These guys are absolutely amazing. Hypocrites all of them.

So, Boehner's very expensive lawyer, Paul Clement, has resigned from the firm and has joined a new firm, Bancroft, PLLC. Me thinks he can run, but cannot hide. It is amazing what a little sunlight shining on these shady lawyers can do!

along with its attached price tag of up to $500,000

Next time the GOP stands up and sanctimoniously lectures all of us that we "can't afford" unemployment benefits or Medicaid or low income heating assistance, we should remember what they think they can afford.

Wow, this is amazing. A group of lawyers that actually put its ethics before its wallet. I am really impressed by this firm in forcing Mr. Clement to resign rather than continue to push for support this bigotted legislation. Good for them.

This law is morally indefensible and legally unconstitutional. The Justice Department was correct in choosing not to defend it. The President swore to protect and defend the Constitution. To continue to attempt to protect this law would be a violation of the oath of office.

$500,000.00? That would be just a starting point! The Speaker should remember the Whitewater expense that never proved that President did anything wrong in a real estate deal gone sour. But they did find some creeps and a soiled dress. All that for $53,000,000.00! DOMA? Really who cares?

We have important things to investigate and I for one would like the government to start looking into the economy killing oil speculation. Now that's a crime!

Beverly,

Idealists are wonderful to read about and chat about. But they make miserable leaders, and it's as a leader where republicants have fallen short in governance. Republicants are so assuredly in ignorance.

$500,000.00 seems like a lot to defend DOMA, but that's just me. We can look at it this way, the GOP is creating jobs for a law firm, so they are keeping their promise to the American people.

/sarcasm

Pius Emeka Nebo

Beverly,

Idealists are wonderful to read about and chat about. But they make miserable leaders, and it's as a leader where republicants have fallen short in governance. Republicants are so assuredly in ignorance.

I agree; because they haven't governed since Ike.

Why are they wasting time on this. Why does anyone care who gets married? Thats their business and it will never effect anyone else except the two people getting married and their family. Let it go people... you'll never tell someone how to live their personal lives. And if you do, it will only end in an ugly mess.

captcrash, gays are not asking to be part of religious marriage (though those interested in this can find many mainstream religions, including parts of Christianity and Judaism, that willingly accept them for who they are and embrace gay marriage): they are interested in civil marriage and all of the benefits, legal status, and social status that it conveys. Why on earth should they not be allowed that?

I didn't read anything about integrity in the article. King and Spaulding ran because they didn't want any gay backlash.

Clement ran because he is a zealot for the cause. We need to watch out for this guy as he may become the 2011 version of Kenneth Starr!

Okay brain children, don't cheer too loudly. If it is not adequately defended in court it cannot be overturned. This is not exactly a victory...for either side!

Boehner "im terrified of my granchildren being buried under all this debt, but whats a little more debt to ensure the gays dont have rights? WHO'S WITH ME!"

*runs with pitchfork in one hand, flaming torch in the other hand

More importantly, captcrash

Why is a religious ceremony any part of our LEGAL system?

and JH, Dems aren't being asked to defend OUR position. The Justice Department is refusing to defend DOMA since the Justice Department believes it is unconstitutional. Republicans are usurping that decision and spending TAXPAYER money to defend the defenseless. Not sure how THAT little supplemental got passed? Anyone? Anyone?

I am HAPPY to defend my position AGAINST DOMA.

captcrash "Gays can have civil unions not marriage!"

we can? where? not here in michigan...in fact, the nuts in this state went to great lengths to ensure we couldnt even have "seperate but equal".

"Why would they want to be a part of a religious ceremony (Marriage) where the religion decries their lifestyle?"

Um, you do realize that hetero's get married in the courtroom (not a church) all the time? Im asking for that same right...I could give 2 @!$%#s about the religious aspect of it.

"This is a battle gays should not fight. Somethings should just be left alone or maybe my little boy should join the Girl Scouts! Good Grief"

*scratches head

Yeah, some things SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE - like gay people. Why are you guys so interested in treating gay people like crap? Id hate to speculate that you have a little closeted homo in you just yearning to get out, so instead...out of fear...you try to padlock the closet door for everyone. Am I a tiny bit close?

you need to work on coherent thoughts, and sticking to them...

captcrash: DOMA defines "MARRIAGE" for more purposes than just a religious ceremony. You can be legally married without a religious ceremony. States issue marriage licenses. Clergymen, judges, justices of the peace are authorized to sign the certificate, indicating the people are married.

DOMA says that states, and the federal government, do not have to recognize a valid, legal marriage, unless it is between a man and a woman.

As such, DOMA violates the Equal Protection clause and probably the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution.

Tilting at windmills.

Boehner and Don Quixote

Clara

Yes, Dems ARE being asked to defend THEIR position. DOMA was signeed into law by Bill Clinton DEM in 1996. It passed the Senate 85 -14 and the House 342 - 67. Pretty bi-partisan if you ask me. Our Justice Department is required to defend all laws in this country whether they feel it is unconstitutional or not. Shall we just execute the the man who shot Gabby Giffords? We already know he's guilty. Why does he deserve to defend himself?

Taxpayer money is used to take care of taxpayer business whether you agree with it or not. Get real.

Captcrash,

Religious dictation does not apply to a secular nation. Marriage as a social contract predates all organized religions. Get your head outta your ass and smell the roses.

JH,

Clinton attempted to make homosexuality completely legal, in both the military and in marriage. He was blocked by Congress, and passed instead bills meant to make small gains, hoping to prevent further laws from coming down harder on homosexuals.

DOMA and DADT are both unconstitutional. Marriage is not religious, it is civil. As such, it is governed by the states and Federal government. As such it cannot give preference to any religion (long as it does not break the law, which homosexuality does not), nor the lack of religious overtures (atheist wedding). Civil rights cannot be taken away from any group by the actions of the majority. That is what makes us a Constitutional Republic (not a Democracy).

Why does this anger you all? Discrimination is nothing new with the US government. The Armeed Forces discriminates every day. I don't see you all raising cane over this. You are kicked out of the Army if you cannot do enough pushups or situps in two minutes or run two miles in a certain time. Not to mention the weigh in all are required to do. Sounds like discrimination to me.

