In this New York Times Opinion piece, Obama's administration is said to have "submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits." What arguments were put forth? Homophobic arguments. The article states,
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.The argument put forth by Obama's administration was considered hurtful. "Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization" also responded by stating,
“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 Opinion piece went on to criticize the Administration.
Although I have argued similar points, homosexuals as usual, completely miss the point. They simply define the debate in such a way as that no serious debate can take place. Their position and presuppositions must be the quick sand...I mean foundation from which we all must argue (Just listen to James White's debate with Barry Lynn and John Shelby Spong). But even Obama's Administration apparently sees the major flaw in all of this.
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.
I must confess I have no idea why the Administration took the position it did. I have no idea if they are consistent in their fundamental principles or if they were just looking for a political way out (I think the latter is most probable). However, in doing so, they have only reinforced their political opponent's arguments and have undermined the philosophical "work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress."
Let's face it, if God's created order can be redefined to support homosexuality, then why not incestuous relationships?