$500,000 To Defend DOMA - Polidicks

[quote=Human Rights Campaign] WASHINGTON – In order to defend discrimination by any means necessary, House Republican leaders have contracted with the law firm King & Spalding at the rate of $520 an hour to argue that they’re right to deny recognition to legally married couples, according to the contract made public today. The document caps the cost at $500,000 but can easily be increased upon further negotiations with the firm. “DOMA inflicts a great cost on same-sex couples but now its defense is burdening taxpayers to the tune of $520 per hour,” said Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign president. “The firm of King & Spalding and their attorney Paul Clement should be ashamed at every penny earned in trying to justify discrimination against American families.” There are currently at least nine cases challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of DOMA which bars federal recognition of marriages between same-sex couples. If the House were to intervene in all nine that would mean less than 100 billable hours would be spent per case in order to hit the $500,000 cap. “Clearly this fee cap is a lowball estimate that hides the true cost of that House’s intervention,” Solmonese said. “But the fact that Speaker Boehner has hired such high-priced attorneys clearly shows he’s willing to pull out all the stops to ensure second-class citizenship for same-sex couples.”[/quote] This is according to a press release from the Human Rights Campaign: [URL]http://www.hrc.org/15544.htm[/URL] And it could [B]cost more.[/B] This is creating jobs HOW? Second source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/18/house.defense.of.marriage/index.html[/url]

Defense of Defense of Marriage Act Lol

I don't understand how the House Republicans have constitutional authority to even defend the law. The power to defend laws against the United States rests in the Department of Justice, which is in the Executive branch, and if the Executive Branch says it will not defend the law, the law won't be defended.

[QUOTE=5killer;29308099]I don't understand how the House Republicans have constitutional authority to even defend the law. The power to defend laws against the United States rests in the Department of Justice, which is in the Executive branch, and if the Executive Branch says it will not defend the law, the law won't be defended.[/QUOTE] They're republicans. The only part of the constitution they care about is the second amendment.

[QUOTE=Acesarge;29308191]They're republicans. The only part of the constitution they care about is the second amendment.[/QUOTE] We rather enjoy the tenth, too.

You should add this source, too, but I'm not sure how biased it is: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/18/house.defense.of.marriage/index.html[/url] Supposedly, Boehner wanted to divert funds from the justice department to fund the lawyer. The republicans get pissy for using tax money for abortions, and yet they turn around and do this. Note that I'm not comparing gay rights to abortion. Have to love the comments, though.

nvm snip

Do the House GOP not understand the branches of government or something? The Legislative makes the laws, the Executive enforces them and the Judicial defends/rules on them. Congress don't do shit bout defending them.

How funny these idiots think that they have a case, I think that the justice department is going to shoot this one down very fast. If the courts do not then people should go and protest, yeesh talk about the government beig shitty for the good ole USA.

[QUOTE=.50 Cal;29309228]We rather enjoy the tenth, too.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but Tea Party members can't count that high.

I never got what the mean when they say marriage needs defending. [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] like marriage is a personal and intimate thing between two people. it shouldn't be some sort of institution.

[QUOTE=Lizard Of Guilt;29311583]I never got what the mean when they say marriage needs defending.[/QUOTE] They had to think long and hard about what they could say they're defending when they realized it sounded better than saying they were attacking a minority.

snip [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;29311594]They had to think long and hard about what they could say they're defending when they realized it sounded better than saying they were attacking a minority.[/QUOTE] it's like [i]defending[/i] the family [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] the closeminded nuclear family.

Oh no, icky gays trying to marry! Better spend half a million dollars to stop them!

[QUOTE=5killer;29308099]I don't understand how the House Republicans have constitutional authority to even defend the law. The power to defend laws against the United States rests in the Department of Justice, which is in the Executive branch, and if the Executive Branch says it will not defend the law, the law won't be defended.[/QUOTE] They can appropriate funds specifically for a certain reason. The DoJ still has a budget, and the house can restrict how it's used, and can therefore use it to hire outside laws. They're still working through the DoJ, just through budgeting choices. [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] It also requires the approval of the Senate though. They haven't done it yet, and since the senate is not Republican controlled, it's unlikely to go through.

[QUOTE=-Chief-;29311618]Oh no, icky gays trying to marry! Better spend half a million dollars to stop them![/QUOTE] That's one of the things I find so disgusting about this. Our country is sledging through an enormous amount of debt, even cutting funding to programs, and yet he wants to spend an insane amount defending an incredibly prejudiced, bigoted law?

I find this funny because "doma" means "at home" in Czech.

[QUOTE=Treybuchet;29315973]They can appropriate funds specifically for a certain reason. The DoJ still has a budget, and the house can restrict how it's used, and can therefore use it to hire outside laws. They're still working through the DoJ, just through budgeting choices. [editline]20th April 2011[/editline] It also requires the approval of the Senate though. They haven't done it yet, and since the senate is not Republican controlled, it's unlikely to go through.[/QUOTE] I know they can restrict the funds, but to me it seems as if they are trying to defend on the US's behalf. Taken from Wikipedia, "On April 18, 2011, House leaders announced they had picked former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement to represent the BLAG, and Clement, without opposition from other parties to the case, filed a motion to be allowed to intervene in the suit "for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of Section III" of DOMA."