E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Shawna Thomas and Carrie Dann
The law firm hired by the House of Representatives to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court has decided it will drop its defense of the federal statute, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
The firm, King and Spalding, had faced protests from gay rights groups after its contract with the House Administration Committee and General Counsel - along with its attached price tag of up to $500,000 -- was reported. The Human Rights Campaign announced a national campaign last week to urge the group to withdraw from the agreement.
The firm had agreed to work on behalf of the GOP-led House after the Obama administration announced earlier this year that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the law, which it says is unconstitutional.
Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General under President George W. Bush and the lead lawyer on the legal team hired to defend DOMA in court, has also resigned from King and Spalding.
In his resignation letter, Clement wrote that his decision was a result of his "firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters."
Clement has joined a new firm, Bancroft PLLC.
House Speaker John Boehner’s office clarified that Clement and his new firm will still defend DOMA for the House of Representatives.
Boehner’s spokesman said today, “The Speaker is disappointed in the firm’s decision and its careless disregard for its responsibilities to the House in this constitutional matter. At the same time, Mr. Clement has demonstrated legal integrity, and we are grateful for his decision to continue representing the House.”
The firm's chairman, Robert Hayes, Jr released the following statement earlier Monday:
"Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal.
"In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created."
In his resignation letter, Clement argued, "if there were problems with the firm's vetting process, we should fix the vetting process, not drop the representation."
King and Spalding had just filed a motion to intervene as a defendant on behalf of the House of Representatives on Monday, April 18th.
In a statement, a spokesman for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi praised the firm's decision to drop its defense of the law.
"Leader Pelosi shares Mr. Hays' apparent concerns with the lack of transparency and accountability in the way this contract was signed. She also vigorously opposes using half a million taxpayer dollars or any taxpayer resources to defend discrimination, at a time when Republicans in Congress are cutting critical initiatives like education and infrastructure. It is now more critical than ever that Speaker Boehner fully account for his decision to sign this half million dollar contract to defend this indefensible statue."
*** UPDATE *** In a statement, House Adminstration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren, R-Calif., praised Clement and called King and Spalding's decision to withdraw from its defense of DOMA "an insult to the legal profession."
"I want to express my gratitude to former Solicitor General Clement. I admire his unwavering commitment to his clients and his dedication to uphold the law - qualities that appear to be inconsequential at King and Spalding where politics and profit now appear to come first.
"King and Spalding's cut and run approach is inexcusable and an insult to the legal profession. Less than one week after the contract was approved engaging the firm, they buckled under political pressure and bailed with little regard for their ethical and legal obligations. Fortunately, Clement does not share the same principles. I'm confident that with him at the helm, we will fight to ensure the courts - not the President - determine DOMA's constitutionality."
Leave a Comment:
Angry Guy, don't be obtuse. The difference between defending RoeVWade and defending DOMA should be obvious, even to you.
While RoeVWade may be disliked by many on the fringe right, it is NOT unconstitutional and does not deny any one of their rights to equal protection under the law. DOMA does deny equal treatment and is unconstitutional.
Now do you get it? If you still can't follow along, it's because you are a bigot and just don't want to see. (There are none so blind as those who will not see).
What an incredible waste of time, energy and our MONEY. We are living in a real-time Day After Tomorrow, Sendai, St Louis! Maybe a big tornado can pick up Congress and take it to Munchkinland. They can then explain what they are so concerned about to the Munchkins - who will probably ask that they be sent back immediately.
this is a top issue, the immoral gays need to be stopped to save our schools, our children, our military and our nation-vote tea party were takin america back!
We've reached such a fever pitch of crazy, I can no longer distinguish between genuine extremist outrage and parody. I'm just going to assume it's all parody at this point. See Poe's Law.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law
Funniest thing I've seen all day, Clotho.
Seriously?
This country is in financial ruin according to House Republicans, and yet they are willing to pi$$ away a half a million dollars of taxpayer money for this nonsense?
Let's put a stop to these half a million here, half a million there projects that are handed out to right-wing political contributors. Shut down enough of these scams, and you have serious savings for the government - and the taxpayers who really end up paying the bills for this frivolous BS.
