House Speaker John Boehner To Divert DOJ Funds To Pay For DOMA Defense

Remember Nancy Pelosi's letter to John Boehner in which she demanded to know how he was going to pay for the GOP's defense of DOMA? Here's how:

House Speaker John Boehner said he intends to divert funding from the Justice Department to the U.S. House so Congress can defend the federal law that bars recognition of same-sex marriage. The Ohio Republican disclosed this in a letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who is strongly opposed to Congress going to court to defend the 1996 law. An estimate on court costs was not given. [snip] Boehner asked the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group -- consisting of the top leaders of Congress -- to defend the law in court. The GOP members of the group sided with Boehner. "By the president's action through the attorney general we have no choice," Boehner's letter says. "The House now faces that additional burden and cost." Boehner said he has directed the House's counsel and the House Administration Committee to ensure that there are "sufficient resources" and expertise, including an outside lawyer if necessary, to defend the law.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, Boehner has retained former Dubya Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the cases now in the courts. Clement is now with the private firm King & Spaulding. Via HRC's press release:

“Not only are House Republican leaders defending the indefensible, they’ve brought in a high priced attorney to deny federal recognition to loving, married couples,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Speaker Boehner appears ready to go to great lengths, and the great expense of a high-power law firm, to try to score some cheap political points on the backs of same-sex couples. King & Spaulding were not required to take up this defense and should be ashamed of associating themselves with an effort to deny rights to their fellow citizens.”

There are presently nine DOMA Section Three-related cases pending.

UPDATE: A tipster points out that King & Spaulding has a 95% rating from the Human Rights Campaign, something the law firm trumpets on its own website.

King & Spalding is committed to having the brightest and most diverse lawyers it can find, including members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community. We work hard to foster and maintain an environment where our lawyers can provide the highest level of legal service while being true to themselves in the process. The firm's non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Further, domestic partner benefits are offered for same-sex couples.

Does that sound like a company that really wants to get involved in the GOP's anti-gay bigotry?

Concerned Women Are Concernstipated About 80s Pop Stars Getting Married

Or so it would seem from their bizarre image accompanying this message:

So, just like any other despot, Obama decided unilaterally to make the decision for all of us ignorant Americans who support DOMA, and we should be grateful. Shame on him. And shame on us if we just stand by silently and take it. We should not! We must speak out. Truthfully, we have been too silent for far too long. President Obama and Mr. Holder have been actively working against DOMA and, therefore, against all Americans ever since they took office. Even on the cases where they decided to “defend” DOMA, they were actually undermining its reasoning by abandoning the most effective arguments.

DOJ’s mission statement says it is “...to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.” But President Obama and the attorney general have made a mockery of impartiality. They have chosen to side with an extreme, liberal minority and chose to suppress the rights of the majority of Americans. Simply put, if you support DOMA, this president and his administration view you as the enemy who does not deserve the same protections other Americans enjoy. We are on our own.

Wingnut GOP Rep. Steve King Plans To Cut DOJ Budget Over DOMA

Virulent homophobe Rep. Steve King (R-IA) says he will introduce a budget amendment that will cut the Department of Justice's funding by the amount it would have spent to defend DOMA.

"What I intend to do, and there are other solutions that are offered, and I believe that the Speaker is focused on this, as well ... is to offer an amendment on an appropriations bill that would cut the funding to the Department of Justice in an amount yet to be determined that would be equivalent to that amount that they would otherwise use to defend the Defense of Marriage Act," King said Tuesday.

Completely ridiculous grandstanding, of course.

Big Week For LGBT Rights

DOJ Notifies Court Of DOMA Withdrawal

Via press release from GLAD:

The Department of Justice followed Wednesday’s withdrawal from two DOMA cases in the Second Circuit, including GLAD’s Pedersen v. OPM by notifying the clerk of the First Circuit that they will also “cease to defend” the two consolidated DOMA cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. HHS. The DOJ has not sent a letter to the Congress declining to defend DOMA in toto in the Gill case, so its determination may only apply to the extent the court determines that heightened scrutiny is the proper standard of review for DOMA’s constitutionality. No matter what happens, the case will proceed with DOJ as the attorneys for the government defendants.

