"?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

3. kick.

[AntiFascist]

4. K&R...

people were also defending the California Supreme Court when they were comparing the class of homosexuals to the class of criminals. To some, it is just assumed that these types of comparisons are acceptable when a majority of the people believe them. If gay experts, such as those cited in the OP, don't stand up to this then these types of beliefs will become even more ingrained and accepted within our society, especially when someone as popular as Obama fails to speak up against his own DOJ.

[ksoze]

5. That is an insult to lying gays.

[ruggerson]

6. Basic civics lesson

The DOJ has major leeway in the type and tenor of briefs they file.