Somethings should just be left alone or maybe my little boy should join the Girl Scouts! Good Grief"

...and what is wrong with that. Maybe the kid will grow up to be better man and husband who can appreicate the "other" side of things. Besides. I can't remember where a girl scout leader has molested a girl, or boy. (Child molesters are not gay, they are sick!)

One more thing, how do those faction of Christianity and Judaism get around the fact that the Bible and the Torah decry homosexuality?

The bible and torah are at best historical retellings of anecdotes. Why are they considered factually accurate. There is no need to be a reconstructionist: there is only the need to think critically about TODAY'S problems with TODAY'S solutions.

Cite your sources or admit you're full of @!$%#.

Gays can have civil unions not marriage! Why would they want to be a part of a religious ceremony (Marriage) where the religion decries their lifestyle?

Utter nonsense and proof the right does not even understand anything unless they are told to. First place there is civil Marriage and there is religious they are not the same. What you speak of is unconstitutional in and of itself. "shall make no law etc" Deeming marriage as a religious product takes it out if the hands of congress and they cannot make a law like DOMA.

Hey Jack, the government won't take your life savings but a good Christian hospital certainly will, it happens every day, 70% of personal bankruptcies are medical bill related.

allswell

Clinton in 1996 "I remain opposed to same sex marriage". 1996 signed DOMA into law.

Clinto 2009 "I support same sex marriage but don't believe it to be a federal question" he said states should do as they do.

Please don't try and rewrite history. Clinton opposed same sex marriage in 1996 and supported DOMA at the time. People can change their minds and Mr. Clinton has changed his. Nothing wrong with that. Even our curent President has said he didn't support same sex marriage. Evidently he has changed his mind also. But to just declare you don't like a law and won't defend it in court is wrong when you are the President of this country or the Attorney General. Get the issue resolved in a court of law. That is the American way. At least have Congress abolish the law they wrote. You canb't just scatch it off the books.

They run into problems by calling it marriage. Why would they insist on calling it marriage? To rub hetero's noses in it?

@captcrash - but isn't this exactly what the extremists on the right are already doing to gays, rubbing their noses in dirt trying to tell them that they are somehow "sub citizens" not worthy of equal protection? It's time to forget this prejudicial nonsense, people deserve their rights regardless of their race, religion or sexual preferences. It is a waste of physical and moral energy trying to enforce these outdated notions that people have to conform to some fanatics idea of what's proper and what isn't.

Actually I was asking Jack to cite his sources. :)

No one is saying Clinton didn't sign DOMA into law. You do what you can when you can. Just like DADT was the best he could do at the time. Now repealing DADT and DOMA are the best that Obama can do in his time. That's why it's called progress.

Jessica- Well said. I'm tired of people trying to tell you how to live. I don't think it's anyone's business when it comes down to who you marry.

Paul Clement is simply taking his client to another company with the blessing from his previous employer. How is that a problem?

It should be important to note that our executive branch of government (executive) is no longer persuing this case, because they feel that this case violate human rights. Remember, this is coming from the same branch of office that still keep Gitmo (a prison in human rights quandary) in operation. Yet, our Congress is more than willing to keep the case going. This is not an investigation, but a case of arguement. In fact, I would say that it is more of political arguement. Because this is more of a case of GOP vs tax payers, then I say the looser should be responsible for the Bill. Since the GOP makes up more than 82%, then John Bohner and company should be responsible for the cost if the arguement is lost.

Heck, isn't the GOP always about the loser pay the bill. Her is a perfect opportunity to stand up and be accountable for their position. It is about frivolous lawsuits. Our executive branch (who is responsible) already deemed that this is a non-issue, then the people for this continuation should be responsible for the rest of the cost. NOT THE TAX PAYERs.

@Paul F - what you're hearing people say is that taxpayer money should not be spent defending a law that appears blatantly unconstitutional. How is this at odds with also believing we should fight unconstitutional laws? And what does it have to do with Nancy's spending habits?

@dontgivemethepenguin - I'm not sure where you're going. There are many perfectly reasonable and legal forms of discrimination. A hospital looking to engage a surgeon is free to discriminate against people who don't have MD degrees and university admissions offices are (mostly) free to discriminate against applicants who have poor grades and/or SAT scores. And the Armed Services are free to discriminate against candidates/members who don't meet their standards. You cannot, however, deny constitutionally protected rights to a group of people. That's what DOMA does. And as a cynic I strongly suspect most legislators, many of whom are lawyers after all, are fully aware of this but pushed DOMA anyway in an act of pure political pandering to social reactionaries.

Why is the legislative branch paying to defend a law?

This is a judicial function or DOJ. Once it's law, the legislative branch has no business there.

News flash, Jack- Wall Street already squandered your life savings, 3 years ago. Not having health insurance will eat up the rest, if you have any...

catcrash - why shouldn't gays be able to call their unions marriages? They do in my state, and no one's marriage has been harmed by it, whether they are Christian, atheist, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or Wiccan. Why do you care so much? How does this affect you? And since when does a religious principle - more specifically, your particular interpretation of a religious principle, since not all religious people agree with you - dictate how our secular government operates?

One more thing, how do those faction of Christianity and Judaism get around the fact that the Bible and the Torah decry homosexuality?

You put children to death because they decry their parents? You kill Wiccans on a regular basis? I'm flabbergasted you've gotten away with it for so long... Maybe we also should grab our best goats and send them to Azazel to stop all the craziness in the world...

You just hate gays... don't make this about something its not, don't hide behind some text that is outdated and you don't follow to the letter anyway, and then claim you MUST follow to the letter... its cause you hate them and you don't want them to exist.

I don't see adulters stoned or put to death. I don't see thiefs stoned or put to death. So I fail to understand why particular Christians pick and choose which Christian law/order to follow or to enforce. Just seems to be so darn hypocritical.

allswell,

Thank you, religious grandstanding and religious bashing must be taken out of the equation. Marriage as social-political contracts existed before all religions. So stop and think about why you are REALLY pro/anti where the government stands. Why has the government cared throughout history? Because the strength of a nations was based on the population of its army. That meant families that could produce children (hetero parents). Nowadays, homosexual parents can have children thru alternatives in science and medicne, etc...so does it matter so much anymore? Maybe not. Also you could argue that our society is self-sustainable enough that it wouldn't make a diffence as say; Japan where they are not growing enough - or having enough children to sustain their adult population...plus throw in a natural disaster or two and now your in BIG trouble. Bottom line ~ government does have an interest in the family way.

