Charlie Butts and Jody Brown report:

The move by the White House prompted the leader of a coalition of 34,000 black churches to state that the president "has violated the Christian faith" by failing to uphold Jesus' teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman. Rev. Anthony Evans, head of the National Black Church Initiative, also stated black churches must "reassess their extraordinary support" for Obama.

Dr. Ken Hutcherson, senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington, tells OneNewsNow that President Obama is not only violating a basic Christian principle, he is flying in the face of the will of the people.

... Asked it that could that be considered arrogance, Hutcherson responded: "It's past arrogance. I think it's delusional." (source)

The Family Research Council submitted this official request to the Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA):

"Less than three hours after Attorney General Holder's announcement, litigants seeking to strike down California's traditional marriage definition enacted by Proposition 8 filed a 'Motion to Vacate Stay' in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On pages 7 of 23 and 10 of 23 the Motion cited to and quoted from the Attorney General Letter.

"As the president of the Family Research Council (FRC), an organization that has filed amicus briefs defending both Proposition 8 and DoMA, I am troubled by the lightning-fast integration of concepts and actual language from the Attorney General Letter into the Motion to Vacate Stay. Let me repeat: the Motion was filed within two-and-one-half hours of Attorney General's press conference. Consequently, I am deeply concerned that officials at the Department of Justice were collaborating with the litigants in the Proposition 8 case. Even the appearance of collusion between the Department of Justice and litigants is highly damaging to the rule of law in America." (source)

Attorney Paul Benjamin Linton wrote this legal analysis for the Thomas More Society:

In deciding to abandon the defense of § 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Attorney General has overlooked a binding precedent of the Supreme Court. In Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), a same-sex couple challenged on federal constitutional grounds a state law which, as interpreted by the state supreme court, reserved marriage to opposite-sex couples. Baker, 191 N.W.2d at 185-86 . . . The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal for want of a substantial federal question. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). Under well established precedent, the dismissal of the appeal in Baker for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a decision on the merits that is binding on lower courts on the issues presented and necessarily decided. (A response to the Administration’s Decision Not to Defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act)

Josh Gerstein, who writes for Politico on the courts and transparency, reports:

Early in a House budget hearing Tuesday, Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) casually asked Attorney General Eric Holder how much money the department would save by not defending several lawsuits and appeals challenging the law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

"I'm not sure we save any money, frankly," Holder told a House Appropriations subcommittee. "The people who would be defending the statute, were we to do that, are career employees of the Department of Justice...I'm not sure I see any savings."

The import of Bonner's query wasn't entirely clear until later in the hearing when Rep. Steve Austria (R-Ohio) indicated that the House might try to take that money to pay for lawyers to take up where the Justice Department is leaving off. (source)