Defending Obama?

A lot of faux-gressives are out in the interwebs defending the Obamessiah from the outrage of the LGBT community and once again, telling people spit on by their reigning Alpha that we should just sit down and shut up. Here's the stupidest argument:

Obama is restoring the rule of law. We don't want the president picking and choosing which laws he'll enforce. Do you want him to be like Bush and politicize the Justice Department. blah blah blah...

My response:

1.) Claiming that Obama is concerned with the rule of law is a joke considering his efforts to undermine the rule of law in regards to the MANDATORY investigation and prosecution of war crimes. (War criminals v. LGBT Americans. Which would you choose to protect?)

2.) No one is asking Obama not to enforce the law. We're asking that he not defend the law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Previous administrations have done so and the courts simply hired someone to defend the law.

3.) Even if they had to defend it, Obama's DOJ did not have to be so blatantly homophobic in doing so, potentially setting the cause of gay rights back decades.

4.) Even if the DOJ had to defend the law, Obama's administration could have issued a public statement or friend of the court brief disagreeing with the brief's conclusions and arguments.

5.) Even if the DOJ had to defend the law, they didn't have to use a Friday news dump in an attempt to minimize open discussion and debate on the brief. (A Friday news dump is specifically used to minimize media coverage of an action that may be viewed unfavorably.)

This brief is a virulently homophobic piece of crap that compares loving adult relationships to incest and pederasty, claims that homosexuals have no civil rights to speak of, claims that gay people can just marry people of the opposite sex if they want rights, claims that straight people shouldn't be forced to "finance" something they find abhorrent (despite the taxes paid by LGBT people for benefits they cannot claim and the many things taxpayers fund that they find abhorrent) and claims that Supreme Court precedent establishing sexual orientation as a suspect classification should be ignored. Anyone who defends this horrid abuse of our laws and our Constitution should be ashamed.