Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDefense Of Marriage Act: House Republicans Tie Federal Gay Marriage Ban To House Rules
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 "speaks 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:
Litigation Matters. Subsection (a) addresses continuing litigation in which the House is a party. Paragraph (1) authorizes the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to continue litigating a number of cases in the 113th Congress in which the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has successfully intervened as a defendant, including one case currently before the Supreme Court (Windsor v. United States). This paragraph also confirms that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group speaks for the House and articulates its institutional position in all litigation matters in which it appears.
-snip-
Full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/defense-of-marriage-act_n_2399383.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1803 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Defense Of Marriage Act: House Republicans Tie Federal Gay Marriage Ban To House Rules (Original Post)
Tx4obama
Jan 2013
OP
I assume that's taxpayer money. That's a real wise use of funds, right there.
TwilightGardener
Jan 2013
#1
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)1. I assume that's taxpayer money. That's a real wise use of funds, right there.
Pisces
(5,592 posts)2. The last gasps of extinction from these dinosaurs. They are grasping at straws. Illinois is going to
be the tenth state to have same sex marriage with another 7 close behind. They are relics of another era. We need to put
them out of their misery. Why can't we get double agents to run in these districts that are gerrymandered. Lets get people
who are middle of the road people to say crazy shit to get elected but then vote like a rational person. We need to
get subversive. These fools need to be put out of their misery.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)4. And two years later, the fakes would be out. What good would that do?
Pisces
(5,592 posts)7. We could do a lot in 2 years with the right Congress. I'd roll the dice!
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)3. the money should come from the boner pocket
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)5. Aren't the supremes taking up gay marriage?
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)6. Here's a link to an article with some info, below