is not derogatory, discriminatory language, however much John Avarosis wishes it were otherwise.  The gay community overestimates its political influence if it thinks this kind of tantrum-throwing will advance its goals.

1. Peruse something written/said by opponent.
   
2. Interpret something your opponent said as outrage-worthy.
   
3. ???
   
4. Profit!

Well, that's why we each have to do what we can to pressure him into changing policies rather than listening to the apologists try to convince us that up is not up, and down is not down. I still think if we keep the pressure up we can get a lot done like ENDA and DADT, but it will not happen without outside pressure. There are a lot of people whof eel as you do. Don't be discouraged.

It's not the public that Obama has to worry about with this issue, it's the Senate, which is overly represented by red state senators (both Democrat and Republican).  While the population centers of the country are behind him on DADT, taking a firm stand on this early in his presidency would almost certainly align more rural states uniformly against him.

It would, effectively, kill or severely wound his other initiatives, because the Senate hurdle would be that much harder to overcome.  Don't believe me?  Ask Bill Clinton how it works.

Subject to the caveat that the best defense is a good offense, I meant, of course, an impeachable offense.

This is exactly the type of hyperbole I am talking about.  If the President decides to take a position on the constitutionality of a statute, that represents "politicizing the Justice Department" - no different, really, than Bush hiring a bunch of Regent grads or firing US Attorneys who refuse to prosecute Democrats.

Of course the Justice Department needs to be independent in terms of carrying out its prosecutorial function.  That hardly means it needs to be independent in terms of setting policy priorities or taking a position on the interpretation and constitutionality of statutes - those things are of course for the President to determine.  Like I said, it's just amazing the over-the-top stuff some of you will talk yourselves into, just to avoid confronting the reality that this issue could have been handled better.

Yeah, I told Adam about my experiences with some of the posters here and on DailyKos. He gave me a great piece of advice- ignore them. So, from now, on, although I still plan to have my say there are a lot of posters I am just going to ignore because you are right.

I wish that were true, but this has gotten personalized to an absurd degree.  A poster up above is not only mad at Obama but everyone who voted for him.

should learn the lessons of the previous civil rights movement and lay a foundation of organizing and outreach rather than expecting politicians and courts to hand them everything at once.  Obama and other dem politicians aren't going to stick their necks out until the movement can demonstrate it has political clout.

and Rick Warren was a dumb mistake, as was McClurkin, as was Obama's flip-flop on SSM.  But people who don't understand the DOJs role are screaming about a legal brief they havne't read, and now it's just "OMG Obama evil sellout" 24/7.

to say whatever I please.  And you have the right to disagree however you like.  Tell me, what civil right did you have that you no longer have due to the DOJ brief?

personal attacks. I can read and understand the issue quite well..You on the other hand are defending the indefensible and a bigoted brief.

Here's the NYTimes Editorial for your perusal. In your words "Read and understand". Thank you very much.

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.

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.

The administration has had its hands full with the financial crisis, health care, Guantánamo Bay and other pressing matters. In times like these, issues like repealing the marriage act can seem like a distraction -- or a political liability. But busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.

Here's link to Markos's take on it.

But let's remember, gay anger isn't stemming from administration inaction (though that's fueling it). It stems from action -- the submission of this hateful brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act (which, by the way, totally failed to protect Sen. Jon Ensign's marriage). That anger is well justified.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/17/ 33828/9415

If you're happen to think that NYTimes Editors and Markos are all idiots, you good Sire need to bark another tree. And why is this your fight again? Have your rights had been taken away recently?

And while you're still pondering, here the link to the full brief.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16355867/Obama s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Marriage-case

Instead of quoting vague blogs, please read it in toto. The offsensive paragraphs per John Aravosis's blog

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama -justice-department-defends-doma.html

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

And the paragraph your link failed to add:

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA

And why is this so difficult for you to understand that this brief was deeply offensive to LGBT community?