Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) appeared at the National Press Club this afternoon, where he promoted his new book A Simple Government and reiterated his opposition to President Obama’s decision not to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. “I think the President made an incredibly, amazing, inexplicable political error yesterday because he is out of touch with the voters in every state in which this has been on the ballot,” Huckabee said, before suggesting that Obama broke a campaign promise by refusing to uphold the Act in a court of law:

HUCKABEE: If he wanted to keep his promise, which he said this should be handled legislatively, he should have kept his promise. He broke it. He should also explain why this isn’t the position he took during the campaign. I’m convinced that had he taken this position in the campaign, he might not have been elected. But it is very different than the position he took during the campaign. He said he did not support same-sex marriage, in fact supported traditional marriage of man and woman.

Watch it:

But Obama openly opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as a candidate in 2008, pledging to “fully repeal” the law and grant LGBT couples federal rights. He is also still “grappling” with his position on marriage, which while not yet supportive of same-sex unions, is “evolving.”

Moreover, despite Huckabee’s claim that Obama followed the whims of a district court in finding DOMA unconstitutional, the administration argues that two new challenges to DOMA in November of 2010 brought about the change. As the New York Times explained, “Unlike previous challenges, the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York — one of the only circuits with no modern precedent saying how to evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people.” The administration decided that sexual orientation deserved a higher level of constitutional scrutiny and that under that standard of review, Section 3 of the law was unconstitutional.

Huckabee is wrong in his assessment, but it’s worth pointing out that he didn’t call on the House or the Senate to step in and defend the law, suggesting that Republicans are reluctant to run on the issue in 2012.

New Iowa measure would prohibit the state Supreme Court from ruling on same-sex marriage, while a proposed bill in Tennessee would prohibit teachers from discussing gay people in elementary or middle school. That’s in today’s State Marriage Watch:

- MARYLAND: Maryland’s same-sex marriage legislation passed a second reading this afternoon in a vote of 25-22, paving the way for final approval later this week.

- HAWAII: Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie “signed same-sex civil unions into law Wednesday, calling it ‘a triumph for everyone’ that gay and lesbian couples will have the same state rights as married partners.” Civil Unions will begin on January 1, 2012.

- MONTANA: The Montana House passed a measure that would prohibit local governments from enacting policies seek that protects residents from real or perceived discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender, while the Montana Senate “voted Wednesday to remove an obsolete state law that criminalized gay sex.” “The Senate endorsed the bill 41-9 with 19 of 28 Senate Republicans supporting the measure. It has one more usually procedural vote before it goes to the House.”

- TENNESSEE: A proposed bill in the Tennessee Legislature “wants to spell out how schools can introduce sexuality – and only heterosexuality – to your child.” The bill, known as House Bill 229 or Senate Bill 49, says in part: “No public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.”

- IOWA: House File 330 would prohibit county recorders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and “the Iowa Supreme Court would be unable to rule on the issue.” A spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the bill is unquestionably unconstitutional.

- NORTH CAROLINA: A proposed amendment would “ban any recognition of any ‘domestic legal union’ other than a marriage between an opposite-sex couple. If approved by the legislature, the amendment would appear on the November 2012 ballot. Three-fifths of both the House and Senate must approve the amendment before it can appear on the ballot; the governor has no veto authority on amendments.”

For a complete overview of the latest developments in the marriage battleground states of Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, California, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wyoming, Iowa, and New Mexico, click here.

Greg Sargent argues that the GOP’s rather muted response to the administration’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) suggests that the party doesn’t consider marriage a winning issue in the coming 2012 elections. And that’s probably true. The GOP condemns Obama for the decision but does not promise (with the possible exception of Michele Bachmann) to hold-up the mantle of traditional marriage or defend the law in the administration’s stead. Consider this compilation of Republican responses to yesterday’s DOMA news:

- HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.”

- SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): “President Obama’s personal politics are trumping his presidential duty. Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act, a Democratic President signed it into law, and the Justice Department has a duty to defend it. It is deeply disturbing to see politics further distort the Department of Justice.”

- SEN. JIM DEMINT (R-SC): It’s increasingly obvious this President cares little about the Constitution, but cares deeply about pandering to liberal interest groups. Traditional marriage is the foundation of America’s culture, and the President’s refusal to defend marriage undermines our nation’s strength.

- REP. LAMAR SMITH (R-TX): The Justice Department has a responsibility to defend the laws passed by Congress regardless of the personal political views of the President or the Attorney General. The Obama Administration’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act is irresponsible.”

- REP. TOM PRICE (R-GA): “Rather than focus its attention on working with Republicans to cut spending and get our economy moving again, the administration is diverting its attention and abandoning the government’s defense of marriage… Once again, this demonstrates a woeful lack of leadership on the part of the president and his administration. ”

- MIKE HUCKABEE: “I’m deeply disappointed…They are clearly out of sync with the public…When the voters are so overwhelmingly [supportive of DOMA] what does the president believe he knows that citizens in all these other states don’t.”

- REP. MICHELE BACHMANN: I’m sending you this urgent message because if we don’t join together and take action today, it could be a crushing blow to the traditional marriage movement….This is not the end of the fight to save traditional marriage, it is only the beginning. I will continue to do everything in my power to fight back against Barack Obama’s attacks on marriage.”

Sargent argues that this is “another sign that while the culture wars have reasserted themselves with a vengeance in the GOP’s anti-abortion push, gay rights issues have lost virtually all their potency and bite.” “As many have observed already, the generational divide within the GOP is asserting itself on gay rights in a way that it simply hasn’t on abortion.”

Indeed, a growing number of Americans have no problem with expanding marriages to gays and lesbians or at least don’t see it as a major national priority. This is a losing issue politically, and given the prominence of LGBT issues in the early states of New Hampshire and Iowa, there is likely no need to add more fuel to the fire or distract from the economic message. A greater emphasis on the anti-gay agenda would also elevate the candidacies of fringe candidates (like Bachmann) who are unlikely to prevail in 2012.

Meanwhile, the anti-gay groups are taking a much harsher view of the DOMA reversal.