I would give every penny I had to pay for a lawyer to defend DOMA. You cannot discriminate against a person's sexual preference. That would be like saying... "I am discriminating against you because you like chocolate milk". It is uterly stupid that we even had to have DOMA in the first place. American families are being destroyed by the radical left wing of america. Google studies on what environment is best for raising a child and a traditional family of one father and one mother wins everytime.
American's need to come together and fight against the homosexual agenda with all their might. Even to the point of starting a second Civil War if needed.
What study says that -one done by fox news -come on give the study names bigot. The Study done by the New England Journal of Medicine in Conjunction with Psychology today says there is absolutely NO idfference in the raising of a child by a gay couple. The chances of there being problems is the same in a gay couple as well as with staight couple.
J Watson,
I feel so bad for you...yes...yes you can discriminate against a person's sexual preference. It is discrimination when you say that this group can marry and this one can't based on sexuality. You can tell yourself all day that you don't discriminate but as long as you keep this position you will always be as ugly as those that have discriminated in the past.
Google studies? Hey here is a fact...a majority of heterosexual marriages don't last...thats over 50%. If a majority of homes are split I believe your study is pointless...don't you think?
Google studies you might as well have said facebook poll come on read something
Vipp... homosexual relationships have an even greater percentage of ending. Another arguement is the fact that children raised by gays are more likely to become gay. Walter Schumm's study showed that children (once they reach the early 20's) who are raised by at least one lesbian parent are 58% likely to identify themselves as lesbian or gay. Children raised by at least on gay male are 33% likely to identify themselves as lesbian or gay. Children raised by a heterosexual couple identify themselves as gay 5 - 10% of the time. So if there is any discrimination against sexual preference... it is for the good of all children. The point I am making is you cannot discriminate against a choice. There is no scientific evidence to prove homosexuality is genetic. There is more emperical evidence that societal/environmental influence during early childhood plays a greater part in future sexual preference.
All these "facts" are made up. Did you look to see who this Schumm maniac is? He has a radical agenda of hatred. He has a preconceived agenda of discrimination that he is determined to prove, regardless of the facts.
"I'm trying to prove that it's not 100 percent genetic," Schumm tells AOL News.
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/17/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids/
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/aug/10081802
J Watson,
You are so missinformed that I don't know where to start...have you ever met or been friends with or spent a long period around someone who is gay? You THINK IT IS A CHOICE!!!????
I am not gay myself and I didn't determine that....I just kinda liked girls from a young age. I have known and grown up with plenty of gays and believe me...they didn't choose to be gay. It's not a choice...If you want to talk about studies there was a study performed by scientists at the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden that reported that gay men and straight women share similar traits - most notably in the size of their brains and the activity of the amygdala - an area of the brain tied to emotion, anxiety and aggression. These characteristics develop in the womb or in early infancy which means that environment plays little to no role in such a decision as to be gay or straight.
Civil war over gays?
Instead of Blue vs. Grey, would it be Blue vs. Rainbow?
You need to get a life, man.
J Watsonnnnn......where are uuuuu?
Vipp,
Looks like you scared J Watson away with all your facts! Good job!
Thanks Lois!
No I am not scared. The study of the size of the brain and amygdala proves itsself to be scientific invalid in that they did not compare the size of straight persons amygdala to homosexual persons. Whether you like Mr. Shumm does not negate the data he put forth. This can go on all day, because homosexuals fund studies to say there is a physical cause for the reason they are gay. Anti-homosexuals fund studies to prove that there is not physical reason for being gay. There are thousands of people who have left the homosexual lifestyle and now live happy heterosexual lives. What about them? Save you typing skill telling me they are just repressing who they really are. I happen to be personal friends with a former homosexual, and he relates his former homosexual confusion to physical abuse by a female relative at a young age. He has been straight for well over a decade, is happily married, and has children. Twenty years of activism does not make a chosen lifestyle biologically correct. It might be making it politically correct, but that is a whole different issue.