That being said, however unfair and unjust it seems - it is irrational to expect society to transition too quickly. Look how long it took us to get from ending slavery in the Civil War to civil rights in the 60s.

...posting quickly in edit 'cause computer got ahead of me....

Liberals have much to learn from the gay community. Organizing 101! Can't help but admire this group regardless of what you think of their life choices. DOMA is unconstitutional. Religious issues, like marriage and sex belong in the churches and Christian or Muslim or Jewish communities, not in the people's House. Boehner better get the message.

Paul F (wonder what the "F" stands for?) and everyone who has issue with gays/lesbians marrying; who made you God's judge and jury on Earth? What makes you think you have the right to make everyone conform to your ideals and religious beliefs? Have you ever actually read our Constitution, and do you understand what it means? And for those of you incurable romantics who think marriage is all hearts and flowers and has God's blessing, evidently you have never been through a divorce. Yeah, that little court date will drive home exactly what a LEGAL contract marriage is, screw the religious aspects.

Anyone who finds someone he/she can co-exist with in peace and harmony, anyone that makes another person blissfully happy in this life, good for you. Marriage is a tough job, and all people who are opposed to gay marriage are, in truth, opposed to the aspects of marriage that really count. Church wants all good Christians to go forth and procreate, in order to guarantee the continuation of the Church. Are all of you good Christians that fooled by the "marriage is between one man and one woman, unless you are a traditional Morman" thing? It's about birthing as many good Christian babies as possible who will eventually dutifully tithe their 10%. Why do so many "good Christians" harbor so much hatred and fear of all they do not understand? Gays/lesbians do not need your approval, dear hypocritical ones, they only need the law to uphold the Constitution, which promises that we will not be ruled by theology.

If same sex marriage keeps you awake at night, or the thought of what "they" are doing behind closed doors creeps you out, maybe what you are is a voyeur - do you like to WATCH?? Or just let your little imagination go wild?

O.K. so everyone states that marriage was around before religion. This is only true to those who do not believe the biblical account of creation. If you believe teh biblical account of creation, then you believe marriage was created by God; a union between one man and one woman.

Often in law historical precidence is considered. Since July 4, 1776 until today in almost every state marriage has been considered between one man and one woman. Why should this long standing interpretation of american history be changed? In my opinion homosexuals want any viewpoint that considers their lifestyle unnatural irradicated. Thus the push to have marriage redefined. Homosexuals who stand on their rock of tolerance are the most intolerant group of people I have ever met.

" Our Justice Department is required to defend all laws in this country whether they feel it is unconstitutional or not."

Actually you are wrong. Each on employed by the Justice Department has sworn an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION, not defend laws that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Which part of that do you not understand?

SCOTUS has thrown out a quite a few laws passed by legislature that were unconstitutional, it doesn't take a bunch of scumbag lawyers in robes to decide everything, but that seems to be what this country is becoming, one run by the courts.

What's amazing is that this law was signed by President Clinton.

He should have vetoed it.

Did you not see where I said, gays can have civil unions? That is granting them all the civil rights, all of the benefits, legal status, and social status that it conveys.

Very big of you. Let's all stand up and cheer.

Morally indefensible used to be Homosexuality....

So, civil unions do what? Extends benefits and legal status while retaining moral indefensibility? Why wouldn't a gay person go for that?

thturd wrote:

It should be important to note that our executive branch of government (executive) is no longer persuing this case, because they feel that this case violate human rights

It might be important to note it if this were actually the case. However, the DoJ's position is that DOMA is unconstitutional, not that it violates human rights.

@J. Watson-693518 - nobody wants to redefine anything, you just simply don't understand the issue. You're entitled to the viewpoint that homosexuality is a lifestyle and unnatural and that the biblical account of creation is more than a fairy tale. (All three have rather shaky scientific footing, but I digress.) What marriage means from a religious point of view is not relevant to the discussion; it can mean whatever you want it to mean as far as I'm concerned. And legally, marriage already does not mean what you want it to mean. Legally, it is a contract between two people. And that contract comes with certain rights and obligations, such as the right to file a joint federal tax return and a surviving partner's rights to the deceased partner's assets. If you try to deny marriage to a group of people, such as interracial, interfaith or gay couples, you run right smack into the 14th Amendment; see for instance Loving v. Virginia. (It's true that the SCOTUS has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage in particular, but that should change once a case like Perry v. Schwarzenegger reaches it.) That's the objection to DOMA and other same-sex marriage prohibitions - they're unconstitutional. With legal issues in the U.S., the Constitution trumps your bible every time. Civil unions do not solve the problem because they are not legally equivalent to marriage. For example, the two rights I mentioned do not come with civil unions. There is far too large a body of law to be rewritten at the federal, state and local levels to make substituting a different word for the legal term "marriage" feasible, that's why the "just call it something else" argument doesn't work. But you're free to find a different word for that religious construct of yours.

@ourdoc1 - scumbag lawyers in robes? You of course have every right to call our Supreme Court Justices that, but they are the last line of defense for our constitutionally protected rights. Given that legislators of all political stripes seem all too willing to throw the Constitution overboard anytime it's politically convenient, I consider that a pretty crucial function.

I have always thought Ellen's very simple explanation to John McCain is all we need to consider from a constitutional aspect on this issue:

http://ellen.warnerbros.com/2008/09/ellen_and_senator_john_mccain.php

You can sit there but you can't sit THERE.

captcrash, I hope your "little boy" is a homosexual

captcrash-i'm with mike. I hope your 'little boy' is a homosexual. Then maybe he can teach you how to NOT be a bigot.

From the Religious stand point "We Chrsitians" do not hate you,we did not call your lifestyle wrong(Sin), the Bible which we believe to be the Word (how to live so when you die you stay in His presence for eternity)from our Creator says that homosexuality as well as fornication, adultry and other actions seperate you from Him. We want you to live not die, if we hated you we would keep quiet and allow you to go to Hell(Which is what we believe not you I get that)Just trying to give you some insight as to why "We Christians" stand for what we feel God says not us.Also we can't get to heaven through works its through faith in Christ Jesus who loves you as well........Now from a legal side of it I feel it very dangerous that a President thinks he can decide which laws to abide by. If there is a question of being unconstitutional let the Congress and the courts(like they are doing with Obamacare) decide. Then what happens when the next President in office says Obamacare is unconstitutuional will everyone who is for it now be for it then? The President cant and should never be allowed to decide what laws to follow. That should not be a republican or democrat divide....Last there are plenty of secular nations that only see marriage as between One Man and One woman and we do have no problem telling and prosecuting Mormons on that legal stance. You want to be a homosexual thats fine there are no laws against that and you do have unions in some states that give you all the benefits fo Marriage. Its you who are trying to make marraige conform to you not the other way around.

