On the tails of being the brunt of many jokes at the White House Corresspondents’ Dinner, Donald Trump offers a new collection of jocular political positions in a New York Times profile. Among them is a new explanation for his opposition to marriage equality for same-sex couples. Declaring himself a “traditionalist,” Trump compares same-sex marriage to long golf putters:

TRUMP: It’s like in golf. A lot of people — I don’t want this to sound trivial — but a lot of people are switching to these really long putters, very unattractive. It’s weird. You see these great players with these really long putters, because they can’t sink three-footers anymore. And, I hate it. I am a traditionalist. I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist.

This is what he thinks makes for a “conservative with a big heart“? Generally, individuals who demonstrate that they have values — even billionaires — actually bother to consider the lives other people live. There are severe long-term consequences for same-sex couples deprived of the rights and protections of marriage equality, but Trump thinks a golf metaphor does justice to the issue despite the fact he took two mulligans on marriage himself.

Trump can only see things in the world as attractive or unattractive, and he has no time for anything he finds “very unattractive.” Just ask the many girls he objectifies and humiliates when they enter the Miss USA pageant. His taste is a minefield of sexism bunkers and LGBT sand traps that have little to do with improving other people’s lives. Trump’s campaign hasn’t even teed off yet, but he’s already shanking his approach.

If anything, Trump should see long putters as an enticing investment opportunity, considering a majority of the population now supports marriage equality. But then again, who is really praising Trump for his business sense anyway?

DADT protesters handcuffed to the White House fence in November (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

As debate continues about whether to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, the military continues to discriminate against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Though “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” was “repealed” last December, it will remain in effect until 60 days after the repeal is finally certified later this summer. During that time, the Log Cabin Republicans continue to challenge the law in court and the Department of Justice very much continues to defend it, filing just last week to suspend legal proceedings while the certification process continues.

LCR’s lawyer Dan Woods responded to the filing in a statement:

Log Cabin Republicans v. United States is still alive and kicking in our court system, for very good reason. This case is necessary because discharges and investigations are still happening, it is necessary because we need to keep the pressure on to ensure that repeal actually happens, and it is necessary as insurance to set the precedent so that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ can’t come back. Log Cabin Republicans was willing to delay this appeal briefly while the certification process proceeds but only if the government agreed not to discharge any more servicemembers under DADT.  It was and is unfortunate and inexplicable that government did not accept our proposal.

As an example, Cadet Katie Miller, who had previously resigned from the West Point Academy to protest DADT, was rejected from readmission just last week because the law is still very much in effect.

The decision to continue defending DADT seems at odds with the DOMA decision. In February, Eric Holder announced that the DOJ would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act because “the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.” When Judge Virgina Phillips ruled against DADT last September, she pointed out in her decision that DADT discriminates against gay and lesbian servicemembers’ freedom of speech. Surely one form of discrimination against the LGBT community is no more defensible than another.

Either discrimination should be defended or it shouldn’t, and this filing makes it unclear where exactly the DOJ stands. If there is a different standard for LGBT Americans depending on the political implications of the case, it raises the question of whether justice is the top priority.