J Watson, didn't EVERY child up for adoption come from a union between a man and a woman? EVERY beaten-up, broken-boned, bruised, neglected, and abandoned kid in Social Services custody came from a man and a woman. EVERY cigarette-burned, chain-whipped, barefoot-in-December beautiful little girl and boy came from a union between a man and a woman. Every kid that had something shoved up his/her *ss, every kid who slept in dog kennels for years before anyone found out, every baby who has been thrown around like a basketball----YES. Came from a union between a man and a woman. Don't you ever read the news????? Every day it is something like this. And you say kids won't do as well being raised by gays or lesbians????? Please put your money where your mouth is, and give every dime you have to defend DOMA. Equality is not conservative OR liberal---it's American. Use your money to help orphans and widows like the book of James tells us to do. Don't just listen to your preacher--read your Bible. and the Constitution.
Limbaughger,
You are no better than those who advocated for segregation in the mid 20th century and it's my guess from reading your post that you would have fit right in with the racists of those days. Your discrimination against homosexuals is no different than discrimination against those of another race....it's something that your not and something you don't understand. It's people like you that tarnish the reputation of America...It's people like you that I tell my son to stay away from...to never be like.
You mention God...how could you? We are all sons of God...and it is God who will judge each of us when the day comes...thats not your job! Godly nation....are you kidding me! There is nothing Godly about ignoring the poor...feeding more money to the top earners...being against universal healthcare...you don't know anything about your own faith. You come off sad Limbaughger....and I hope one day you come out of the little box your in.
huh?
Limbaugher,
I think you proved my point...please read a book...learn something...talk to people who are different than you...
i'v read the bible several times.
Great...than perhaps you have forgotten these verses?
"So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let's us stop passing judgement on one another." Romans 14 1-13
or maybe...
"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."
Sounds like you need to read the Bible again and perhaps adjust the way you approach such matters...wouldn't you say?
Vipp, screw your hippy crap. Lets bring back slavery that the bibble says is OK, lets bring back the sanctity of the sabeth and kill anyone who DARES even work on that most holy of days. Hell, bring back WITCH HUNTS. The bibble is a source of moral authority /sarc
I feel horrible for writing that out...
Conservative agenda -- smaller government.
Except that is, for laws that make them feel better about their piuos bigotry, IE women's health and DOMA.
The reason why is no matter the stance the law is unconstitutional and when challenged in the supreme court it will go down as such. Why ddo you think those apposed to gay marraige want an amendment defining it as a union between a man and a woman. They NEED an amendment to make laws like this constitutional. This law violates the 14th amendment. Any firm taking this case is taking a losing case.
Ducky...
They know it's a losing case. This is nothing more than a way to hand out a half-million dollar thank you note to right wing contributors - one of whom in this particular case had actually worked in the Bush White House.
This isn't really about the law, because you're right - it's bogus and won't stand up to a challenge.
It's really about giving taxpayer money to friends and supporters of the right-wing bigots.
Republicans spend billions of our tax dollars trying to control the uncontrollable,,,,,,,,Why do they care if Gays get married? Why do they care if some woman has an abortion? These things should be of NO concern to them what-so-ever, No one that I know of is trying to force them to do these things. The entire mess is no more than one parties control issues.
ok so my question is how is it anyones business if I go stab my neighbor or I go have sex with my 14 year old neighbor why is that anyones business?
Great application of the (false) argument of the beard, tlb, in which it is argued that since beards come in different lengths there is no difference between having a beard and being cleanshaven.
Stabbing your neighbor is a clear instance of infringing upon the rights of another. There is a clear difference in power dynamic between an adult and a 14 year old, establishing a principle that the child doesn't have a right of consent.
Just as the difference between white and red doesn't disprove the existence of pink, gay marriage doesn't by its nature throw open the doors to anything as you maintain. People made those same arguments about misegenation as well as marriage between people of different faiths at one time.
It's our business because you are taking away life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness from both your neighbor and the 14 year old neighbor. Unless the neighbor is trying to kill you, then they have the constitutional RIGHT to not be stabbed by you. The 14 year old neighbor has a right to grow up and learn about sex in a way that does not put them in the context of being the prey of some unthinking older predator. We have law enforcement personnel working around the clock to try and prevent you or someone like you from stepping over the line and taking those rights away from those two neighbors. Education and enlightenment on your part would be the obvious first choice since you just might have something productive to give to the world. Or, if that fails and they are a little late, then it is their job to at least catch you and try and prevent you from doing it again. By your question, it looks like you are just looking for implicit or explicit permission to hate and bully SOMEONE. Since racial discrimination has been rendered too difficult to keep up, then I believe you are just picking another target for your poison.
you are also taking away the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness of the unborn child. As far as wanting to have sex with my 14 year old neighbor or the goat out back believe it or not there are alot of people out there that claim they were born that way it's just a special kind of love and they shouldn't be descriminated against the point is where does it stop.