Dude, you don't even speak for all Christians, so don't pretend to speak for anyone but your own denomination.

@FeelnGoodw/Christ - one more time: in no state do civil unions provide all the same rights as marriage. Example: in no state can gay couples file joint federal tax returns. And what other secular nations do is irrelevant; the 14th Amendment doesn't apply there. It does apply here, however, and for legal matters, which is what's at issue here, it trumps your bible.

@FeelnGood

Jesus also specifically says that two men will lie together in bed; one will be taken to Heaven by the Rapture while the other will be left behind. He meant this as an example of how the Rapture will choose the blessed, but also to show that homosexuals are not against God, and no more sinners than any other person.

Citizen K: You're correct, there is a difference. Thank you for the correction.

original post read "thturd wrote:

It should be important to note that our executive branch of government (executive) is no longer persuing this case, because they feel that this case violate human rights

It might be important to note it if this were actually the case. However, the DoJ's position is that DOMA is unconstitutional, not that it violates human rights."

This is the usual tactic for gays.

In the 1970s they did the same thing to the APA to get them to remove Homosexuality as a mental disorder. Was there any reviews, studies, or new information to remove it? Nope, not at all.

Embarassing to the gay community, it was removed because the gay societies continuously harassed their meetings until they agreed to change it. How's that for modern science?

How about some documentation of that, Steve S? Sounds like BS to me.

Seriously? The anti gay homophobic leaders of the 1970's wee "blown" away by a handful of gay activists? They surrendered their principles to a minority group?

Even better, document legitimate studies showing homosexuality IS a mental disorder.

Is voting republican considered a mental disorder?

In the 1970s they did the same thing to the APA to get them to remove Homosexuality as a mental disorder. Was there any reviews, studies, or new information to remove it? Nope, not at all.

Was there any real proof that it WAS a mental disorder or was it a bunch of "straight" white men decrying it again? I suppose you also believe that you want to have sex with your mother too? There's no new evidence saying otherwise!

Steve S-828431

This is the usual tactic for gays.

In the 1970s they did the same thing to the APA to get them to remove Homosexuality as a mental disorder. Was there any reviews, studies, or new information to remove it? Nope, not at all.

Embarassing to the gay community, it was removed because the gay societies continuously harassed their meetings until they agreed to change it. How's that for modern science?

Are you high? Or just mentally handicapped? Because you sound like you haven't ever been to, seen, or even heard of the APA. One of the most conservative orgs in the country, one which requires years of research (years that have been produced, mountains of evidence you moron) to change its mind about anything. How about the next time you open your mouth, just shove a shoe in it so you can use your foot for walking. idiot.

While I'm for gay marriage, I wouldn't say opponents are dumb. They have their opinions and I have mine...I see no need to demonize either side.

Ron-1861300

While I'm for gay marriage, I wouldn't say opponents are dumb. They have their opinions and I have mine...I see no need to demonize either side.

I meant dumb because they think the public will swallow their hypocrisy regarding fewer tax dollars.

This is just too blatant. No transparency is needed there in that regard.

BS Beverly..... I see the CYA game isn't going well for you today... Sorry about that!

I hope I did not ruin my keyboard after spitting a mouthful of tea on it after reading that, good one.

Sometimes you have to call a spade, a spade. Those guys are pretty damn dumb.

Nothing but an attempt to hold back the tide on the part of House Republicans. No doubt they'll find someone to try, though.

uh, they don't call them 'appeals to prejudice', they call them 'appeals to family values'. Of course, it has never occured to them that different families have differing values. A pox on their House (pun intended).

There are a lot of Democrats and independents that have voted for gay marriage ban bills in a number of states. While the Republican party may be largely in agreement on this position, if it was only Republicans against it, the states would have passed bills making it legal across the US years ago.

By the way, I'm for gay marriage...and I think the best way to overcome anything is to first admit the situation - then work to change it.

The problem is - Unles and until the law is struck down, it will remain on the books. All this law firm did was lengthen the time this stupid law remains.

The Supreme Court can't simply decide to strike down a law, there has to be a trial. Without that trial the law stands. Let's get this done and over with. I'm not afraid, the law is worthless and needs to go. It's discriminatory and that's plain for all to see.

Let's get this thing going! But let the RNC pay for it. If they use tax-payer dollars to pay for this travesty I say we impeach them. The Attorney General is the legal defense for the government of the United States. If Boehner wants to use other resources than he can find an other way to pay for them.

Care to tell us how much the Bush Administration reimbursed the taxpayers for travel, EMC?

If it didn't have an impact on the lives of real people all this fuss over things that are no big deal would be hilarious.

A generation from now people will think all this fighting over gay marriage was as ridiculous as the fights over interracial marriage.

Oh, never mind, Conservatives aren't even that far into the 20th Century.

Americans nationwide are evenly divided over the issue of same sex marriage. But Republicans in Mississippi are divided over a wholly different wedlock issue: interracial marriage.

In a PPP poll released Thursday, a 46% plurality of registered Republican voters said they thought interracial marriage was not just wrong, but that it should be illegal. 40% said interracial marriage should be legal.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/poll-46-of-missississippi-republicans-think-interracial-marriage-should-be-illegal/

There should never be any laws based on that fact the Bible says it is a sin.Or the Koran or Torah for that matter.

Iowa's Supreme Court ruling allowed gay marriage in Iowa in 2009. If republicans had a real case about the harm gay marriage allegedly causes, I'm waiting for them to present it--but the truth is, nothing negative has happened in Iowa. The neighbors of gay couples haven't noticed anything different from the unmarried gays who lived next door before the wedding. There was no huge rush for heterosexuals to divorce, just the usual one man and one woman failed marriages for the usual reasons. Conservatives like Bob Vandar Platt keep fighting it, keep bringing in outside anti-gan groups to fight the battle. They managed to get some justices thrown out of their jobs in 2010 but they did not succeed in getting a debate on legislation to "impeach" the remaining four justices.

