House to pay up to $520 per hour to defend gay marriage ban

AP

The Republican-led House has agreed to pay a law firm up to $520 per hour to defend the Defense of Marriage Act banning federal recognition of same sex marriage, according to a contract posted by Politico.

Some quick background: The Defense of Marriage Act, the 15-year-old federal law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, is currently facing a legal challenge in New York. Traditionally the federal government defends challenges to federal law, but not in this case - after defending it for two years, the Obama administration announced in February it would no longer defend the law because it believes it is unconstitutional.

That decision left House Republicans, who largely oppose same-sex marriage, without "any choice" but to step in and defend the law, in the words of House Speaker John Boehner. In a letter earlier this week, Boehner asked for Department of Justice funds to be diverted to the House to pay for the costs of the defense, though that is not likely to happen.

Asked last month if Department of Justice would save money by not defending DOMA, Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Appropriations committee, "I'm not sure we save any money, frankly."

"The people who would be defending the statute, were we to do that, are career employees of the Department of Justice, who will not be spending their time doing that; they will be spending their time doing other things," he said. "I'm not sure that I see any savings as a result of the decision that I announced with the president."

The contract shows that the House has agreed to pay the firm King & Spalding up to $500,000 for its services in defending DOMA. It also says that Paul Clement, a partner at the firm, "will be principally responsible for conducting the Litigation."

As Josh Gerstein notes, Clement was Solicitor General under President George W. Bush.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent Boehner a letter late Monday saying that "The House of Representatives need not enter into this lengthy and costly litigation." After the contract was revealed, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill cast House Republicans as wasting money despite their claims of fiscal responsibility.

"The hypocrisy of this legal boondoggle is mind-blowing," he said. "Speaker Boehner is spending half a million dollars of taxpayer money to defend discrimination. If Republicans were really interested in cutting spending, this should be at the top of the list."

Responded Boehner Spokesman Michael Steel: "Obviously, this whole thing would be unnecessary if the White House and the Justice Department would do their job and defend a law that was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States - a Democratic President, at that."

[borgward17]

Meanwhile, half of them are hanging out in men's rooms.

[BigGrizzly55]

It's money well spent. If we don't stop it here, they'll want animals next.

[democracy5]

Utterly absurd of you to say that!

[tsigili]

Actually it is Republican religious lunacy.

Precisely why religious issues need to stay in the church, and out of government.

[barbaram99]

That is right. We do have sep of state and church. I can't believe they are blowing money on this issue. I am single. I know this is a hot issue. Ban marriage. My parents broke up when I was 4. My late Dad explained marriage to me this way. Right or wrong it was his views. Marriage is bewteen a man and woman. The sole reason is to marry is to have a family and children are given the family name-his. Dad was not a church goer. I never asked him about the GLBT issues as I knew his answer. Mother told me years ago when I lived in a blind place as there was a cross-dress there. Congress will have to change it as it stand in congree it is marriage between a man and woman. I have looked it up. Yet this issue won't die. The Constution does not address the issue. I looked that up. There are states that allow it. But the fed govt does not. I am 56.

[jeanneyess]

Laws that spread discrimination can and mostly are a cause of severe depression, severe anxiety, paranoia, nervous breakdowns, post traumatic stress disorder and can be the catalytic event for disability.

It seems to me, in a country which professes EQUALITY that it would be a very risky consideration to pass an act that is clearly discriminatory. If such a threat of a law that discriminates against GBLT same sex marriage would be the cause of severe depression and severe anxiety, paranoia, the onset of bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, I would imagine that the government would be looking at a lot of legal cases of causing mental anguish and disability.

Now, I understand that many Very Strong Conservatives might experience upset at the actions of others, such as in the case of Brown v. Kansas 1954, in which case a precedent against separate schools for "colored" people struck down the "separate but equal" policy that was held around the country, and because of a little girl's courage, racism in education was halted. Now in that case, we were talking about the discomfort of an entire nation of white caucasions who did get very upset at the thought of equality being forced upon them, and it did, in fact take until President Kennedy to write a bill to enforce Brown v. Kansas, and as he was assasinated, President Johnson passed the act to enforce Brown v. Kansas, inspite of the upset of the white empowered nation, and those white folk didn't like it, but they got over it, or died first.

