Obama defends DOMA – Irony still lost on him.

Dirty, nasty queers and their sinful lust for equality.

Someday, whether it be far into the future or relatively soon, Obama will feel great shame for his part in such a repulsive civil rights abuse. A man, who knows himself the sting of prejudice and yet he can not find the balls to do what is right and constitutionally sound. Its amazing to think he had once supported full marriage equality, until of course, he ran for president. It is odd  how the glow of power can shred integrity like cheesecloth to a knife. However, I digress.

The Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, who filed the suit, is currently running for the seat of late Edward Kennedy. Her office received word of the administrations filing and said they would file a response in court. Her office claims that the nearly 16,000 couples in Mass are being unfairly denied their federal marriage rights.

The Justice Department is at odds with Massachusetts — the first state to allow gay marriage — over a 1996 federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Massachusetts sued in July, saying that law is discriminatory and deprives gay couples in the state of some federal spousal benefits.

The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is discriminatory and wants it repealed, but says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.

The law “does not prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, nor does it prohibit the states from acknowledging same-sex marriages,” according to the court filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

Massachusetts, the filing continues, is trying to claim individuals have a right to federal benefits based on marital status.

“There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits,” according to the 36-page filing.

It is easy to argue that there is no fundamental right to federal marriage based benefits, if no one had access to them. However, you allow one group of people access to marriage benefits, you lose credibility when discussing things as vague concepts that have no weight in the real world. Once a peron or group is given special treatment over another, it seems the height of offense to claim no one has the right to such a thing. I understand that Obama has said he must defend the law while it is on the books, but I wonder what the case would be were it a law that affected blacks in a negative way. Would the law deserve his support then? I have a feeling, if this were the case, he would have no problem claiming the law to be racist or prejudice and thus, unworthy of continuation. That is, however, all speculation and none of us may ever know.

Read the full story at Boston.com