DOMA gets a funding boost

Timothy Kincaid

December 14th, 2012

As I have said before, I think that House Speaker Boehner’s defense of DOMA is not inappropriate. The law was passed through legal process and the members of the House at least nominally support the law and thus should be entitled to defend a law that the Executive branch refuses to defend, should they wish to do so. Even one that is so clearly in violation of the Constitution.

But what amuses me about the defense that Speaker Boehner is conducting is that it is, at best, a hangdog averted eyed mumbling defense. There is no “defending the family” or “protecting the sanctity of marriage” here. In the rare rare instance that DOMA’s legal defense gets a comment, it’s about “enforcing the law” or stopping the President from making unilateral decisions about which of Congress’ laws to uphold.

I agree. We don’t want Presidents just ignoring the law. We have checks and balances.

On the other hand, the Justice Department was also correct to find the law indefensible and unconstitutional. Nor do I fault the Senate for refusing to participate in the defense, as it was clearly not the will of that body.

This whole process has been, to me, an illustration of representative democracy at its best, respecting the roles that each other holds.

But it is funny to watch.

I might be less amused if we were losing the argument. Had virtually every DOMA case not gone our way, I be less sanguine about the House’s role.

But I have found it to be a regular reminder that we are not only winning the legal struggle, but the public argument and even the political one. Each victory has triumphal declarations in the press from lawyers and advocates for equality and an echoing silence from Boehner or other Republican leadership.

And now we have one more anecdote to illustrate the extent to which social and political support for DOMA has evaporated. (Rollcall)

House Republicans have quietly raised the value of a contract with a private law firm that is handling the chamber’s Supreme Court defense of a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

House Administration Chairman Dan Lungren, R-Calif., signed off in September on a $500,000 increase in the maximum value of the contract with the firm, Washington-based Bancroft. Republicans have raised the cap of the contract twice: first on Sept. 29, 2011, from its original maximum of $500,000 to $1.5 million, and again on Sept. 28 to its new maximum of $2 million.

House Minority Leader Pelosi has conjured up some indignation over the raise but she must have been chuckling as she did so. Two million dollars for a multi-case, multi-state, multi-year defense is chump change, a piffle. The Justice Department budget is tens of billions of dollars per year.

And you have to laugh that a notion which was integral to a presidential campaign less than a decade ago, a bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support just two decades past, is now defended in secrecy and silence.

: I prepared this on my phone and failed to include the link. It is now included above. Also, if anyone failed to make the connection, “have quietly raised” means that they didn’t inform the Democratic leadership.

Priya Lynn

December 14th, 2012

Timothy said “In the rare rare instance that DOMA’s legal defense gets a comment, it’s about “enforcing the law” or stopping the President from making unilateral decisions about which of Congress’ laws to uphold.

I agree. We don’t want Presidents just ignoring the law. We have checks and balances.”.

Contrary to the common claim, Obama is enforcing DOMA, he has just chosen not to defend it in court.


December 14th, 2012

Timothy, this article is a crock. You fail to mention the one most important FACT of the entire story and denigrate Nancy Pelosi in the process. Nancy Pelosi is entirerly correct to be indignant about this issue, and I’m sure she didn’t need to “conjur” it up either.

So everypone else knows the main fact Timothy convieniently forgets to mention: THE REPUBLICAN’sPassed the increase in funding in secret, and didn’t bother to inform the Democrats OR THE PUBLIC until just YESTERDAY. Why gee, Timothy, why in the world would any one be upset about that? And gee, this kind of secret funding must not bother anyone since they seem to “conjur up” indignation about it.

We expect at least the truth from you Timothy. I know, you are republican, so it is a little difficult for you to grasp that concept, but at least give it a try, okay? Your readers deserve more than just half the story.

“Hiding this contract from voters in the midst of an election season was a cynical move at best, and a betrayal of the public trust at worst. With Americans focused on the creation of jobs and the growth of our economy, Republicans should not be spending $2 million to defend discrimination in our country. We should be embracing our tradition of equality, advancing our promise of opportunity, and securing justice and equal rights for every American.”


December 14th, 2012

@ Robert-

The whole point of Timothy’s post is that the House leadership isn’t trying to make a larger political win or publicize its defense of DOMA. How on earth did he misleading about the funding process?!?!

Rhonda Frazier-Evans

December 14th, 2012

I’m not one to comment often, but this is really partisan ramble. I come here not to view politics, but for gay news. That being said, I’m appalled that they raised the funding in secret. I don’t like them defending it at all, but if they must, let us know how much, and where this money is coming from.


December 14th, 2012

Mr. Kincaid, you are being deliberately misleading, in fact, outright lying, to suggest that President Obama is not enforcing DOMA. Your lie is a common right-wing talking point, often repeated as a weapon against our struggle for equal rights under the law. What a disgrace you are to the gay community to publish such drivel!


December 14th, 2012


When one leaves out the entire reason a story is in the news (hint: IT’S BECAUSE THEY DID IT IN SECRET), and then slams the Minority leader for her comments, as if she should not be or could not be organicly indignant, and must somehow “conjur” (like a witch?!?!) some reaction, then it’s a crock. And the fact that he neglected that point is VERY importnat. He leaves out the NEWSWORTHY fact of the story.

As far as what “point” Timothy is “trying” to make, well, I’ll let HIM tell us that. Your interpretation of what he means to say is exactly that, your interpretation.

And yes, I do find it offensive as well as disengenious to post a story and leave out the most important fact about the reason it is a story. This is a story PRECISELY because they raised this funding without telling anyone until Dec. 13th, almost 3 months after the fact.

