Eric Cantor: Defense of Marriage Act action by Friday

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor came to Speaker John Boehner’s side Monday, promising action by Friday to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, now that President Barack Obama has said he won’t.

“I stand by commitment to make that happen,” Cantor (R-Va.) said Monday afternoon at a press conference, promising to outline their plans in detail Friday.

Cantor said the Justice Department’s refusal to defend the law is a problem separate from the substance of the law itself, which allows states to decide whether to recognize same-sex unions in other states. The Justice Department has called another provision, that bars same-sex couples from receiving federal-worker benefits, unconstitutional.

“Again I do believe that this is a case that is distinguishable on its merits and to have the administration take the position, the president take the position, that he’s not defending the law of the land, is something very troubling I think to most members of the House,” Cantor said.

When pressed on what House Republicans planned to do, he demurred.

“I think you’ll see that on Friday,” Cantor said.

In a taped interview posted Monday, Boehner (R-Ohio) said the GOP-controlled House could appoint a special counsel to defend the law commonly known as DOMA, a suggestion first made by former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

*snip*

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=70&threadid=5148220

The GOP has been trying to use its homo-hate (I need to copyright that), to keep their base angry, while not making moderates and independents upset.

If they go this path, the GOP's "homo-hate" will be front and center. I hope they go for it.

I'm really at a loss as to what they are trying to accomplish -- within legal bounds -- here.

How can they defend something that is already law of the land? I can see them NOT allowing a bill to leave conference, I would expect that. But this is already standing law -- the administration is just not defending it in court.

Until a court deems otherwise, it is still going to be enforced as such. that is different from defending its legality in court.

During 2010 mid-terms, the God, Gays, Gun stuff was something they pushed to the back ground. The pretend their focus is "spending" ... its total BS.

They did their best to hide their true intent, and now that intent is surfacing.

I hope they over reach on this stuff. They are crazy.

would ask them how they think they can think they can defend federal law.

band together to file amicus briefs supporting or opposing an outcome in statutory and Constitutional questions. In this case, I suspect they will file a motion to intervene to defend the statute, and the court will find standing and grant such a motion.

Even the administration made clear (when it announced it would not defend DOMA) that it would not be opposed to finding standing for Congress to do so. If no one had standing to defend a statute, that would mean any President could overrule any law he chooses so long as a single district court judge (out of hundreds) agreed with him, with no appellate review. President Palin could essentially repeal Medicare (after a tea party judge in Texas rules it unconstitutional), and there would be nothing Congress could do to point out the obvious arguments in favor of the Constitutionality of Medicare.

Obama has not overturned anything wrt DOMA.

He is simply not defending DOMA in court. HE's stated that until congress overturns it, or the courts rule, on the cases (as I understand this) that are already ongoing -- it is still law. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I think they are reacting to something that hasn't happened.

It seems as tho I am not the only one. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/glad_lawyer_expects_members_of_congress_to_defend_doma_in_court.php

"We expect there will be a defense coming from Congress," Swislow told TPM in a phone interview.

What's not entirely clear is just how that process will play out. While there have been a number of instances where the Justice Department has declined to defend a law, there's little, if any, precedent for exactly how the process would play out. Members of Congress -- including Lamar Smith -- have filed amicus briefs in the past, but there don't appear to be any modern examples of members of Congress actually defending a law in court.

"We don't totally understand -- it's a process which isn't used very often," Swislow said. "We do know that a defense can come from either or both chambers -- that's pretty much the limit of my knowledge."

That the House will end up defending the law.

Exactly how it works isn't really that important -- the main point is that the House will provide a defense for the law. Even Swislow says "a defense can come from either or both chambers."

You say that until the courts rule, it is still law. But this is all about the inputs of all the sides into how the courts rule. The plaintiffs in the case will argue that DOMA is unconstitutional. The US government will file a brief agreeing. The House will file a brief (either as an intervenor or a friend of the court) providing the courts with arguments that the law is constitutional. The court will decide.

bogus statement that Obama is no better than the Repukes on this issue.

I wonder would anyone care to retract those sentiments. (I won't hold my breath.)

*yummy*

I really do not understand what they are trying to do here.

It is still law of the land, and even the DOJ and the administration know that. I would strongly suggest that the leader and the Speaker try doing what they are supposed to do: legislate. Let the executive branch defend or not defend and let the judicial branch interpret law.

Good lawd, these people have no clue about the constitution and the three branches that our founding fathers intended. Or, perhaps they do, and they are trying to muddy the waters even further-- if that is the case, then the GOP led house is entering dangerous territory.

other than "jobs jobs jobs."

then your Gaydar must be broken.

and Jon Kyl.

Have the Republicans already forgotten about that issue?

And why is this question only being asked by smart DUers and not the media?

Instead of spending loads of time and taxpayer money to investigate President Obama, they'll be spending loads of time and taxpayer fighting to defend a federal anti-gay law in the courts. I'm sure that this will end well for them.

personally I have always thought that the purpose of those two groups was to muddy the waters enough on the positions of both parties on LGBT rights to allow LGBT'ers who are fiscally conservative to feel ok voting Republican. That, IMHO, cannot continue if the Repug house comes out swinging on DOMA.

Their continued willingness to vote for people who consider them second-class, or NO-class, citizens makes me think GOProud and the Log Cabin is about as authentic a group of voters as the "Brooks Brother Riot"-- in other words, a Republican PR trick.

They are traitors.