Boehner triples Defense of Marriage Act legal budget

What a hypocrite. After practically taking our government hostage with his deficit hysteria, House Speaker John Boehner decides that bigotry isn’t getting enough money. He has tripled the legal budget of DOMA to 1.5 million dollars. Yes, over a million of our tax payer dollars are now being used to defend an unconstitutional law that discriminates against gay and lesbian couples – the same couples who are paying those taxes.

Hey, Boehner? When we say we need to create jobs, we don’t mean a couple of jobs for a couple of despicable lawyers who will make the homophobes of America sleep better at night.



  1. ajb47 says

    I hope by “despicable lawyers” you mean “lawyers who have to be despicable people to defend the bigotry of an unconstitutional law” because my wife is a lawyer and I find her far from despicable.

    And again, the Repugnican Party shows that it doesn’t really want smaller government.


  2. Glodson says

    This makes prefect sense. If we increase the budget to enforce DOMA, then everyone gets the benefit of the whole anti-bigotry job boom. Plus there’s the bonus of making the entire GOP look like a bunch of homophobes.

    Actually, it doesn’t make sense for at all, but it still does have the bonus of making the GOP look like a bunch of homophobes.

  3. Kevin says

    Just because the money is budgeted, that does not obligate the administration to spend it.

    And the administration has already said it will not defend DOMA in court. So, the money will just sit there, sad and lonely.

  4. sc_1c022b86b214e516a8ad3d568ac19a15 says

    I seriously gotta wonder, isn’t there a recognized/established religion out there that doesn’t specifically define marriage as a man/woman pairing? I’m sure there has got to be some neo-pagan or spiritualist type religion that doesn’t mention gender, but uses some other fuzzy/wuzzy language. Present that to the SCOTUS and DOMA should be dead as a doornail because of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

    I guess that there really isn’t an Atheist/Secular platform that is entered into any recognized legal recognition of First Amendment protected status? Maybe we need to make one?

  5. says

    Some people think that it’s great
    to say who you can and can’t date.
    But let’s not forget
    it’s good to have debt
    when government pays for the hate.

  6. Jacob K says

    Nope, too late. You’re a lawyer hating bigot now. Also, apparently you hate creating jobs and the Speaker of the House.

    Why do you hate American, Jen? Are you a terrorist? :P

  7. says

    i by noooo means support boehner on this decision, and i find it ridiculous that the u.s. is still debating whether to magnanimously grant marriage equality to, you know, people. also, there are many, many better places to invest this money. bigotry is a (slowly) dying industry, after all.

    but, while i can’t speak to the members of this particular legal team, lawyers needn’t be despicable to make an argument for doma. i’d love to see doma have its day in court, get the best possible legal team to defend it, and then have it soundly and finally overturned. there is value to demonstrating that it didn’t die because there wasn’t anyone to defend it, but because it was indefensible.

    also, $1.5m is nothing in legal costs.

  8. says

    Boehner is a bigot for wanting to do this, not a hypocrite in this regard.

    He is a hypocrite for other reasons:

    Neither DOMA, nor Obamacare have been ruled to unconstitutional. Obama believes DOMA is, but Obamacare is not. Boehner believes the reverse.

    Boehner is hypocrite for saying that laws, however unpopular with one side of the aisle, must be upheld and enforced by the government. But he is not applying that principle to both.

    That is, Boehner is OK with withholding funding for Obamacare, but not for DOMA.

    The thing to remember here is that Obama avoided that can of worms with a nuanced stance on DOMA. He has said that his DoJ will not defend DOMA lawsuits, but he’ll continue to implement it. He has also allowed Congress to defend it if they wish.

    But when it comes to gay marriage, Obama is a weasel

    Just like Boehner.

  9. ajb47 says

    I didn’t think you thought that. My reply sounded better in my head and I should know better by now. You could try reading it again with the implied facetiousness of an internal monologue.

  10. says

    I’m vaguely confused. I remember news reports from a while back claiming that the current administration would no longer defend the DOMA. What happened to that?

    (granted, I don’t know much about the interplay between the executive, the congress and the judicial system in the US…)

  11. says

    That is correct. The administration will no longer defend against challenges to DOMA because it considers that legally DOMA is unconstitutional and indefensible.

    However, it’ll also continue to uphold DOMA because that is what is required. What that means is that the federal government will not consider two homosexuals as being married, and therefore not eligible for the 1138 rights/benefits that married heterosexuals enjoy.

    It’s a nuanced position. If he simply refuses to uphold DOMA, then any President will have the precedent of not upholding any law he or she does not like.

    So if the Supreme court tomorrow ruled that Obamacare is constitutional, and Perry, who opposes it, were elected President, he could simply refuse to implement it, even though it is an act of Congress.

    The President then become overly powerful because of that veto. (Not to mention eligible for impeachment for acting against his oath to obey constitution and all laws)

  12. John Kusters says

    I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Kevin, but you’re misinformed. While it is true that the Obama administration will not be defending DOMA, the House has decided it will. They have hired outside counsel, in the name of Paul Clement, to handle the defense. So far, the first submitted documents from his firm have been full of thoroughly debunked stereotypes of gay people. This additional million dollars will just go to pay for more of the same.

    (Honestly, I don’t think Boehner believes this defense will work. I think it’s more an attempt to give money to a loyal GOP supporter for a trivial amount of lawyerly work. The law is doomed, and Boehner has to be aware of it. It’s just payola and fodder for his base.)

  13. says

    This… this is completely unconscionable. What the hell is Boehner pulling? I can’t believe the arrogance and bigotry of that asshole. I don’t give a damn whether it’s a federal law or not, Boehner is using a million dollars extra to defend the indefensible.

    And it’s Obama who’s ruing our economy, right…

    Asshole. Bigoted asshole.

  14. says

    As a godless, soul-less lawyer no longer on the hourly gravy train, I say “sign me up!” for a $1.5 million legal budget. If the lawyer billed out at $500/hour, that’s 3,000 hours of legal work on an APPEAL, not a trial. 3,000 hours is about what you expect 1 1/2 average firm lawyers to bill in a year! Appeals are purely brief-writing, which while involved, doesn’t take nearly the time of discovery.

    Even if you hike the guy’s rate to $750/hour (not at all unheard of in DC), it’s still 2,000 hours.

    I wouldn’t expect to pay $1.5 million on the trial of a matter worth tens of millions of dollars. That much money to defend an unconscionable law is just, well, even unconscionable-er.

  15. Warner says

    It is more complex than that.

    “In previous cases, the Justice Department defended the act by citing precedents that directed judges to uphold any law that treats gay people unequally unless a challenger can prove there is no conceivable rational basis for the act. But the two new cases were filed in districts covered by the federal appeals court in New York, one of the few circuits that lack such a precedent.”

    The key is the last sentence, which as I understood it at the time leaves no grounds before this court to defend the law.


  16. proginoskes says

    Okay Boehner, I get your message. 1) We don’t need a balanced budget. 2) We can’t fund abortions for any reason even though we subsidize all sorts of other medical stuff for people who can’t pay. 3) Government-sponsored bigotry is best when it has a huge budget. Did I miss anything?

  17. says

    his is the right blog for anyone who wants to find out about this topic. You realize so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I actually would want…HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great!

Leave a Reply