They should care why Gays want to be married because the overwhelming majority of americans care. We have 2-3 states that allow gay marriage, but 30+ that have outlawed it. Most americans think of homosexulaity as unnatural. Religious persons think of it as sinful. I vote persons into office that I think will uphold traditional moral values. Should they choose to not follow that stance, then I will vote against them in the next election.
Everyone should care if a woman gets an abortion, because it's murder. I fetus regardless of stage of development is uniquely different genetically than their mother. This alone proves that a fetus is not part of the mothers body and deserves same protection as you and I. I applaud the states who are passing heartbeat legislation. We need to stopped the infanticide in america.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if DOMA is constitutional or not.
I don't support it as I believe if two people want to get civilly married that is their right.
That said I believe it is the job of the justice department to defend any law passed by congress and signed by the president whether they agree with it of not.
If that is not done what is to stop a president from signing a law he disagrees with because there are other things in the bill he wants IE the add ons to Obama care and then ignoring the law.
If the justice department can't defend the law due to idealogy then it falls to congress to defend it.
The only other option is for the president to propose a law that repeals DOMA and if it passes then the case obviously is moot.
This is how it should work not just ignore what you don't agree with.
I also believe that the funds should, as the speaker wants to do, be paid out of the Department of Justice budget because of what i said above.
Stan -
George W. Bush did exactly what you describe as wrong with his "signing notations" (or whatever they were called) where he clearly stated that the Executive Branch would not enforce certain aspects of laws.
What's the difference between Bush's tactics and the Department of Justice's announcements that they would not defend the law?
Nothing! Absolutely nothing is different.
Think about it.
Gays can't get married, that's not even the definition of the word. For all of history it's been defined as a union between man and a woman. Redefining that to include the gay and lesbian community isn't the correct way to go about it. That's like trying to call a bar a table. Or a night stand a table. Both can have four legs, are flat and hold things on them, but have different names and different purposes. Call it a civil union or a domestic partnership and give them the same rights as those who are married. Make no distinction legally between the two, but don't try to redefine what marriage is!!
marriage is just a word, so your saying its ok if they call it something else? then by your same reasoning you will say prostition is ok if we just call it payed sex?
I agree
Your mental gymnastics to justify imposing religious edicts upon a secular society are amusing, but futile since not even all Christian denominations agree with you.
Nobama
Sounds like boner is back to square one, having trouble finding a puppet law firm ..... happy dance in Ohio.
I hope this is the problem they continue to have with the new firm to defend this useless law. Time will tell.
I find it amazing that law firms will defend the most sick, demented criminals, but because of pressure from outside interests, will not defend DOMA. Like it or not, the 14th amendment specifically restricts states from denying equal protection, not the federal government. This is a federal law, not a state law. As such, I cannot see any conflict with the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Dale,
I find it just as amazing that people, like yourself, in this great country would defend a sick belief that homosexuals are somehow less deserving and thus lesser people in our society.
Dale... DOMA does not infringe on any citizen's right. they all still have the same right as anyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex. No law or person has taken that right away.
so if this passes will a christian pastor be forced to marry them and if he refuses my church could be sued?
Vipp - Gee, I thought I blasted lawyers, not homosexuals. I even made it a point to write "pressure from outside interests,..."
J. Watson - I think the issue might be that homosexuals do not consider themselves either male (man) or female (woman). Certainly the argument is that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice. If it is genetic with limited choice, then DOMA, which specifically defines marriage as between a man and a woman, leaves gays out.
I think DOMA is constitutional. That does not mean that I have expressed a position on DOMA as being good law or policy.
Well if it's genetic does that mean it is also genetic when grown men or women are only attracted to young children?
Apologize Dale...I must have jumped the gun.
