Yes, it is “Legal”, not “Leadership.” I wonder if that was a misspeak of Boehner or a typo of the reporter.

We don’t yet know what Kircher will do, but I doubt he’ll hire ADF. The Prop 8 Proponents were smarter than that and they ain’t no rocket scientists, if ya know what I mean.

Ryan,

First, the Log-Cabinites lawsuit is DADT, not DOMA. And they go up against fellow Republicans on a very regular basis; you might say that it’s what they do. And you will recall that Bush was in office when they filed that lawsuit.

You think the law is unconstitutional, but ought to be defended anyway?

Almost. I think it is unconstitutional, but that Congress should be given the opportunity to defend it. Which is what Obama did.

And while it would have been great for Boehner to say, “ya know what, I agree it’s unconstitutional” I don’t find it to be wrong, necessarily, for the leadership to defend the laws passed by the members – even when its a bad law.

I feel more comfortable with the idea that there is process here, a method of addressing the situation that is somewhat outside the usual partisan “win at all costs” approach usually taken by politicians. It seems to me that Obama and Boehner are both carefully approaching this issue in a way that history can’t look back and say that either was heavy handed.

And, I like that while this seldom arises, there is a method to deal with a DOJ refusing to defend a law. Write it off to me being an accountant, if you like.

Prior to this, did you support Obama and the DOJ’s defense? I’m pretty sure I remember you did not.

Nope, I didn’t. I argued that he could simply agree that the law is unconstitutional and not appeal.

And – in the Second Cirtuit – he did a step better, he did the “Schwarzenegger defense”. And I’m delighted. He’s refusing to defend the law, but respecting the rights of the guys who disagree and allowing someone to defend the position of those who made it.

We’ve yet to see exactly how this plays out with appeals. In the First Circuit, the appeals are already in process.

But if the Feds lose in the Second Circuit, will the DOJ appeal? Will the House have the right to do so? Shades of Perry v Schwarzenegger.

I’ll continue to criticize Boehner and the Republican House for the arguments presented to defend DOMA. And he could have agreed with the President that DOMA 3 is unconstitutional (though not without some nasty intraparty chaos).

But at the moment, he’s behaving better than expected. He never promised to be a fierce advocate and this whole “let the courts decide” language is certainly better than what I thought would be. (Surely, Ryan, you are not so partisan that you can’t praise a guy for being better than expected.)

“According to GLAD, briefs will be filed before First Circuit Court of Appeals probably between now and next spring, with oral arguments likely to be heard in the fall of 2011.

The Department of Justice had an obligation to defend the law. But there is no legal obligation to appeal the rulings of the court.

Fierce advocate in action.”

And: “I don’t think we would be satisfied to stop at Massachusetts, but rather that we would build on this victory – limited as it is. Just as we took the victory for marriage in Massachusetts and are now building it by a state-by-state movement, so too would we challenge DOMA in each state in which marriage equality exists.

This decision – if left unchallenged – would have provided precedent, especially in the First Circuit were most of the other marriage states reside. Yes, it would have been a temporary delay in four states, but it would mean immediate recognition in one. As it stands, we have no federal recognition now, anywhere.

Please recall that this decision, if we were to prevail at the SCOTUS level does not have impact on all 50 states. Rather, it ONLY impacts those which already have marriage. So this is not a 49 to 1 fight. Rather it is a 5 to 1 battle over timing.

If we lose at SCOTUS, we have NO states with federal recognition. If we win, we will have five.”

So, what’s changed? Other than the political party of the defendants?

Have our constitutional rights been abrogated? Yes, absolutely.
Is it legal to treat us as sub-human and to deny us our civil rights?
Also yes, absolutely.

The problem we face is very simple. The majority of people either don’t care one way or the other or are on our side to the extent that our rights don’t conflict with more important issues.

Those who hate us, however, are passionate about it. While disenchanted liberals and moderates vote for the greens or sit ‘this one out’, they always vote and they always vote teaparty or conservative Republican.

Boehner is playing to those who always vote. It’s really that simple.

And Boehner will utilize House General Counsel (to do the dirty work). Can we correctly assume that the American People will not be made aware of the Amounting Cost to Taxpayers of these irregular proceedings? Likely.

The Republican House is now The Main Player in withholding Constitutionally Guaranteed Equal Protections to a Specific Class of American Citizens.

They own this. They zealously oppress Minorities. History is written, and in a day of modern technology no less. We will not miss a single drop.

No, it is indefensible. There is no case to be made that the government has an interest in advancing heterosexual-only marriage as preventing gays from marrying in no way helps advance heterosexual marriage.

I didn’t see anything that says the advisory group’s opinion is binding. It is the Speaker who directs the House General Counsel (even sets their salary).

I don’t know these elements well. The House General Counsel seems more analogous, institutionally, to the White House Counsel than to the Attorney General.

We still don’t have information on what the fact base is that GenCounsel Kerry Kirchner is using, when Eric Holder has come to a different determination.

The General Counsel is meant to furnish legal services in a bipartisan manner. How does one square that with hiring the ADF, for instance?