The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group consists of five people: the Speaker, the majority and minority leaders, the majority and minority whips. I doubt that Rep. Boehner and Rep. Pelosi have the time in their schedules or the unique skills to defend DOMA in the courts.

And I can assure you with confidence that the DOMA defense will not break the House.

I just want to say that I also agree with Boehner when he said that the constitutionality of any law should be determined by the courts. But for Section 3 of DOMA, it has already been decided by the court and it was ruled unconstitutional, albeit by the federal district court. Why appeal and waste taxpayers’ dollars when there’s no other new argument that can be presented?

No, not really.

They are defending a bill that passed. There would be no case to defend any position other than that of the bill.

In this situation the Senate has leadership – and probably a majority – that is not in favor of defending their vote. But they don’t have any legal case for arguing against the way that they voted in 1996.

At least it should be like this. Can you imagine each house hiring a different law firm and taking opposite sides?

Technicalities aside, from afar we feel like your politics is nothing but animus on both sides. But I´m glad your moving forward. Good luck.

But I’m wondering how you justify the House hiring such expensive private counsel? The House has lawyers. They can give this case to those lawyers. That would be normal means. They didn’t have to get the most expensive lawyer in American to defend the law.

The argument, though, is blown out of proportion. I agree there. This isn’t going to bankrupt America. Money in the US is issued by fiat; it’s literally impossible to bankrupt America. The argument against this spending has been in the more “partisan jab” genre because if people making the argument stopped and thought about it, about how “balancing the budget” is nothing but an excuse to ruin the economy for working people, how the government has to run a deficit and every time it’s balanced the budget a recession has followed, then they wouldn’t be making this argument. But making fun of Republicans is too attractive.

On the other hand, I don’t think funds will be diverted from the DOJ. Try getting that one into a budget the Senate, House, and White House can agree to. It’s just another partisan jab.

I mean, the argument in favor of DOMA is incoherent. It’s incoherent about the partitioning of federal vs. state authority. In the light of Lawrence it is incoherent about what is supposedly wrong with gay couples. It is the “defense” of forms of the institution of marriage that is internally incoherent and its coherence increases markedly when same sex couples are included in it.

Of course that is beatable if you can show, or the judges believe, that DOMA is an imperfect but necessary effort to conform to a Natural Order ordained by Nature Deity. That’s become fairly difficult as of late, though.

If the House of Representatives wants to defend their own bigotry, let them take the funds from their own budget. They can postpone refurbishing some offices or cancel a few junkets to foreign golf courses.

No, Mr. Kincaid, shifting funds is not reasonable. Not even close.

I don’t think it is safe to concede that. With the House entering into the trial, the DOJ may in fact have to spend quite a lot of money to defend its position that the case requires heightened scrutiny, and that the House’s position is constitutionally incorrect. And for however long the House wants to drag out the case, the DOJ’s costs go up accordingly. This is substantially different from how the state of California refused to defend Prop 8. DOJ is not, technically speaking, refusing the defend DOMA. They are only saying that the only criteria they are willing to use is heightened scrutiny, and on that basis they don’t have a case.

I very much suspect that your projections about the involvement of the DOJ are unlikely to materialize. I guess we’ll just wait and see.

I was expecting that you’d once again be taking a provocative stance, and this was a pipperoo; absolutely dazzling.

You had ME until “I suggest that such a perspective is myopic and naïve.” Until then, your “eloquence” held me spell-bound, being a (metaphorical) snake to my rabbit.

Actually, I began to roil at the word “impact,” the use of which (instead of “affect”) sends screeching nails across the blackboard of my mind every time. But then my natural cynicism asserted itself, and I realized that you were very very right. We ARE naive to expect the bastards to do anything other than what they’ve done.

I tend to agree with Mike, who lacks my rhetorical flourishes and sets forth fact after fact after fact.

“In the long run,” “the process” and “the money” and “the balance of power” are the weapons of our enemies – at least the first two, as NOM has demonstrated far-too-often successfully these past years. Two out of three is enough.

One step forward, two steps back. Two steps forward, one step back. In case no one’s noticed, “sodomy laws” were ruled unconstitutional a few years ago, but they are still stubbornly on some states’ books (and their retention and reinstatement, in two states, are part of the GOP platform).

Scalia won’t die for another 20 years, so “the long run” will probably be longer than my projected life span. I can imagine the end of things, but I can’t see that far if they continue according to Timothy. In that regard, I am, indeed, “myopic”.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court can wield its power over the other two branches. Citizens United, with its Lewis Carroll view of the law, is the present standard – and the new “reality.” One out of three is now enough.

On the bright side, take comfort (cold though it be) in the knowledge that you are very very very right. These things are “reasonable”. They can be rationalized. They are to be expected.

And all of that makes me feel very very very sick.