Oh, and Timothy, we all know that the right to “defend” DOMA has yet to be decided. We may find in just a few months that the House had no standing to defend this law. That is a question we now are waiting an answer on from the Supreme Court.

Leaving out facts that hurt your point is bad form. Plain and simple, all your readers DESERVE all the information available in your stories. AND the information WAS available, and should have been included.


December 14th, 2012

And Markanthony,

I see this story as one in which the right wing is actively playing to their base and hiding the facts from voters. If this had been made public during the election they may have lost another seat or two. And coming from a Congress that wants to cut every safety net program under the sun, a million dollars over their allotted budget is telling. This is, after all, the party that’s trying to tell everyone it needs to cut waste and spending, and that Democrats can’t stick to a budget, while they are secretly adding funding because they can’t stick to a budget.

And, by leaving out the facts of the case it make Timothy able to freely feign amusement that Pelosi would be upset about the funding and then make her indignation seem fake. If one KNEW she was responding to a secret funding increase in her statment, then of course it wouldn’t “seem” to anyone that she had to “conjur” up her disdain.

She was RIGHTFULLY upset at the passage of secret funding that was witheld from one part of the House, the Democratic part.


December 14th, 2012

>”We expect at least the truth from you Timothy”

I don’t. I’ve given up on him to be anything but a Republican shill and a defender of everything religious, no matter how immoral.

Timothy Kincaid

December 14th, 2012

Incidentally, I don’t believe I’ve ever announced my party registration on this site, nor do I intend to do so.

Timothy Kincaid

December 14th, 2012

it’s about “enforcing the law” or stopping the President from making unilateral decisions about which of Congress’ laws to uphold.

I agree.

Oh, I see how that could be seen as an argument that the President is not enforcing the law. That wasn’t my intent and I should have been clearer.

“I agree” refers to the idea that the President (any President) not just make unilateral decisions about which of Congress’ laws to uphold (ie in court).

I certainly wasn’t suggesting that the President was not enforcing the law. For the most part he’s doing so – as I said, this is an illustration of representative democracy at its best, respecting the roles that each other holds.


December 14th, 2012

Timothy, you don’t need to “announce” your Party afffiliation when you talk about being a member of Log Cabin REPUBLICANS. Kinda goes without saying.

Timothy Kincaid

December 14th, 2012

I’m not a member of Log Cabin Republicans. And I’m pretty sure I actually have said that on this site.


December 14th, 2012

I’ve never seen you state that Timothy. And do you really expect us to believe that the guy who can tell us the inner workings of a local LCR chapter, and the fact that two members leaving it was inconsequential. How in the world would you know anything about the local membership and the impact of the Nortes leaving if you were not affiliated in some way?

Not to mention the VERY sppirited defense of LCR, and the Right wing throught the electoral process. You might be trying to deny it now, but you let your political affiliations stand on their own in every comment and story you post. You may have never “written” your affiliation in exact words “I am republican”, but you don’t have to. EVERY article you right has the slant of your politics.

And I see you still haven’t addressed the fact that you left out the most important aspect of this story to score your nasty little comment about Pelosi.

You need tostand up and take ownership of what you write.


December 14th, 2012

Oh, and most people don’t attend political functions of groups they disagree with. Unless they are reporters, and you already admitted you are not one of those.


December 14th, 2012

@Robert –

Where’s your daily updated news blog? Timothy is one of the major contributors to this site. Whether you agree with him or not being, being nasty is unnecessary.

Does anyone else feel like the vitriol of the comments section is increasing? I can’t even be bothered to read them usually.

Timothy Kincaid

December 14th, 2012


My only interest in correcting your false assertions about me is in that ensuring that others don’t mistakenly think that your “facts” are factual.

You are, of course, entitled to believe anything you like.


December 14th, 2012

I 2nd FirstAndrew’s point.

Interesting, the Roll Call article points out that defense funding is coming from the House’s staffing budget.


December 14th, 2012

@First Andrew, where is yours? AND where is Timothy Kincaides? He does not Own this site, he blogs on it. There is a difference, or is that only imperative when you want to attack someone?

If an individual wishes to work for a blog and let his opinions out, then the readers of the blog (after all the readers are why the blog exists) wish to question him, or even get confrontational about issues, that is the entire point of a blog you know, then it is their right to do so.

My comments are my opinion and as such I will state them.

Also, why is it nasty to insist that all the facts get put into a story? Why is it nasty to insist that authors correct or add to their stories if those stories are laacking? Timothy calls Jim out on his errors and gets as down and dirty in his comments to readers as I do to him. But I suppose thats OKIYAR.

Also, Timothy, you did indeed state in late October that you were not a part of LCR. I correct myself when the facts can be verified. You still neglect to fix the lack of information in your article, which enables you to take a democrat bashing position in regards to Nancy Pelosi’s statement about the SECRET funding talked about here, but neglected in the actual story.

Rob Tisinai

December 14th, 2012

Timothy is right, of course, when he say DOMA’s defender complain about the president not “enforcing the law.” They complain about that all time. There’s nothing dishonest in pointing that out.

Timothy Kincaid

December 14th, 2012

Oh, huh, I just noticed. I actually did use the word “secrecy”.

Regan DuCasse

December 16th, 2012

GOOD one, Priya Lynn!
DOMA is being enforced, for sure. Defense in court would be interesting to watch.
All of the stated reasons for it’s existence, any defenses, are not legal singly or collectively.
You know all of what defenses are used already, so it’s any wonder DOMA has any chance of being upheld except for Scalia and Thomas’s contrariness.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.