Getty Images
It appears the Defense of Marriage Act's days are numbered. Two separate federal appeals courts have already struck down the discriminatory law as unconstitutional, and the Obama administration declared two years ago that it not only rejects DOMA, it will also no longer defend it against ongoing legal challenges.
And yet, as Andrew Rosenthal noted, congressional Republicans don't object to "throwing away money" on a pointless DOMA defense.
The 1996 law prohibits federal recognition of marriages between people of the same sex. It was signed -- to his shame -- by President Bill Clinton, and for years the government defended DOMA in court against lawsuits. But in 2011 President Obama instructed the Justice Department to relent -- after Justice concluded that the law was not constitutional.
Cue the budget-conscious Republicans on Capitol Hill, who authorized the spending of up to $2.75 million in public funds to hire lawyers to defend DOMA on their behalf. Apparently, that was not a big enough check, so on Jan. 4, the House Republicans raised the fee ceiling to $3 million.
Note, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) were not consulted before House GOP leaders signed the agreement with the lawyers and did not agree to the additional spending.
In a letter delivered yesterday to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Democratic leaders wrote, "This clandestine commitment of taxpayer funds is highly irregular and objectionable, and it must end now." They added, "From the start, the Republican-led campaign to defend DOMA has been a practice in futility and a waste of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars."
I have a strong hunch Boehner won't care about the Democratic objections, but the next time you hear the Speaker complain that the United States is "broke" -- a favorite Boehner talking point -- remember that he has no qualms about spending 3 million of our dollars on a legal defense of a doomed, discriminatory law.
Leave a Comment:
remember that he has no qualms about spending 3 million of our dollars on a legal defense of a doomed, discriminatory law..
But the GOP will, of course, provide dollar-for-dollar spending cuts to pay for this.
Right?
Right?
He doesn't care what you, or I, are going through. It doesn't matter if you are gay, or straight; he just doesn't care. Love is the answer....
My way or the highway, that's the GOP mantra. And of course they don't care that a mere $3 million would be tossed out the window to make a statement about their own cause. Even if it's clear it's a done deal, a lost cause. Just throw the money away.
It's those Sandy whiners--er, victims--who are pushing the deficit into oblivion. Not the bloated military spending or oil subsidies or corporate agriculture perks. No, sirree. We need to nip that old gay marriage thing in the bud, and if it costs a little of the taxpayers' money to do it, well, so be it. That's what it's there for, ain't it?
Well considering that these are the same sort of people who felt it necessary to cover the bare breast of justice with $8000 drapes I am not all that surprised.
Phew, pshaw & poohy! Penny dumb and Pound moronic is the apt cliche for all who would waste public monies on antiquated notions of sin, and not concentrate on the love that binds people who wish to partake in the grand ol'institution of marriage!
Boehner's efforts on this matter are uncommendable! -Kevo
Makes you wonder how many cruel anti-sodomy laws are still on the books, nationwide. It is a wonder that he didn't pull a Jerry Fallwell and cite 'man on dog' sex, as his objection to the future of marriage. I think that Boner would support the catholic church fighting for molester priests, before he would stand for a loving marriage between all peoples....
NOBODY...I repeat NOBODY cares if you have deviant sex and have domestic partnerships. BUT...to push for some kind of Government sanctioning for these things IS NOT in the Government purview. Dismissed.
scott- um, what? I can't tell if you're saying the Govt should allow gay marriage or not but from your use of deviant, I suspect you're arguing the latter. Domestic partnerships don't grant couples the same federal benefits and protections that marriages do. So, yeah, the government ought to sanction same-sex marriages otherwise same-sex couples are being discriminated against purely on the sex of their partner which is illegal.
Not dismissed, Scott. The federal government steps in to prevent states from all having their own itty bitty laws about what humans can or cannot do.
Sure, one state says NO GAY MARRIAGE, but another says YES and allows gays to establish households with the same marital legalites straight couples have, like child custody, visitation rights, insurances, etc. Ever thought for one minute the privilages of marriage that straight couples have that gay couples have to forgo, or the ramifications of accidents or death of one gay spouse crossing borders into NO GAY MARRIGAE states?
These are human beings wanting regular lives. It is NOT just about sex. If you as a straight person wouldn't want strangers dictating who you love, marry, and have a family with, why do you think it's okay to have strangers dictating the same for gay people? They aren't aliens, they are human beings entitled to a life, just like you.
Scott nnnnnnn Who are you to dismiss us or our comments? Just another high-handed wingnut?
How much taxpayer time and money does Bongo waste swilling gin and golfing?
Come now. This is really all about money and the party of "free stuff". This isn't about discrimination, this is about spousal benefits. It's all about another grab at the gravy train.
