Suetonius saidHow nice. Obama really supports equal rights for gays. Yeah, right.
Did you even bother reading the article? The DOJ's objections were based on technical legal issues.
An attorney for the plaintiffs said, “We appreciate that DOJ has agreed with us that each of the statutory provisions we challenged is unconstitutional, and are working with DOJ lawyers to find a solution that will provide our Plaintiffs with all the benefits they would have received if their application for benefits had not been unconstitutionally denied.”
Of course I read the article. Not unlike your UK, the president here (like your PM, I believe) has plenary power over his administration. The attorney general (or the chief counsel for the veteran's administration) does not take positions contrary to policy of the administration. The government's attorneys do not have to raise "technical issues." In a case with such major policy considerations, the white house is briefed, and approves positions the government will take. If the president determines that a particular position should be taken in litigation, it will be taken, technical issues notwithstanding. If the president so determined, policy would have been adopted, and litigation would not have been necessary.