“It is increasingly clear to everyone what has been clear to gay and lesbian families for years - that DOMA’s denial of protections available to all other married families is discriminatory, harmful, and unjustifiable,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director and lead attorney on both Gill and Pedersen. “DOJ’s acknowledgement of this is momentous. At the same time, we know this isn’t the end of the road.” In a letter to the court Assistant Attorney General Tony West writes that “the Department will cease its defense of Section 3” in cases including Gill and Massachusetts. DOJ also “notifies the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation of those cases,” and that “we will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United State throughout the litigation.”

Anti-Gay Groups Vow DOMA Defense

Anti-gay legal groups from the Alliance Defense Fund to the Heritage Foundation are saying that the president's decision yesterday clears the way for them to mount a "truly rigorous" defense of DOMA.

Chuck Donovan, senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, says the government's decision to abandon the federal law is outrageous because it is now understood that the administration's defense of DOMA in court has only been a pretense. "The silver lining, though, is that now, we're going to get away from this farce of a representation we've had out of the Obama Justice Department," Donovan suggests. That means "we'll have a clear attempt...by others in Congress to interject the congressional view and defend marriage." The Department of Justice has already told one federal court that DOMA is unconstitutional, while maintaining in another case that the government could make a defense, even though the agency believes the law is unconstitutional. "It's embarrassing for the administration to have it play out this way," the research fellow decides. "It looks very political. But actually, there's a chance that DOMA will now get a much better defense."

An ADF attorney says, "The Department of Justice has a constitutional duty to defend the laws duly enacted by Congress. And the refusal of the attorney general to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act just because they don't like it politically is really inexcusable."

Glenn Greenwald Explains DOMA

According to openly gay Salon reporter Glenn Greenwald, the president deserves "enthusiastic unqualified praise" for yesterday's DOMA move. "This is a case where there's a fair amount of political risk, very little political benefit."

Quote Of The Day - Tony Perkins

"Never in the history of this great nation has a President so openly defied his duty to uphold and defend the law of the United States . Now, this White House is declaring war--not only on marriage--but on Congress, whose authority this President now rejects. If this congressional leadership does not intervene with the force this attack demands, then they will become complicit in behavior that is more befitting of a Middle East regime.

"To our friends who want nothing more than to leave these issues behind, this is what a social truce would look like. Republicans need to see this challenge for what it is: the White House, throwing down the gauntlet on marriage and declaring them irrelevant. That same piece of yellowed parchment that empowers this President is the one that demands, 'He shall take care that the laws be faithfully enforced.' And where he fails, Congress must not" - Family Research Council spokesbigot Tony Perkins, via press release.

AFA Reacts To DOMA News

Richard Socarides & Pat Buchanan On Barack Obama And DOMA

Socarides, who is now with the Media Matters affiliate Equality Matters, says that today's move "will definitely help Obama with gay groups." Understatement.

WH Press Secretary Jay Carney: Obama Is "Grappling" With Marriage Issue

BREAKING: Feds To Give Up On DOMA!!!

In a stunning announcement, today Attorney General Eric Holder declared that the federal government will no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA in court.

Here is an excerpt from Holder's statement.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, 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. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President's instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

Read Holder's statement in full. Analysis and reactions to come!

FCC Approves Comcast-Universal Merger

CNN is reporting today that the FCC has approved the merger between cable giant Comcast and NBC-Universal. CNET explains:

The $37 billion merger between the companies has been a long time coming. The deal, which was first announced in 2009, provides Comcast with a 51 percent controlling stake in NBC Universal. General Electric will retain the remaining 49 percent. When the deal was first announced, the companies hoped to have it accepted by regulatory bodies at the end of 2010. However, over the course of the last year, the companies faced increasing concerns that their merger might unfairly impact competing content providers and harm consumers. The Department of Justice, which is also evaluating the merger with regard to antitrust rules, is also expected to vote to approve the joint venture. Both the Justice Department and that FCC stamps of approval are needed before the deal to form the joint venture can close.

The merger has been a subject of relentless lampooning on NBC's 30 Rock, where the acquiring company is called Kabletown.