We cannot take former President Bill Clinton's 1990's signatures on DOMA and DADT laws as a legitimate argument for both in 2011. The country slowly has shifted to the progressive side on both these issues just as it always has and always will.

Taxpayer money is already being used to run the AG's office, please explain to me why I have to pay another organization to do what I'm already paying the AG's office to do.

As for Obama using Air Force One to campaign: that's just a foolish distraction. That gets into how to treat the President of the United States vs. others seeking office. Should we let everyone running have a chance to pass a law or two, just to see how they would do it? Treating the actual President as a commoner is foolish fancy. It's strawman or, at least, a distraction to the valid point we are discussing.

I think the AG's office should be compelled to perform their duty and defend this law in court. They don't get the decision on which laws they want to uphold. They are compelled to uphold them all.

I take it that it doesn't bother any of you that you are picking and choosing who should and for what reasons our elected officials are using our tax dollars .. What if I use a different individual as an example?? Nancy Pelosi cost the taxpayers quite a few bucks when she was Speaker. All of those cross country trips with our (taxpayers) plane wasn't free. Shouldn't she be impeached for using our tax dollars so frivolously? Shouldn't the DNC have to reimburse us, after all she was part of their crowd?

John B... Did I say one word about gay marriage? No I didn't. Maybe you should read the paragraph in Henry's post that I was referring to. BTW, NO PRESIDENT should be allowed to use taxpayer funds to campaign with, regardless of their party affiliation period (that included BUSH).. I have always felt that way. Just like members of Congress shouldn't be allowed to use taxpayer money to fly back and forth, throughout the country, when they are campaigning. There should be an accounting and a separation of funds.

Henry, the AG works for all Americans, whether Democrat or Republican. As an Independent, I have already contributed tax dollars for the AG's office to work and uphold the laws until when and if they are changed. IMO the RNC shouldn't have to obtain an outside source to uphold the laws of this nation when it is the AG's job. I don't give a fig about this law either, but you are suggesting the impeachment of people who also think that it is the AG's job to uphold laws no matter what and not suggesting the impeachment of the very person who told the AG to not defend this LAW to begin with. This is exactly why the Republicans have been forced to even look at an outside source. The AG needs to defend this law until it is rectified through the proper channels. My opinions on Gay Marriage have nothing to do with it. It is any law, regardless. So you are very correct and I totally agree with this paragraph in your last post. BTW, your last paragraph kind of cancels your first paragraph, don't you agree?

I think the AG's office should be compelled to perform their duty and defend this law in court. They don't get the decision on which laws they want to uphold. They are compelled to uphold them all.

Then you are misunderstanding my position completely. I agree 100% with your statement that the AG's office should uphold this law. I stated elsewhere on this thread that it's not their job to decide what they will defend and what they won't.

BUT, that does not give anyone the right to simply appropriate funds to do with as they please. You bring up Pelosi and Obama, well those trips are a function of there term in office. They are not appropriating taxpayer money and then buying airline tickets online. They are taking approved transportation that has been properly funded.

Boehner wants to take money from some other issue and reappropriate it. Rather than call for the AG's office to do their duty he'd rather spend money we don't have. I'm sorry but, in my view, that's an inappropriate response. We have a department in place to handle these issues. If Boehner wants to use someone else then he should pay that someone else.

@any women spouting religious bigotry

If you want to preach bigotry by the bible, koran or torah and deny rights to a specific group then be prepared to give up your equal rights as a woman and step back into second class citizenship.

In fact move to a Muslim country where their religion is law and see whether or not you like being treated like a piece of property or livestock.

Talk about hypocrites lol.

Or Fox News.

Fox news isn't an oxymoron, its just a bunch of morons.

I think that is called a Polymoron.

Oh, see THAT's still illegal.

@Steve S - your post 2.1 didn't make any sense and regurgitating it again here doesn't change it from the mindless dribble it is. You would be better served polishing your mirror and keeping an eye out for flashing lights, it's the end of the month and the village police are out looking for their idiots.....

So Steve S, give us your opinion, is being gay a mental disorder? Sounds to me as if you think it is but maybe your repetitive post of the same 1970's views is just posting to post.

Steve the seventies called and they want their 8 track tapes back.

lukewarm

What is really pathetic is that the President of the United States and HIS Justice Department refused to defend an established law in our country due to political pressure. Political pressure should not trump our democracy or otherwise result in some laws (ie. immigration, DOMA, etc) from being enforced. Seems to me that Pelosi should be the last one to talk about abuse of tax payer money when she and

You might want to pick up a copy of the Constitution.

Harry presided over Congress at a time when they racked up more debt than the first 100 Congress's combined.

That lie has been debunked!! check out politifact.

That's wrong no matter how you slice it. And it's not just wrong -- it's ridiculously false. Your Pants on Fire!

As much as Republicans like to blame Obama and the Democratic Congress for the boom in federal spending, a sizable chunk of current spending was set on its course because of actions taken under President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress (such as the Medicare prescription drug benefit). This doesn't mean Obama and the Democratic Congress bear no responsibility for the rise in spending. They just don't deserve all the blame.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2010/oct/27/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-tells-jon-stewart-us-spent-more-past-t/

Would you say the same thing about Roe vs. Wade? Should a Republican administration defend it? It is, after all, an established law.

Beverly and Angry Guy-First on Beverly's statement that I lied. I did not. I didn't say Nancy and Harry SPENT more money than the first 100 Congress's combined, I said they accrued more DEBT than the first 100 Congress's combined and that is a fact-google it! Angry Guy-Yes, I would say the same thing about Roe vs. Wade because I am not a hypocrit and I believe that once a law is passed then we the people have a duty to obey it. I do believe that a law can be disputed at the Supreme Court as unconsitutional but to demonize an entire political party is nothing more the left wing propoganda.

@ The Angry Guy - you do realize you are comparing apples to oranges. DOMA is a piece of legislation that is being debated in the court system. A court has ruled it unconstitutional and Obama has decided not to pursue it to the supreme court. Key word is "legislation".

Roe vs. Wade was a court case that set presidence. That ruling says it is unconstitutional to deny a mother's choice before the fetus is viable. Legislation that denied abortion was no longer valid.

