So much for reining in spending.. House GOP to continue to Fund Gay Marriage Ban's Legal Defense

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2013 3:39 AM GMT
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/defense-of-marriage-act_n_2399383.html?1357181586&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

    Defense Of Marriage Act: House Republicans Tie Federal Gay Marriage Ban To House Rules

    WASHINGTON -- House Republicans may have complained loudly during the "fiscal cliff" debate about the need to rein in government spending, but that didn't stop them from agreeing Wednesday night to sink even more money into defending the federal ban on recognizing gay marriage.

    A GOP source told The Huffington Post that, during a closed-door meeting of the House Republican Conference, lawmakers gave a green light to including language in the 113th Congress rules package that authorizes the House legal team, known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), to keep paying outside counsel to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. The proposed House rules package also states that BLAG continues to "speak for" the House in its defense of DOMA.

    HuffPost obtained a copy of the draft language, which is expected to pass the full House on Thursday when the 113th Congress begins:

    (1) CONTINUING AUTHORITY FOR THE BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP.
    (A) The House authorizes the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the 113th Congress --

    (i) to act as successor in interest to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the 112th Congress with respect to civil actions in which it intervened in the 112th Congress to defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7) or related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, United States Code, including in the case of Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp.2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012), aff'd, 699 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012), cert. granted, No. 12–307 (Dec. 7, 2012), cert. pending No. 12–63 (July 16, 2012) and 12-ll (Dec.___2012);

    (ii) to take such steps as may be appropriate to ensure continuation of such civil actions; and

    (iii) to intervene in other cases that involve a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act or related provisions of titles 10, 31, and 38, United States Code.

    (B) Pursuant to clause 8 of rule II, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group continues to speak for, and articulate the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters in which it appears, including in Windsor v. United States.

    Windsor v. United States is a reference to a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit earlier affirmed a lower court ruling that found Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional.

    The GOP source noted that the addition of DOMA-related language to the House rules package is new.

    House Republican leaders have been defending DOMA in court since February 2011, when Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration would no longer do so because it found the law to be unconstitutional. The House has already spent at least $1.5 million defending the gay marriage ban. The Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter on constitutional matters, announced last month that it was putting Windsor v. United States on its docket this term.
  • hartfan

    Posts: 1037

    Jan 05, 2013 7:15 AM GMT
    This is just usual political hypocrisy. But it is unfortunate.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14296

    Jan 05, 2013 8:13 PM GMT
    They have tons of money to waste pandering to the narrow minded, bible thumping screwballs but we don't have enough money to solve the more pressing domestic issues facing this country. What a fucking pile of crap.icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2013 8:19 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob saidThey have tons of money to waste pandering to the narrow minded, bible thumping screwballs but we don't have enough money to solve the more pressing domestic issues facing this country. What a fucking pile of crap.icon_mad.gif

    Ah, but Bible-thumping screwballs elect Republicans, so it's taxpayer money well-spent in Republican minds. And with a Republican-dominated US Supreme Court, they may get their wish.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2013 8:21 PM GMT
    I find it interesting the way "BLAG" is defined in the "Urban Dictionary"....somehow fitting.....icon_lol.gif
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blag
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 05, 2013 9:35 PM GMT
    More republican hypocrisy to go on the hypocrisy dung heap
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2013 10:13 PM GMT
    GQjock saidMore republican hypocrisy to go on the hypocrisy dung heap

    Yes, but that dung heap is fertilizer for Republican candidates. Their base has become the angry illiterates, the uniformed & uneducated mob that is easily influenced by FOX lies & deceptions.

    This is the very fear the Founders debated, in creating a democracy. Would the country dissolve into mob rule, without an aristocracy to lead us? Would there be a tyranny of the majority, as Jefferson feared?

    Hence a Constitution that said certain rights were not debatable, not a matter of a 51/49% vote, like happened in California over Prop 8. But that's where Republicans want to take us. My "inalienable rights" are subject to a majority vote according to them. And if I'm gay, I'm likely gonna lose that vote in much of the US.

    Early in this country's history it was realized that an educated electorate would best protect the democracy we were trying to create. And so public education became a priority, the best in the world in the 1800s. Not to mention that it would create better workers and greater wealth, which it did.

    But today the Republican Party underfunds education. Why? Because an ignorant base will more likely vote Republican, keeping them in power. That and personal profit are their only concern.

    And as for educated workers, why does that matter? When you're off-shoring most of our US economy, for more profit, who cares whether US workers are educated or not? Republicans don't need US workers, just slavish voters.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Jan 06, 2013 3:07 AM GMT
    I just don't know how any person takes the Republican Party seriously.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2013 4:21 PM GMT
    So...where's the conservaposse touting this savvy example of fiscal restraint?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 07, 2013 5:23 PM GMT
    Disgusting. Indefensible.