Limbaugher,
It's pretty obvious that you don't know much about the religion you claim to represent...You still haven't answered my post...58.4
Limbaugher, are churches required to perform a ceremony between people who are outside their faith? The answer is no.
just shows how much of a hypocrite our government is. whatever happened to bargaining power and anti-trust laws? the government could have allowed multiple law firms compete for the same job. yet they decided to hire someone based on "connections." you help me..i help u!
$500,000 for a job that could be done in less than $100,000. transparency? NOPE! we need to save money and lower our national debt now!!! we need to pressure our US senators and representatives to halt ALL FUNDING TO THESE ACTIVISTS GROUPS WHO LOVES TO SUE! WE, AS TAXPAYERS, PAY NEARLY $1 BILLION A YEAR FUNDING THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND LAW FIRMS.
Better yet, they could lose this case for almost nothing. That's what one of those cost/benefit analyses that Conservatives are so impressed by would recommend.
No, gay people don't bully anyone. No siree Bob, no bullying here.
Liberals, especially gays, are the most intolerant people in to world.
Its amazing that people in this Country continue to vote for these clowns. $500,000.00 to fight homosexuals. That's a great use of tax payer dollars.
Why is the government evern involved in picking our legal mates? The rule should be no kids or animals...
Its ignorant to believe that our society is harmed by gay marriage when more than 50% of fine christian hetetosexual marriages crash and burn...not to menton the serial spouse hunters like Newt Gingrich...
if we make a law no kids or animals wouldn't we be decriminating against all those people who have what they call a special kind of love with children and aniamls?
whatever happened to those mormons and crazy nutjobs??? they should be donating their wealth versus having taxpayers flip the bill
This is actually about our representative government.
If Congress passes laws and no one defends the laws in court, what have we become?
This is a good use of taxpayer money, to discriminate against others.
Hypocrisy.
Ok, this really is the seventh biblical sign of the end of the world. First Jan Brewer (She who must be obeyed) VETOS Arizona's embarrassing "birther" bill and now a group of Washington Lawyers has turned down a case that was tied to the bottomless pit of money called the GOP controlled congress.
Half a million dollars? That's nothing. This case could have easily run to several million before it worked it's ways through the courts.
Lawyers turning down fat fees. It is truly the end of days.
Repent, the end is near.
$500,000!! What a waste of money! They are cutting $3 Billion from high speed rail development. They think the National Endowment for the Arts and NPR is a major expense for the government. But we have an extra 1/2 million dollars to defend a law the most legal scholars will tell you is unconstitutional and will not stand and has already lost several times in court. Take note of each and every hypocrite that says he supports the action of the lawyer that left the firm that bailed out on shady deal. It is time that each one of those sanctimonious hypocritical bigots become like the rest of us and trolling the unemployment lines come the next election!!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Yo Constitutionalists, Read It!!! It does not say "all Hetrosexual men/women"
it says life liberty and pursuit of happiness you don't need marriage for any of those things.
we really do need to be cutting this type of fat out of our government. STOP SPENDING MY MONEY FOR YOUR SELF-RIGHTEOUS CRUSADES!!!
Wow. Some of you folks really need educated on the LAW and the duty of our government to uphold the LAW.
I am opposed to the defense of marriage act on various grounds. But even worse than a bad law is a government that refuses to uphold the law. That's exactly what we're seeing with the Obama administration. You may not agree with the defense of marriage act, but President Obama is constitutionally obligated to defend and protect the laws of the land. Anything less is in essence a DICTATORSHIP.
The fact of the matter is, the DOMA has not been declared illegal or unconstitutional by the supreme court. So the administration MUST defend it until the courts decide otherwise. The executive branch does not have the power to declare a law unjust or unconstitutional.
What would you be saying if this administration or any other administration declared it would not defend some other law - say the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Or the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972?
An elected government should not and cannot pick and choose which laws to uphold and which to ignore. It is the role of the courts to determine which laws are just, and which are unconstitutional. What Obama is doing here is illegal, immoral and, in essence, a dictatorship.
For someone who is criticizing the educations of others, you need to look up the difference between legal prosecution and legal defense. The DOJ isn't refusing the uphold the law. That is prosecution. If I sue you, you don't HAVE to defend yourself.
Defense is not the same as enforcing.