Family Research Council Denounces Obama's "Shoddy" Defense Of DOMA

"Apparently, the administration is so fixated on making the homosexual community happy that it's not even working to uphold what's best for kids. In this instance, the Justice Department seems to imply that by doing their job they're somehow doing America a favor. Hardly! Defending the law is DOJ's whole reason for existence. So while the President may have strong feelings on the matter, they by no means excuse him or his administration from doing its duty. Since the President is failing to live up to the responsibilities his elected office holds, it is within Congress' explicit right to intervene to defend the laws they have passed. This current appeal is already shoddy substitute for the compelling argument that the statute--and American families--deserve." - Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, via press release.

Matt Baume: This Week In Prop 8

NOM Is Very Upset About The DOJ's "Collusive" Defense Of DOMA

"The DOJ brief amounts to collusive litigation, failing to even offer to the court, much less vigorously defend, the reasons Congress laid out in the statute when it passed DOMA, especially responsible procreation. This is an attack not only on marriage, but on the prerogatives of Congress. The Executive branch should not attempt to exercise this kind of retroactive line-item veto over a bill passed by Congress.

"All the parties to this litigation want the court to strike down DOMA; this is clear from their behavior, no matter what President Obama and his politicized DOJ pretend to convey to the public. If Obama’s DOJ had merely honestly refused to defend the law, the court would likely have permitted another party to intervene to defend the law. Obama’s DOJ is trying to retain control so it can lose this case." - NOM president Brian Brown.

DOJ Files DOMA Defense

The Department of Justice yesterday filed its defense of the overturn of Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was ruled unconstitutional last July in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States.

A quote from the government's brief comes via Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly:

DOMA is supported by rationales that constitute a sufficient rational basis for the law. For example, as explained below, it is supported by an interest in maintaining the status quo and uniformity on the federal level, and preserving room for the development of policy in the states. When DOMA was enacted, the institution of marriage had long been understood as a formal relationship between a man and a woman, and state and federal law had been built on that understanding. But our society is evolving, and as is well-established, the “science of government . . . is the science of experiment.” Over the years, the prevailing concept of marriage has been challenged as unfair to a significant element of the population. Recently there has been a growing recognition that the prevailing regime is harmful to gay and lesbian members of our society.

Rather tepid, eh? Richard Socarides of the newly-formed Equality Matters responds.

"There are some improvements in tone in the brief, but the bottom line is the government continues to oppose full equality for its gay citizens. And that is unacceptable. The administration claims that it has a duty to defend the laws that are on the books. We simply do not agree. At the very least, the Justice Department can and should acknowledge that the law is unconstitutional."

And from GLAD, who won the case, we get this response via press release.

The government’s appeal follows a decision issued on July 8, 2010 by federal District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro in favor of GLAD’s plaintiffs, seven married couples and three widowers, who have been denied access to federal programs because of DOMA. In that decision, Judge Tauro concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional. “We see nothing really new in this brief, which reiterates many of the same arguments the government made in the District Court,” said Mary L. Bonauto, who is leading the DOMA team for GLAD. “We’re prepared to meet these arguments head-on, and bring to an end the discrimination that is suffered by married same-sex couples like our plaintiffs and that DOJ has admitted is caused by DOMA.”

DOJ Will Appeal DADT Reinstatement Of USAF Major Margaret Witt

The Department of Justice has filed a brief announcing their intent to appeal the reinstatement of Major Margaret Witt, whose DADT-related discharge was overturned by a federal court in September. Chris Geidner reports at Metro Weekly:

With today's filing, DOJ stated in a docketing statement required to be filed with the Notice of Appeal that the principal issue to be raised on appeal is: "Whether plaintiff's discharge pursuant to 10 U.S.C 654 and its implementing regulations was constitutional and whether plaintiff should have been ordered reinstated to the military, subject to meeting applicable requirements respecting qualifications for continued service."

Geidner adds that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs took note of today's action by the DOJ and cautioned, "This filing in no way diminishes the President’s -- and his Administration’s -- firm commitment to achieving a legislative repeal of DADT this year. Indeed, it clearly shows why Congress must act to end this misguided policy."