Really shooter your whines are really getting as lame as the lying delusional piece of crap 3rd rate movie actor turned soap salesman turned politician was when he first told you to whine about democratic spending. shooter the mans ideals are just as dead as the man is so stop whining about crap that Reagan lied to you about and said were the problem, reality is that is all the GOP do is waste money on moral laws they can't defend or enforce.
.....lying delusional piece of crap 3rd rate movie actor turned soap salesman turned politician was when he first told you to whine about democratic spending...while running up the deficit...
Fixed it for you
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
This is really all about money and the party of "free stuff". .... It's all about another grab at the gravy train.
**Squaaaaak** **Squaaaaaaaaaakkk**
Looks like you've distilled your talking points into one succint screech, to be applied equally, and without discrimination, regardless of applicability.
Congratualtions - It'll make your slide into irrelvancy that much smoother.
Shooter: you're back! I thought you went away to hold hands with Drudge, and propose your undying love to him, and ask him to marry you. The only gravy train you have is your bowl of dog food that keeps you writing that tripe... Trolls get what trolls deserve; watch the 'Hobbit' and see what happens to the trolls......
Shooter
Spousal benefits like: the ability to leave your property to whom you want. To decide how you want your medical affairs handled. To have your insurance cover the people you love. I would think you would be all for supporting a persons right to organize their life and decide how they want to live it without the Government sticking it's nose into their business.
It's all about another grab at the gravy train.
By us lazy gay people, right? Lord knows, when I'm not high on MDMA at an all night AIDS rave, I'm popping out little miracles left and right and draining the welfare coffers and all the natural resources for generations to come!
Hey Shooter, my money-grab gayness offsets your child's carbon footprint. I've got two words for you too..
Obviously Blankman you have NO one that loves you outside of your mother. There is NO one in your life that you are special too or who is special to you. You have my sympathy, as it must be part of the reason that you are so mean spirited and small of character. My wish for you is to fall in love with someone/anyone, life itself so that you can experience the fullness of loving another unconditionally.
If Republicans do not defend DOMA they will no longer get contributions from the Evangelical Right Wing Extremist who are the ones pushing them on this. The Pat Robertson's and James Dobson's as ad as it it they still think of anybody outside the White Men Christian Straight demographic as not us
Liberals love to lie...and then pass it off as some kind of straight out of Hussein's mouth "straight from the Messiah" truth. Get a clue Lefties...Again...NOBODY cares "who you love" or even what you wish to lay down with...NOBODY cares.Domestic Partner with whomever you wish... BUT...Marriage is a term coined by the religious types and to try and somehow "in your face" to them by trying to have Government SANCTION the insult is NOT what the Government is or even should be in the business of. The LBGT crowd do not wish to be persecuted...believe it or not...neither do the religious types. Do what you wish to do and nobody cares, just do NOT look to Government to give you some kind of "atta boy" for it.
Marriage has become a secular term, dude. Get over it.
Scott- it looks like you need a history summary of the institute of Marriage.
Marriage started out as a transfer of the ownership of daughters. From her father to her “Husband”. The religious rite (wedding) was a public announcement that this man was now the legal owner of this breed-abule property. It was his!
Through time things have changed for the good of all.
In the city-state of Sparta in ancient Greece, Women had legal rights of their own separate from their husbands while in the rest of this region women were still property.
Now we have every legal right there is, and the Republicans are going after one of them, sorry side tracked :)
From mid 1960s through mid 1980s very few people were getting married, the legality of it was not relevant, “it was just a piece of paper”. Now the legality it is relevant when an institution chooses to use: “marriage” you can, “domestic partners” you can’t. I’m pretty sure that if the “domestic partners” was mixed sex the issue would not come up.
Marriage is a willing partnership, it is hard-work from both people.
A marriage rite does not need a spiritual representative, but if the couple have faith then why should it be denied.
As to the BS about marriage to cow/sheep etc, you would have to convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is what the animal wants.
If it is in the “Government purview” to band, then it IS in the “Government purview” to sanction.
It's even worse than this article implies. The GOP inserted language into the "opening day" House Rules change which states explicitly that the BLAG and defending DOMA is speaking for the ENTIRE House of Representatives. Doesn't matter that Pelosi et al., are against this expenditure, the House Rules now say they are in favor of it and in favor of the continued fight to uphold DOMA.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/defense-of-marriage-act_n_2399383.html
It's amazing that Religious people have the exact same rights as do those who wish to be some kind of minority due to their proclivity for deviant sex...isn't it?
you fill my heart with sadness, scott. Such hatred in your heart for 5-10% of the population. And no, same-sex partnerships do not have the same rights as religious people. Look up what protections the federal and state governments give marriages then realize they don't give them to domestic partnerships. Who would choose to be part of a group that is attacked, harassed, and spit upon by people like you? They are part of the group because that is part of who they are and people like you need to wake up and see that.
Realize that a majority of religious people in this country are Christian and are not discriminated against because they are Christian (use of Christian here is intentional as Muslims do experience it).