I think we all need to stop and look at all sides of the issue, which to me appear to be:
1. What is the role of the Attorney General (AG) at the Department of Justice?
2. What is the relationship between the AG and the President of the United States where offerring legal advise is concerned?
3. What is the "chain of command", as it were, for either upholding a law and interpreting same between the DoJ, the Supreme Court and Congress?
4. What "means test", i.e., heightened scrutiny measure, is applied by either the DoJ or the SC or Congress, and is such testing utilized by all three legal entities in exactly the same way? In other words, does the DoJ, SC and Congress use the same guidelines when applying "heightened scrutiny" to an issue involving discriminatory practises? We'll get back to that in a moment...
I found these two articles which I believe speak directly to the points I've outlined above and should help answer the question placed before us from the OP.
Article 1:
Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court
Article 2:
DOMA Is Unconstitutional
I think everyone interesting in this matter should read them. However, I also believe everyone providing input on this poll should familiarize themselves to exactly what the role of the DoJ is and what the AG's role is in relation to the POTUS. For only when armed with such knowledge can one honestly render a virdict on the matter. To that, the
DoJ's website. From its website:
The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.
So, what we have here isn't a matter of the Justice Dept not upholding the law (DOMA). Their office just won't defend it in court for the reasons Redress recently pointed out, i.e., objection to clause 3 of the Act which, according to AG Holder and supported by the President, doesn't meet the higher standard of strutiny they've apparently outlined. Thus, the question becomes "what's the higher standard now being applied"? But even if neither the SC nor Congress adopts these "higher standards of scrutiny", both would still have to graple with justifying how anti-discrimination laws would not apply equally to gays and lesbians as they apparently do towards other minorities. (See article 2 above, "DOMA Is Unconstitutional" which outlines the four heighten scrutiny standards generally applied to such discrimination/Equal Protection cases) Moreover, how do you justify upholding DOMA when Congress just repealed DODT? One law takes gays and lesbians out of the perverbial closets; the other puts them right back in it! How do you rationalize that?
Based on this new knowledge (for I admit I had no idea what "DOMA" stood for or what the law entailed before posting to this thread and answering the poll), I think I've provided the best non-bias response I could give on the matter. To that, my initial position stands. The AJ has consulted with the President on the matter and they have determine that DOMA is unconstitutional and, as such will not defend such from the Executive Branch. It is, therefore, up to the courts themselve (perhaps even the Supreme Court) to render final virdict on the law's constitutionality. For what it's worth, I think the law will be overturned even if the "higher standards" (whatever it is) isn't adopted.