DOJ Files Opposition To Log Cabin Republicans' SCOTUS Appeal On DADT

Today the Department of Justice filed a brief in opposition to the Log Cabin Republicans' request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the LCR's appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court's indefinite stay on the overturn of DADT. Whew! Got all that? The Log Cabin Republicans respond to this latest bit of legal ping-pong.

"It is unfortunate the Obama Justice Department has forced the Log Cabin Republicans to go to the Supreme Court to halt this failed policy. At the same time, President Obama remains far from the front lines of the fight for legislative repeal while commanding his lawyers to zealously defend 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in court. This week Log Cabin Republicans have conducted meetings with numerous Republican senators potentially in favor of repeal, all of whom are waiting for the President's call. The White House has been missing in action on Capitol Hill, undermining efforts to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the final session of this Congress, potentially leaving the judiciary as the only solution for our brave men and women in uniform."

And there's this from the LCR's legal team.

"We have reviewed the government's opposition to Log Cabin's application to vacate the stay of Judge Phillips's injunction by the Ninth Circuit. In our view, the government's lengthy, detailed, 29-page brief does not address the two key arguments we presented to the Supreme Court. First, we argued that the premise of the government's position--that it needs time to conduct an orderly process of repealing DADT--is entirely speculative because Congress has not and very well may never repeal DADT; the government's filing today does not address that issue. Second, we argued that the Ninth Circuit order did not take into account the harm to servicemembers and potential enlistees resulting from the stay; the government's filing today does not respond to that point either. At this point, all we can do is to look forward to a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court."

BREAKING: Federal Appeals Court Issues Indefinite Stay On Overturn Of DADT

In a suckily timed Election Eve ruling, late this afternoon the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals indefinitely extended their stay on the overturn of DADT.

In an eight-page order, the judges said they were persuaded by the Department of Justice's argument that U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' worldwide injunction against the 1993 policy "will seriously disrupt ongoing and determined efforts by the Administration to devise an orderly change of policy." Monday's decision means gay Americans who disclose their sexual orientations still can't enlist in the armed forces and can be discharged. It also heightens pressure on the Obama administration to persuade the U.S. Senate to repeal the 1993 law before a new Congress is sworn in.

The Court also gave the DOJ until January 24th to file their broader appeal against Judge Phillips' ruling. And the Log Cabin Republicans now have until February 22nd to respond to that.

REACTIONS

Lambda Legal

"Today's ruling means additional months or even years of needless suffering by lesbian, gay and bisexual service members, who must continue to live in fear of discovery until the appeals process is complete – or until Congress or the President steps up to the plate. But it's important to remember that today's ruling was not: a consideration of the merits of the case. That remains for another day. Each day that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' remains in effect, it destroys lives and careers, undermines national security, and forces the discharge of the very personnel our military needs in a time of war. The pressure is now on Congress to repeal this fundamentally un-American law – and on the President, who can issue a stop-loss order to put an immediate end to discharges under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"

Log Cabin Republicans

"Log Cabin Republicans is disappointed that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will continue to burden our armed forces, undermine national security and limit the freedom of our men and women in uniform. Despite this temporary setback, Log Cabin remains confident that we will ultimately prevail on behalf of servicemembers' constitutional rights. In the meantime, we urge President Obama to use his statutory stop-loss power to halt discharges under this discriminatory and wasteful policy."

Human Rights Campaign

"Every day that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is in force, Americans are losing out on the best and brightest service members defending our country. For the good of our national security, the endless legal wrangling and political posturing has to stop. This is the year for the President to lead and for Congress to clean up the mess it made when it enacted this discriminatory and unconstitutional law nearly two decades ago.”

Servicemembers United

"It is really unfortunate that the government has tricked the Ninth Circuit into believing that 'enormous consequences,' 'immediate harm,' and 'irreparable injury' will result from a continuation of the injunction," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the only named veteran plaintiff in the case. "By the government's own admission elsewhere, none of these predicted consequences or injuries have come to pass while the law has been enjoined, and the Defense Department has even voluntarily created a de facto moratorium on discharges by further increasing the level of discharge authority. It is concerning that the government can so blatantly pull one over on an appeals court, and it is equally frustrating that such a distinguished court would allow itself to be fooled so obviously and so publicly in the name of 'deference.' Abdication is more like it."

More reactions will be added to this post as they arrive.