A reader writes:

As much as I don't agree with all of the substance of the DOJ brief, Aravosis makes a huge error in claiming that the Government doesn't have to defend, or has a track record of not defending, congressional statues which have not already been ruled unconstitutional. All his examples were cases in which a court sat and ruled on the merits or was an appeal. For my knowledge the only case in which this might be possible is if the executive was an active party to the case. As such, comparing a case that has not been ruled on at all to these is lazy at best and perhaps purposely misleading.

That's my sense too. It was not the decision to file a brief that I object to. It was the content. But if the cock-up theory is correct, it would explain a lot. Holder needs to explain what on earth happened. And how something this damaging to gay people could come from a Bush appointee in an Obama DOJ.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.