iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Boehner-Led Group Will Defend DOMA In Court

Boehner

First Posted: 03/04/11 04:06 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced on Friday that he was spearheading a process that will, ultimately, witness the House of Representatives taking over the legal responsibilities of arguing for the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The announcement comes less than two weeks after the Obama administration's Department of Justice removed itself from the case, declaring that it had determined the law -- which dictates that the federal government can only recognize a state-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman -- to be unconstitutional.

In a statement posted on his website, Boehner said he would be convening a meeting of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to vote on how to address the law in court. Since the group is weighted towards Republicans, the outcome seems fairly certain that the House will take on the role of the defense.

"It is regrettable that the Obama Administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy," Boehner said. "The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts -- not by the president unilaterally -- and this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution."

The group will include Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

The inclusion of Pelosi and Hoyer may seem a bit odd considering the president's public opposition to DOMA -- a position that Pelosi cheered as a "victory" for civil rights. But their position seems to be more perfunctory than anything else.

According to House rules, a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group is to consist of five members (top three of majority party, top two of minority). With three Republicans and two Democrats on the panel, any legal decision the panel takes with respect to DOMA will have a decidedly Republican bent.

One thing worth noting is the carefully-worded language in Boehner's statement. Rather than playing up the need to defend an act of Congress, the speaker chose to emphasize the need for the courts to have full and final say, sidestepping possible complaints of hypocrisy regarding the attempt by GOP officials to have Obama's congressionally-passed health care law overturned in the judiciary.

UPDATE: In a statement from her office, Pelosi said she would oppose Boehner's efforts, calling them "nothing more than a distraction."

President Obama took a bold step forward for civil rights and equality when he announced that the federal government would no longer argue to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act in court.

This legislation has long raised constitutional questions and has long been viewed as a violation of the equal protection clause. That’s why I voted against it on the floor, and that’s why I oppose Speaker Boehner’s effort to put the House in the position of defending this indefensible statute.

Aside from standing up for a discriminatory law and failing to focus on jobs and the economy, this action places Republicans squarely on the wrong side of history and progress. In addition, this decision will burden the staff and monetary resources of the Office of the General Counsel, and given the complexity of these cases and the number of courts involved, it is likely this will cost the House hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.

This is nothing more than a distraction from our most pressing challenges, and Speaker Boehner should follow his own advice and work with Democrats to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and responsibly reduce the deficit.


FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced on Friday that he was spearheading a process that will, ultimately, witness the House of Representatives taking over the legal responsibilit...
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced on Friday that he was spearheading a process that will, ultimately, witness the House of Representatives taking over the legal responsibilit...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7,470
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (155 total)
12:27 PM on 03/09/2011
Didn't Boehner 'promise' to concentrate only on "JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!" ?

How many jobs will be created by 'defending' the indefensible? (And jobs for lawyers don't count.)

Just askin'.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
akrazyrunner
Be bold, courageous.Americans are counting on you
03:16 PM on 03/07/2011
"It is regrettable that the Obama Administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs"

Sooooooo, where's the jobs bill?

where's the jobs bill?

where's the jobs bill?

where's the jobs bill?

where's the jobs bill?

where's the jobs bill?

where's the jobs bill?

where's the jobs bill?

where's the jobs bill?

where's the jobs bill?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
03:00 AM on 03/07/2011
I'm happy to see this defense of DOMA. I want gay marriage kept as a bargaining chip for... wait for it... reducing the age of consent for heterosexual marriage by two years.
12:29 PM on 03/09/2011
???

How does getting rd of the DOMA equate to/lead to "lowering the age of consent for heterosexual marriage by two yearrs"?

For that matter, in some states, the age of consent is as low as 13 years of age. In others, there is NO minimum age, so long as the parents of the children consent.

Is this yet more heterosexual delusion from the 'right'?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maxhnb
calling it like it is
05:22 PM on 03/06/2011
Even Clarence Darrow could not refute the over 100 points of law that the original case lost in the CA district court. The entire legal collective of the Republican party couldnt win a case they couldnt bribe. Ted Olsen , their guy, is on the other side of the case.
01:11 PM on 03/06/2011
Save marriage, ban divorce. Sorry, Newt but Jesus condemned divorce. That would be a good start in walking their talk on 'traditional biblical marriage'. Add to that polygamy, the official marriage of the Bible.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
EmmaDarian
All in all, I'm loving every rise and fall (RHCP)
01:16 PM on 03/06/2011
Oh, yeah. You can make a much stronger Biblical case against divorce than same-sex marriage.
11:19 AM on 03/06/2011
This whole business is just absurd to the point of Dadaism (I think, feel free to disagree). The GOP/Tea Party wants absolutely NO governmental oversight on anything corporate, or involving state government, but they just have to be involved in everything that goes on in a PRIVATE relationship between people. In North Korea, the people get told how to deal with their own sex lives and when to have children--is this what we want in the US?
Ironic that in the South, the most rabidly religious portion of the country, the divorce rate is astronomical, there are kids being born out of wedlock--things condemned by the bible. And yet in the 'godless, liberal' North, divorce rates are significantly lower and relatively more stable marriages. Explain that. Maybe we should send all these sex-obsessed conservatives to the TSA, since they're so fixated on people's private lives. Unbelieveable.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jennysez
12:48 PM on 03/06/2011
The GOP: Making government small enough to fit in your bedroom since 1968
02:15 PM on 03/06/2011
LOL!! Isn't that the truth! I'm beginning to think that all fundies are just closet sex voyeurs. They preach about the evils of sex but just HAVE to know every intimate detail of everyone's personal life. Gimme a break.
The GOP/Tea Party is more obsessed with defending marriage than trying to fix the deficit, all because they want to run Obama out of town. Meanwhile, poor Americans can barely survive on their mediocre paychecks. I didn't sign up to live in the fundamentalist Christian equivalent of Iran, thank you very much.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
emlr
"a man of knowledge is free"
11:04 AM on 03/06/2011
Gonna be interesting to see how this bill is constitutional. Which amendment is it that declares anything about marriage?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maxhnb
calling it like it is
05:28 PM on 03/06/2011
The case was comprised primarily of unsubstantiated opinions from zealot websites. The law was deemed not constitutional in that denies equal protection under the law to citizens who are gay. All the arguments relied on prejudicial statements mainly based on unproven statements that gays make bad parents and that their children are inclined to homosexuality.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bradenton
10:32 AM on 03/06/2011
Boehner and his Republican cronies have no solutions to the country's many problems so they delve into the "sexy" stuff. It's a tired old rag that even Gingrich is sick of hearing about. Wake up guys, it's 2011. Everyone has rights. Everyone is equal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
exPatPatti
Eyes Wide Open
08:41 AM on 03/06/2011
Funny how republicans call for individual freedom and less government interference. I guess that only applies if you're neither gay nor female.
10:11 AM on 03/06/2011
Read the memo, "Less interference" means from the federal government in the form of NOT being able to ram redundant gender unions down the throats of states who do not recognize them as real marriages.