A better example for you to use is the Florida court case that found Obamacare unconstitutional. If a republican were president he would have every right not to challenge that ruling making the law null and void unless the next democratic president decided to defend it.

Actually I hope DOMA goes to the supreme court to get it out of limbo. It is hard to deny that DOMA creates a second class of citizens by denying them privledges that the majority takes for granted. It's hard to justify that legal stance when the constitution guarantees equal legal rights.

Actually, Angry Guy, the law in question that Roe Vs. Wade references, is Patient-Doctor Confidentiality. All Row v. Wade actually did, was establish that Abortion is a medical procedure. That being the case, the Government could not intervien in said procedure.

Row v. Wade is not a law, it is a ruling by the supreme court that says Abortion is a medical procedure. To challenge that ruling, you have to reset Abortion from a medical procedure to a non-medical procedure. By doing so, you open up a whole slew of loops holes you haven't even begun to think about. Like.. hmm.. Do you need a medical licesnse to perform an Abortion if it isn't a medical precdure, but still legal in your state? Is a pregnancy a medical procedure, if an abortion is not one? (Since Abortion is simply the termination of a medical condition, then if it is not a medical procedure, then pregnancy obviously isn't a medical condition).

Really.. REALLY.. learn about RvW, and understand what it actually does, before you call on it to be overturned.

Hogwash! President Bush signed off on all spending recommended by congress during his term. And if that "overspending" wasn't enough...he got us into two adventures overseas that were financed off the books that are still bleeding us dry. We can go back and forth all day about them/us and who did what when. It still doesn't change the fact that the republicans....regardless of when and what office they hold, tend to be stuck in the 1950's when it comes to anything that Grandma might not like. Well, I'm almost 60 years old and I remember my grandparents well. I loved all four of them with all my heart, but I do know that when it came to people of a different race, or religion, or culture, they were ignorant and small minded. I remember my grandfather telling jokes about black people and talking about the good old days when a rope was enough to stop any protests. Even as a little boy, I felt that there was something missing in his thinking. Something just didn't square with all the talk about the Lord followed up by a little racist humor. The republican activities in the government where they say one thing (like they took the house in 2010 because of JOBS) and then working on everything BUT just resonates in my mind the same way those sanctimonious trips to church followed by racist humor humor after dinner did in my youth. Defund Planned Parenthood, let the cold elderly freeze to death, make sure the richest 1% get that tax break (as if not getting it would hurt them) and be sure to turn back the clock on everything else they can think of that may be helping someone that is not in their voter base. When someone does something that causes me to feel "something ain't right about that" it causes me to first examine my understanding of the issue so that I might educate myself and make sure that I understand what is going on before I add in my two cents. But these days, EVERYTHING the republicans do feels wrong. I pride myself on being able to see both sides of the coin. I've voted republican more than democrat over the past 40 years. I voted for Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. but their party has gone completely crazy and I doubt that Nixon, Ford, Reagan or Bush Sr. themselves would vote for any of this bunch of hipocritical yahoos today. For one thing. I can see President Reagan addressing President Obama and "President Obama" with some respect for both the man and the office. Until the republicans and their tea party shills grow up and join the world of the adults of the 21st century, I am afraid they will primarily serve as examples of the ugly American.

lukewarm

Beverly and Angry Guy-First on Beverly's statement that I lied. I did not. I didn't say Nancy and Harry SPENT more money than the first 100 Congress's combined, I said they accrued more DEBT than the first 100 Congress's combined and that is a fact-google it!

Here is your quote...Harry presided over Congress at a time when they racked up more debt than the first 100 Congress's combined.

I did google it.

I got all right wing skewed lying website. They all repeat the same lie do I picked the biggest liar that fat tub of lard, Andrew Briebart's site which said...

111th Congress Added More Debt Than First 100 Congresses Combined: $10,429 Per Person in U.S.

Monday, December 27, 2010
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/111th-congress-added-more-debt-first-100

.

i found nothing like tat what so ever on a nonpartisan website. what I got...

In the past two years, Democrats have "spent more money than this country has spent in the last 200 years combined."

[snip]

We first turned to historical tables from the Office of Management and Budget.One table, conveniently enough, details federal government spending since the birth of the modern Republic in 1789.

We first looked at federal spending for 2009 and the estimate of spending for 2010. Combined, federal spending in those two years amounted to a little more than $7.2 trillion.

We didn't have to add up all 200 years -- you only have to add together 2006, 2007 and 2008 to reach $8.3 trillion, which exceeds the $7.2 trillion of 2009 and 2010. So by that measure, Cantor is wrong.

Want to use the data for 2010 and 2011 instead, under the assumption President Barack Obama was completely in charge for those budget years? Fine. Using those two years ups the total to a bit under $7.6 trillion. The three years before that by themselves total $9.2 trillion. So Cantor is wrong that way, too.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2010/oct/27/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-tells-jon-stewart-us-spent-more-past-t/

So I repeat repeat it is a lie

Sean Hannity would love you and your bias toward the left . Did you watch his show last night?

Lying seems to be a particular talent for Cantor. Perhaps he needs to use Jon Kyl's excuse--"his remark was not intended to be a factual statement." http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/08/kyl-walks-back-claim-about-planned-parenthoo/

Apparently, Chicago puts something in its water to induce mental incompetence, hallucinations, and delusions of grandeur.

dangstraightup,

I don't recall anyone asking where you are from; but thanks for sharing that you're from Chicago. I guess.

wrong again simple simon

Why do Republicans always think that big government sticking its nose into everyone's business at tax payer expense is always the answer? Big government should stop wasting my tax dollars on this, I have been Taxed Enough Already! If two gays get married, it does not bother me, if the extreme right wants to take up this issue, let them pay for it!

I am a registered DEM and I am mailing the Republicans a contribution for that purpose, thanks for the idea.

Totally agree Steeler Fan. It amazes me how much the Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouth and no one, but Jon Stewart, ever really calls them out. They don't want big govt running their lives, collecting taxes and forcing citizens to pay for the medical care they receive, but it is ok for big govt to tell them who they can marry? I am tired of all the hypocrisy on the right, at least the tea party started out as consistent Libertarians, I would love if they would move that logic over to social issues and see how that lines up with Republican dogma.

As I said above, the RNC should be footing this bill, not me.

