E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Shawna Thomas
The Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) announced the first step that will allow the House of Representatives to be party to the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"I will convene a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend this law of the United States," Boehner said in a statement.
This comes after the Justice Department announced last week that they would no longer uphold the constitutionality of DOMA in court but "work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation."
According to House Rules, Boehner has the ability to direct the House Office of General Counsel in "legal assistance and representation" matters. But while his consultation with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group -- which consists of House leadership, may only be a formality -- he plans on having the group vote on how to direct the General Counsel. Since that group is made of up the speaker, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), there is little doubt that the group will vote to defend the law.
Later in his statement, Boehner admonishes the Obama administration for moving forward with this issue during the uncertain economic climate.
"It is regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy," Boehner said.
"The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts -- not by the president unilaterally -- and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution," Boehner added.
Though some would say Boehner's House has also not focused explicitly on jobs by giving support to Rep. Chris Smith's (R-NJ) bill that seeks to assure no federal funds are used to obtain an abortion. Earlier this year, Boehner gave Smith's bill the designation of H.R. 3 signaling it's legislative importance behind funding the government (H.R.1) and repealing health care (H.R.2).
"Aside from standing up for a discriminatory law and failing to focus on jobs and the economy, this action places Republicans squarely on the wrong side of history and progress," Pelosi said in a statement in response. "In addition, this decision will burden the staff and monetary resources of the Office of the General Counsel, and given the complexity of these cases and the number of courts involved, it is likely this will cost the House hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars."
The group is scheduled to meet some time next week.
This announcement does avoid what could have been a nasty floor fight. The speaker had multiple options to choose from including having the whole House vote on whether to defend DOMA in court or not.
DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton and states in part, "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Leave a Comment:
If the repubs are so centered on not wasting money, wasting it to defend an act of dubious standing should be a slam dunk. Oh that's right .... this is the party of the religious right .... who seem to believe that it's OK to treat others shabbily while here so things will be great after they are DEAD.
Good for Boehner, maybe the American people are starting to listen again.
Nobody's listening but the wing nut, fleabaggers.
I say yea....let the Repubs defend it and prove they are the backward thinkers they look like.....:):):):)
American people in supporting such activities would be considered backward thinkers. It sad that people today still consider rights of those doing wrongs.
Bucking? Really bucking? I doubt Obama cares what Boner(sp intentional) does with this issue as it is another no win for Republican hypocrisy.
Actually...bigotry and discrimination have always been considered "backwards". Other countries have overcome their ignorance and superstitions and are thriving nicely while this country is still struggling to grow up. It really doesn't matter if you think what they are doing is "wrong". As long as there is no harm to others (and there isn't) then your opinion is not enough to deny basic human rights to others.
Wait a minute..this is about the justice dept deciding they aren't going to inforce a LAW because they don't like it. No, they don't have to go through the normal channels to get the law reversed if it is wrong - they just have to declare they don't like it. Come on people, this isn't about party-this is about a justice dept who believes they are above our country's laws and that they can act like a king. Not good for any of us no matter the party or the opinion on the law itself.
Geri
Read the article. Read the posts. Don't just make something up and complain about it.
The law is still a law, and still being enforced. This isn't the first time a president has decided not to defend an unconstitutional law in court. Choosing not to defend it, is not the same thing as refusing to enforce it.
Does this mean that the Republicans are going to make illegal for members of the same sex to be married to each other? I guess they are hoping that Sheriff Joe Arapio in Arizona will take the first steps and arrest these couples and throw them in jail, but then the Federal Government will have to pay for taking care of the children that these couples have, but then the Speaker of the House didn't think of that did he!!
The question you have to ask is this... What interest is the state serving in denying equal protection to gay couples.
If that answer is preserving Christian religious tradition, then the state is violating the establishment clause in addition the equal protection clause.
What conservatives don't understand is their "defense of marriage" like their cries of a 'war on Christmas' actually wrecks things for people.
The question should be why we need to have "equal protection" for being homosexual at all. It's not "equal protection." It's extension of rights that have existed for millenia between a man and a woman, to cover relationships between sexual deviants. (Yes, by defintion - deviants). It's not about "protecting" anyone. It's about creating yet another class of citizens who have the same rights as a real marrige, just because they have abberant sexual practices. Do they really NEED that?
Keep it up, and the only class of citizens who don't have an "equal rights" bill will be the dead ones.
Pual
I suppose you say homosexuality is a choice???? Just asking.
Anyone who believes it is a choice is an idiot.
Defend who's marriage? Either my is strong or not regardless of yours. Anther none issue, more playing to their most basic base.
I vote for a national revisitation of the 3/5 Compromise of 1787 only this time for gay marriage. Let's just do what we've always done in the name of progress when it comes to bigotry guised as a moral, ethical or religious debate. Let's just count same sex marriage as 3/5ths of a real marriage. The 3/5ths of a gay marriage that count can be considered recognized legally by state licensing, spousal rights, and taxes. The 2/5ths that don't count can be considered not recognized by God and/or as religious unions.
I see that Boehner and his entourage have finally decided to follow their promise on more jobs. OOPS how many more Drs do we need not to work.A few more Drs should look into Boehners tanning ,Drinking Smoking and crying to find out what his problem is.If anybody was out of their League it is Boehner.
Yep, that was a great Obama-gambit. Throw something contentious out there so that people take their eyes off the real problem. The one that looks something like this: 1,000,000,000,000 or say,
1000 billion or
1 million million.
Great gambit. No one will notice that the economy's gone to hell in a hat box because we're trying to address the question "should homosexuals who want to act like Ma and Pa actually be treated like Ma and Pa?" Who gives flying freak?
If it was a gambit, then it worked like a charm, didn't it? The republican dogs have all leapt on it like the mindless snarling hounds they are, and added it to their lofty agenda of tax breaks for the wealthy and defunding Planned Parenthood so they can punish women for having sex. It seems their entire agenda is bigoted social crap that isn't going to help anyone but the very, very rich.
They campaigned on jobs...but two months later....No jobs? "So be it". Cut the budget just when the economy is starting to recover to make sure that it doesn't...they want things to be terrible for 2012 so the morons who haven't noticed them doing nothing except incite hatred and doing everything they can to make the economy worse...will vote them in.
The 3-Ds of Republicanibalism--divide, distract, destroy!
Wow! Don't get caught up in this discussion...it is one more diversion to avoid the real issue...where are the jobs?
According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%
So what exactly is DOMA defending anyway. With these statistics if we want to defend marriage maybe we should be making it tougher to get married. That would be a good defense.
When it is said that marriage should be between a man an a woman who ever uttered that statement must have meant in exponential terms.
With these statistics the DOMA argument is ludicrous.
Johnny
The answer is right in front of us!!!!! We should have thought of this before. DUH!
MAKE DIVORCE ILLEGAL!!!!!!!
WOW!!! That'll make people on both sides scream!!!!
its the economy, boner.
the divorce rate is over 50 percent for traditional couples, and these "christians" are preaching to ME about what the definition of marriage should be? you have no idea how hard i am laughing at these hypocrites! you guys are such a joke.
Speaker Tan-man and his Repukes told us they were going to focus on JOBS. So what have they focused on --- abortion, don't ask - don't tell and gay marriage. I'm sure prayer in schools and flag burning are not far behind.