Without DOMA I suppose that you favor 49 states should all just roll over and accept redundant gender unions simply because one state has them?

Such are NOT actually even 'legal' in Massachusetts BTW because there is no law specifying them. So, without DOMA, what MA law would, say, Pennsylvania be obligated to respect? Go find it for me! It doesn't exist and the MA Constitution EXPLICITLY denies the MA Supreme Court from making or changing any MA laws and no such thing was in the Goodrich decision anyway.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
GabeSmall
10:38 AM on 03/06/2011
DOMA only affects the federal definition of marriage. And it explicitly rejects recognition of certain state-recognized marriages. That's an unprecedented violation of states rights at the federal level on defining and regulating marriage.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
GabeSmall
10:43 AM on 03/06/2011
"Such are NOT actually even 'legal' in Massachuse­tts BTW because there is no law specifying them."

This is total nonsense. Same-sex marriages don't have to be explicitly allowed by law any more than opposite-sex marriages do. In order to be legally recognized, they simply have NOT to be explicitly BANNED, and then issued a license signed by an authorized representative of the state.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
exPatPatti
Eyes Wide Open
08:35 AM on 03/06/2011
"It is regrettable that the Obama Administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy," - Boehner
-----------------
Excuse me Mr. Speaker,
Where is your plan to increase jobs? In America, not India.
Where is your plan to turn the economy around? And don't say tax cuts.

I'll tell you where these plans are: they don't exist.
photo
WheelsOnFire
Equality Crusader
09:14 AM on 03/06/2011
So, Mr. Boehner, please explain why you chose to open the divisive issue of abortion.

Hypocrite.
10:12 AM on 03/06/2011
To save tax money like he said he would.
07:38 AM on 03/06/2011
Iam tired of all you unchristian, liberal whiners. If you allow gays to marry it will undermine the sanctity of my 3 failed marriages and 2 affairs. Uh sarcasm.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
05:30 AM on 03/06/2011
Government has as much business in "marriage" as they have in "circumcision."
Let government handle "legal unions" and let churches handle "marriage."
If this is done, thousands of churches will continue to MARRY straight couples and gay couples.

Just because it isn't legally recognized hasn't stopped gays and lesbians from marrying.

Heterosexual couples created a 53% divorce rate all by themselves.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
07:51 AM on 03/06/2011
F&F for your body of work, all good posts.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
EmmaDarian
All in all, I'm loving every rise and fall (RHCP)
09:08 AM on 03/06/2011
So, atheists don't get "marriage?" Instead of the line being drawn between straight and gay, it would be between religious and non-religious, two groups that are already divided. I really don't need it to be harder for atheists to live in this world.

No one minded when atheists married before. It's only when same-sex marriage was raised as an issue that people got concerned about religion in marriage. And it's always been a contract.

Sorry, I've been working as hard as I could for years not for marriage equality, but I'm not giving up the right for all of us to get marriage, even atheists like me.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
EmmaDarian
All in all, I'm loving every rise and fall (RHCP)
09:51 AM on 03/06/2011
Oops, I've been working FOR marriage equality.
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
05:25 AM on 03/06/2011
Every legislator, judge or attorney who has divorced should recuse himself/herself from discussing the "Defense Of Marriage Act."

Why is it that marriage is only worth defending when gays and lesbians want it.
photo
WheelsOnFire
Equality Crusader
08:28 AM on 03/06/2011
Excellent point.

And the fact that gays and lesbians want marriage is flattery, not an attack.
12:49 PM on 03/09/2011
Speaking of judges recusing themselves, it will be very interesting to see "Justice" Clarence Thomas's ruling. His is an inter-racial marriage, one that would have been illegal in America less than 50 years ago.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OldGent
Alwayswatchin
05:04 AM on 03/06/2011
With ALL The Republican sex scandals across the country, and my feelings about John Boehner's intelligence, I thought I should ask Mr Boehner this. Mr. Boehner, you do realize this is DOMA and not Do-MA. Silly I know but necessary considering what poses as Republican agendas now-a-days. I'm serious because of things like JOBS being first and foremost, but they went after abortion and gays and everything else but jobs. It should be a word easy to understand, it only has 4 letters. Sex is a three letter word and you Republicans seem to have understood that one all right with all the extra-marital non-family value affairs. Some of them gay affairs also and abortion might be something you want to keep legal considering. Wouldn't want to see any back alley action from Congress.