As Washington, D.C. gets set to kick off a weekend full of LGBT Pride events, leaders of the nation’s largest LGBT advocacy groups, many of which are based here, lashed out at the Obama administration over language contained in a government filing in a case brought by a California couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

During the 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama denounced DOMA as discriminatory and vowed to work to repeal it entirely.  But Justice Department officials say they are in the unenviable position of having to defend existing federal laws the president himself is opposed to, as long as those laws remain on the books.

The Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and a host of other legal and advocacy organizations issued a joint statement today condemning the government’s filing, saying in part:

We are very surprised and deeply disappointed in the manner in which the Obama administration has defended the so-called Defense of Marriage Act against Smelt v. United States, a lawsuit brought in federal court in California by a married same-sex couple asking the federal government to treat them equally with respect to federal protections and benefits.  The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used.  These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.

The Justice Department e-mailed Politico the following short statement defending its actions:

As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court. The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.

John Aravosis at AMERICAblog isn’t buying it, citing specific examples wherein past administrations refused to defend laws they believed to be unconstitutional.