Now, this is a pretty similar situation, where the United States are being intolerant of equality. It strikes my mind that somewhere in some historical bill that Americans are promised their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As I recall, it didn't indicate that this promise was for only Whites, only Men, or only Heterosexuals, not to my memory, but if I am wrong, Oh, Please do correct me, after all I am only human. So what we are looking at is a bill, act, or law that cannot pass the Constitution, even if it does make Heterosexuals uncomfortable. They will get over it, or die hateful and conflicted. Neverthless, the law of equality must be the guiding factor, this is America, and this is how we get along, and we do not practice prejudice in creating laws, the Constitution does not allow for the passage of laws that discriminate, should this bill come to the Supreme Court, a lot of time and effort will have been wasted, because the Supreme Court cannot pass a law that discriminates against any group. Ultimately, the intelligent Governors will recognize this, or be taken to the Supreme Court for the passage of an illegal act that discriminates against a group and these governors will be humiliated for trying to pass a law that they should have recognized from Brown v. Kansas would NOT allow for passage against a group. This litigation will have cost our entire country many millions or possibly billions of dollars to fight against equality. The ACLU, if they might see this comment, might put in their legal advice on this issue and should help to put this puppy to bed.

I am a proud American, I am proud that I have been a teacher of emotionally disturbed, behaviorally disordered children, a Distric Multi-Cultural Representative, a member of the Superintendent's Advisory Committee, and an advocate for the parents of my K-3 students, helping them to discover strategies for working with their children, even those that may be so servere that their child might be scoping out the neighborhood for pets to kill with their bare hands, and on pet day, bring in a hamster and on that student's turn, bring it up to smash to death, because it wasn't following directions. Motivation NOT Punishment.
Even little Sociopaths deserve their rights.

I congratulate, in advance, all those GBLT and Same Sex Couples on their human lifetime romantic commitment in marriage, all the best joy for all your wonderful life together as one, and never let anyone tell you you cannot be one, you knew you were one at that moment, and if you could have canned it, wouldn't that be great !!! Love to you all...

[marco_luxe]

Boehner will next ask the half-dozen multimillionaires behind NOM to finance the defense. I say let 'em waste their own $$$, just not taxpayers'.

I'd love to hear the legal defense King and Spaulding need to pull out of thin air. In the 2nd Circuit, the level of scrutiny must first be argued. Boehner must ask for a deferential standard of review by arguing such nonsense as: there is no history of invidious discrimination against LGBTs; LGBTs have won all popular votes against them -- and Prop 8 (CA), Measure 1 (ME), and judicial removal in Iowa never happened; LGBTs have never been targeted as a group (Gd hates ****), just individually; there is no evidence of any social stigma in being LGBT(intrinsically disordered - the Pope); the federal government will suffer greatly if it has to recognize all state marriages equally; being LGBT inhibits these citizens from contributing meaningfully to society; and there are no widespread false stereotypes of LGBT people....

C'mon. Not even NOM claims any of this. They just promulgate some insufficient nebulous fear of marriage equality, and avoid the specific legal tests. At least thats what they claimed in losing the Prop 8 district trial [that and "the adoption of same sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children", and "we would be more American on the day we legalized gay marriage than the day before" -- D. Blankenhorn, chief withness for Protect Marriage, Yes on 8]

[slatep]

I think it would be a good idea for Boehner and all the others who are against gay marriage to take a good look at how long some gay relationships last.

Next take a look at how long many hererosexual marriages last.

What exactly is the divorce rate.

How many children are being raised by single parents who have to work two and three jobs just to keep a roof over their children's heads and food in their mouths.

How many children come home to empty houses where no parents are available to provide warmth, comfort, love and guidance.?

How many of these latch-key children get into trouble or do drugs because they have no adult superviision.?

At the moment, we have far better places to put $520 an hour.!!

I agree with those who said "mind your own business".

[nearl451]

Not exactly Constitutional for the Legislative Branch to spend taxpayers money to seek legal redress of an Excecutive matter.

Iguess theyfinally created a job for some attourney, though.

[kansas1946]

I am so happy that Republicans have all this money to waste. They want to cut programs that help children, but can squander money to support their bigoted agenda. Pitiful.

[kneedragon76]

nope just you.

[070685]

Aren't we all to some degree?