So a penquin isn't smart enough to register for the party he supports? Your own postings prove you are a right wing conservative. Have some more of that tea flavored Kool Aid and keep believing you are fooling anyone at all. Oh! By the way, I heard that tinfoil hats are on sale at Wal-Mart today. Hurry!

I don't shop at Walmart, I shop at my local Navy Exchange. Hooah!

Last time I was at the Commisary and Navex they sold foil. You can use it to make you own hat.

Ira, I feel your pain. It is impossible to convince some of these people that Gingrich, Craig. Ensign and the rest are so disingenuous as to be laughable. They will continue to believe in Death Panels and Conspiracy Theories that are all about as logical as any of the most exaggerated tales from the brothers Grimm. They will always fail to see the irony in their choices to lead their "Defense of Marriage." It is so difficult to not laugh at them even when it is such a tragedy.

And not only that, but the law firm has a progressive policy affirming the equal opportunity rights of its LGBT employees. So by taking the case they were essentially attacking their own LGBT employees and reneging on their promise to equality and justice. By dropping the case like the hot potato that it is they have at least regained some sense of fairness and dedication to their own employees!!!

Just for the record: should states that don't allow concealed handguns be required to honor the permits of people from states that do? If not, why not?

Just for the record: should states that don't allow concealed handguns be required to honor the permits of people from states that do? If not, why not?

No. In the case of carrying a concealed weapon, it is an act in present time that the local jurisdiction may or may not sanction, or may or may not recognize external licensing, like driving a car. This would be like a visitor driving in a state that does not allow operation of a motor vehicle. A case could be made for reciprocal recognition of concealed licensing, which is what generally governs driving.

Marriage is different in that it is essentially an ongoing contract between two persons that is rare in that it generally requires recognition by the state. It would not be possible for the state of Nevada to ignore marriages conducted in other states simply to make whatever happens in Vegas ok... I may be wrong, but unless it is a violation of the state's constitution, I don't think a state can be forced to allow same-sex marriages, but all states, and the federal government, must respect a duely recognized marriage between two people.

I am really curious. I'm straight, Been married 38 years. Two wonderful kids. I don't give a damn who marries who as long as it's 2 people who love each other. Why do you?

So you think it will be ok for a 40 year old man to marry a fifteen year old girl or boy as long as they love each other?

That's not what the DOMA act is about and you know it. Don't even try to imply that repealing DOMA would bring on statuatory rape or beastiality or any other demented behavior your mind can come up with. It's says a man and woman shall marry. Repealing it would allow two women or 2 men to marry with the same rights and priveledges as the rest of us married folk. Incidently, same pain and cost of of divorce, etc.

.....and the age of marital consent is NOT in set by the Federal government. That right is reserved to the individual states. So if your state allows a 15 year old girl to marry a 40 year old man then I suggest you go to work and get that repealed.

Well put Ira, I just don't see how this "controversy" has any application in my life whatsoever. As such there's absolutely no reason for DOMA.

If your heterosexual, church-sanctioned marriage is threatened by the simple IDEA that two homosexual people on the opposite side of the country, whom you don't know and will never meet, can also be married in a civil union, then you didn't have a real marriage to begin with.

I have to agree with Ira. If two consenting adults make an agreement, why does big brother have to stick his nose in the middle and prevent these two adults the freedom to make their own choices? Obviously, in our country, the age of consent to marriage is generally 17 or 18 and any agreement to a contract given thru coersion would be void. Also, as far as I know, no animal has the ability to enter into a contractual arrangement. So again, why are the right wing, tea party, libertarians supporting big government taking away rights? Since you think that this will lead to beastiality, then I submit, that this governnment intrusion could lead to taking away the right to bear arms! And all of this at tax payer expense! I have been Taxed Enough Already! If people want to marry their partners, or worship at an altar with an empty cross behind it, or go hunting with a rifle, why is it any of the government's business?

tlb1974, it is already legal for a 40 yr old man to marry a 15 yr old girl in this country. Try googling "legal age to marry by state" and you will find that 12 year olds can marry(with a judge's permission. But a gay couple who have been together for 50 years cannot! What a crock! By the way, a gay couple is paying as much as 70% more in federal income tax than a straight couple with 1 wage earner making $60,000 per year. See IRS Publication 17. Standard deduction is much less, and can only claim 1 dependent. They will pay almost 3 times as much as a straight couple with 3 children. AND, how many of those tax dollars go to support our military, as well as all those kids that social services has in their custody? Those kids are in this world as a result of a man and a woman. The constitution speaks against any population being in servitude to another. Well, aren't all those extra tax dollars(or the labor to earn them)servitude? Equality---period. If you don't like gay marriage don't get one! But if this country insists against it, at least don't be hypocritical and expect gays to pay for your unwanted and abused kids. Lower the tax rate. Because some day we will say enough and stop paying for the privilege of being your servants! BTW, the odds are about 1 in 3 that you have a gay kid. Get over it. And read your Bible. It speaks about 10 times as much(approx. 60 to 6 references) about divorce and adultery as it does homosexuality. Again, get over it. We are saved by God's grace, not our own righteousness. Why don't we all stop judging, and start living together as a country. Our very survival is going to depend on it.

Remember, the Republicans promised jobs BEFORE the elections. NOW they claim the government can't and shouldn't create jobs. Sweet little catch 22, isn't it?

Right.....and you want the AG appointed by the next republican president to do what, exactly, if the health care law is still in the courts? I'm not buying it.

ldo, You are mistaking "uphold" with "defend legally". And if you do some research, you will find that this approach has been taken by many other administrations, both republican and democrat. It is neither a new approach nor historically is it used more by one party than the other.

ldo:"Sad state of affairs when the AG can pick and choose which laws to uphold and the extreme Left agrees with, and applauds, this policy."

Pretty much standard procedure to pick and choose. The law is being challenged in the court system - it will have plenty of people supporting it. What is a real crime here is the threat to defund DOJ unless it does what the republicans demand of it.

The Justice Department is also required to follow the Constitution, and since DOMA is very strictly unconstitutional, the Justice Department is absolutely correct to not be defending DOMA as it is an illegal law to begin with.

The administration has never said they would stop enforcing the DOMA law, as long as it is on the books. The executive branch is required to uphold the laws (i.e - prosecute those that violate the law). They are not required to DEFEND a law that is widely regarded to be unconstitutional. DOMA enacted discrimination, in direct violation of the COnstitution! How can anyone honestly believe that DOMA is Consitutional???!!!

Is it intolerance, bogotry or pure stupidity?

Mike,

My nation isn't going down the toilet, your's is. We are flushing away Intolerance, Bigotry, Hatred, Ignorance, and discrimination. Get used to it.

Nice, NP!

I am an expert in Biblical translations, and according to my research, God is a raging homosexual. Gay as sunshine, really. And my great-great-great-great-great-great grandpappy was an original translator for the Bible, and you know translators (and the writers of the Bible itself) do not err, so you have to believe me!

Mental Help???

Scole, would love to see your studies on the proven science and your stats regarding '95%' Do you have a link?

Oh, and who's god are you refering to? My G_d is alive and well and does not hold the same level of hate as your god apprently does.

1. Reported for COH violation, asking that your email address be banned.

2. I will tell you I'm a biologist, and we have a way to tell who is gay and straight. A straight male wants to compete for females, and gay males are taking themselves out of the pool of competition which appeals to the straight male. A (closeted) gay man, however, gets very angry about gay rights issues because he thinks about the happiness he has lost out on by never coming out, and conversely does not care about the competition for females. I'm sure your family would still love you.....

Scole - how odd that you quote a religious basis for your opinion and then follow up with a post that wishes another human being harm because you disagree with him. Would you please point out which part of the bible condones that approach?

I am not wishing another Human Being harm I am simply stating a known situation that recently happened...If it is so acceptable behavior then why all the acts of suicide by gay individuals lately(what is there to be ashamed of)..It seems to me most gays second guess themselves as to what they are doing is the right thing to do..As for U of C Student you should work on repealing the Tenure of your Biology Teacher because he has you all screwed up. I am married to a woman(15 years) and have 4 kids and am living a Christian Biblical life the way God intended.Typical Elite Liberal crap though try and cancel the opposition when they dont agree with you...Good Luck

Another tell: you refer to everyone as male.

A side note: this country wouldn't go very far without the elite in any field.

Scole - I am a woman married to a man, 21 yrs, 3 kids. Doesn't harm me in the slightest that another person's mate might be of the same sex. Not sure why it threatens you and your "Christian Biblical life" for your neighbor, friend, son or daughter to be able to marry someone of the same gender. I can assure you, as someone that lives in a state where gay marriage has been legal for some time now, that the sky has not turned black, the children are not running amok, the locusts have not descended, and my steady, happy 21 yr marriage has not been the least threatened or affected in any way.

And a community that does not shame gays is what will lead to fewer suicides among gays. And your previous post wishing death/suicide on another poster remains despicable, and not part of any "Christian Biblical life" that I can imagine. I don't really care what you think of gays or gay marriage, but I am appalled by the failure of you to see the hypocrisy of wishing such an awful thing on a fellow human being on one hand, and proclaiming your good Christian ways on the other. I am still wondering how you can justify that.

He did not wish anything kike what you mentioned to anyone,. He is giving the individual a heads up that is all of what may occur. The individual should be thanking him for warning him not to get video taped behind closed doors. Technology is great, but it may be dangerous.

I am married to a woman(15 years) and have 4 kids and am living a Christian Biblical life

Using the conservative estimate that 4% of people are homosexual, there is a 15% chance that at least one of your kids will grow up to be homosexual. If each of your kids gives you 4 grandchildren, there is a 48% chance that at least one of them will be homosexual.

In future generations, your descendants are sure to include, thousands, if not millions or billions of homosexuals. How do you want them to remember you?

Scole is just proof that Steven Wright was correct when he said that 47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Matt Taylor,

Your spin is truly disheartning and pathetic....they will remember me as a good Christian man that stood for what he believed in no matter what hateful sinful people said to him or about him..If one of my kids do chose that lifestyle I will always LOVE them but can never accept that way of life..It is an abomination and unnatural in every way and goes against the reason we are all here to pro-create(period).People are not born that way it is a usually a series of events(shunned by opposite sex,peer pressure,Friends circle,curiosity,outcast mentality,etc) that they chose that lifestyle but it is not inherited by birth period..I am in control of one person and that is me so If I choose an opinion against anyone or subject matter that is my choice so dont demonize me..You may criticize me but dont accuse me of false statements..

Scole:

Can you please tell us at what age you CHOSE to be straight??? Please, we really want to know! Do not judge, lest ye be judged!

Matt Taylor Where did you learn math. " In the last three elections, the Voter News Service exit poll registered the gay vote between 4 percent and 5 percent." If she has 4 children it will be less than a 5% chance of one of the children "living the dream" as she does. Of course, it will probably be skewed a little higher since her children have been taught not to denounce it but to accept it. But you 15% is way off. I think what gays forget is that the 4 or 5% is higher only if they live in large liberal cities. Documented by Gay rights associations on-line. You do the research, I'm not. If they live in, say Poplar Bluff, Mo. it is 3 or 4%. Yea, I think everyone will agree that if you are from downtown San Francisco or Manhattan, NY everyone approves of Gay Marriage. So get off our backs because other people have a different opinion.

I know a lot of people but know only one gay person and she just lied on her contract to join the military police training in the army and they know it and she is their current star they are hitting on to join full time instead of in a reserve capacity. Just like the Gay West Point cadets do. And no, I am not going to go out and circulate to meet more homosexuals. I'm waiting for the dirty name calling.

Scole: I hope for your wife's sake that she took two doves to sacrifice at the temple the week following her period. If she didn't, she is an abomination according to God.

Likewise, God also said that if you touch an insect, you are unclean for that day and cannot receive a holy offering. I hope you didn't swat a mosquito off your arm before attending Easter services yesterday. If you did, you are as much of an abomination as those men who lie with other men.

The Bible says so.

Matt Taylor Where did you learn math. " In the last three elections, the Voter News Service exit poll registered the gay vote between 4 percent and 5 percent." If she has 4 children it will be less than a 5% chance of one of the children "living the dream" as she does. Of course, it will probably be skewed a little higher since her children have been taught not to denounce it but to accept it. But you 15% is way off.

I learned math on the way to my Ph.D. in Astrophysics. If every person has a 4% probability to be homosexual, then in any random sample of 4 people, the probability that at least one is homosexual is 1-(1-0.04)^4 = 0.15 .. or did you sleep through that lecture in probability and statistics?