CNN Invites Hate Group Leader To Peddle Lies Following DOMA Decision

CARLOS MAZA/Media Matters For America:

Less than an hour after the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), CNN invited anti-gay hate group leader Tony Perkins to comment on the decision and allowed him to promote damaging myths about marriage equality.

During the June 26 edition of CNN Newsroom, host Wolf Blitzer invited Perkins - president of the anti-gay hate group Family Research Council (FRC) - to comment on the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor v. United States, which struck down a provision of DOMA that prohibited the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages.

Perkins responded by peddling a number of blatant falsehoods about marriage equality, none of which Blitzer challenged:

PERKINS: What we're going to see happen over time as this plays out in the jurisdictions that have adopted same-sex marriage, you're going to see a loss of parental rights as children are taught in school morals that are contradictory to their parents', religious liberty loss from business owners, bakers, florists and others who are forced to comply with a different view of marriage, as well as even churches - in some places religious organizations losing their tax exemption because they fail to comply with the force of the state in terms of redefining marriage.

Each of Perkins' horror stories about same-sex marriage have been repeatedly debunked. These claims are also not relevant to the Supreme Court's DOMA decision, which merely allows for federal recognition of same-sex marriages in states that have already legalized marriage equality.

CNN also invited Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, to condemn the decision. Unsurprisingly, Mohler called the Supreme Court's decision "very, very devastating for our country over the long term."

CNN has a history of promoting Perkins' commentary on a range of issues, despite his record of making extreme, hateful, and wildly inaccurate claims about LGBT people.

GOP Sen. claims equal rights are just too expensive

By David Edwards/Raw Story

Why shouldn’t same sex couples have equal rights? According to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), it’s because equality is just too expensive.

“Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would actually result in an expansion of federal benefits and spending at a time when we know that federal spending is way out of control and our entitlement programs are unsustainable,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday.

“Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act would actually increase the cost of Social Security that is already insolvent,” he added. “No one has paid into the Social Security system expecting benefits to be paid to same sex partners.”

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) later explained that same sex couples, like everyone else, deserved the benefits of the system they had been paying into.

“If you have a same sex couple, both of whom have paid into Social Security, both of whom have fulfilled all the things required, that somehow it would be wrong if they got the same benefits as an opposite sex couple would,” he said. “Fair is fair. They paid. They should be allowed. … I think if you’re paying the taxes, you’re fulfilling the obligations, you ought to get the same benefits as anybody else.”

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) added that a 2004 Congressional Budget Office report found that legalizing same sex marriage would actually slightly decrease the Social Security burden.

In the end, the committee voted 10-8 along party lines for the bill to repeal DOMA. It is not expected to pass the full Senate even if it does comes up for a vote.

Watch this video from the U.S. Senate, broadcast Nov. 10, 2011.

Group: Boehner broke the law by spending $500,000 to defend DOMA

By David Edwards

The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint Tuesday against House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), alleging that he violated the law and House rules by agreeing to pay an outside law firm $500,000 to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In the complaint filed with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), CREW charged that Boehner had violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits "making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law," according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

"It is ironic that Speaker Boehner -- a fierce critic of government overspending -- did not hesitate to pledge half a million dollars he does not have to defend a law of dubious constitutionality," CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said in a statement. "It seems the speaker believes fiscal responsibility starts at home, but not in the House."

"Speaker Boehner has vowed to end deficit spending and usher in a new era of government fiscal austerity, warning Americans we need to make do with less. But apparently, the House leadership can continue freely spending money it doesn’t have," she added. "This is yet another case of do as I say, not as I do. No wonder the public is so cynical about politics."

The Speaker's office responded by accusing CREW of targeting Republicans.

"This 'complaint' is off-base and stupid to the point that it creates the appearance of partisanship by CREW," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement. "The Speaker expects any cost to be recouped from the Obama Administration Justice Department, which should be defending the law in court. The 'anti-deficiency act' has nothing to do with this situation, as anyone with a basic grasp of the law knows."

In February, President Barack Obama decided that a key section of the DOMA, legislation passed by Congress in 1996 that defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional. The law prohibits legally married same sex couples from receiving federal benefits.

After declaring it unconstitutional, Obama ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending the law in court.

Boehner first contracted with the law firm King & Spalding to continue defending at least 10 DOMA cases, but they backed out under pressure from the public. Bancroft, PLLC was later retained to defend the law.

The $500,000 contract represents more than 35 percent of the Office of General Counsel's budget. "With more than two-thirds of the fiscal year having passed, the office will not have sufficient funds to pay for both its remaining salaries and expenses and the DOMA defense," according to the complaint (PDF).

Boehner could face a fine of $5,000 and two years in prison if found guilty of violating the Antideficiency Act.

GOP-tapped law firm backs out of DOMA defense

By Sahil Kapur

WASHINGTON – The law firm tapped by House Republicans to defend the Defense of Marriage Act abruptly backed out of the case on Monday, citing an "inadequate" vetting process for the engagement.

"Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act," said King and Spalding Chairman Robert D. Hays, Jr. in a statement published byPolitico's Ben Smith and The Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel. "Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal."

"In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created," Hays said.

King and Spalding partner Paul Clement, the Bush administration's former solicitor general, was recently tapped by House Republicans to defend the controversial 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The firm faced pushback from LGBT activist groups who view DOMA as discriminatory and organized protests outside its Atlanta office.

The contract the firm signed with House Republicans, revealed last week, showed Clement and his colleagues would have been able to charge up to $520 an hour for the defense for a total of up to $500,000.

The Obama administration announced in February that it would no longer uphold the law.

UPDATE: Clement has resigned from King and Spalding, specifically citing the firm's decision to withdraw from the DOMA defense. In a letter to Hays first published by Politico, Clement wrote:

"I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do... I recognized from the outset that this statute implicate very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable court for me but to complete it."

Obama DOJ Announces It Will Not Defend The Constitutionality Of DOMA

By Igor Volsky

Moments ago, in a sharp reversal of policy, the Obama administration announced that it believes that Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages — is unconstitutional and will ask the Justice Department to stop defending the law. In a press release announcing the change, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder also argues that laws regarding sexual orientation should be subject to a higher level of review:

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.

Back in July, a Federal District Court in Boston ruled that Section 3 of DOMA isunconstitutional because it interferes with the traditional state right to define marriage and forces the state to “violate the equal protection rights of its citizens.” The decision was composed of two separate challenges, one brought by the state of Massachusetts and the other by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) “on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts” who have been denied federal benefits available to heterosexual married couples. In November 2010, plaintiffs also filed two “new lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA in jurisdictions without precedent on whether sexual-orientation classifications are subject to rational basis review or whether they must satisfy some form of heightened scrutiny.”

The Obama administration announced its intention to defend DOMA in October of 2010 and in January filed a brief arguing that “DOMA is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.” The government maintained that Congress enacted the law during an era of upheaval to maintain “uniformity on the federal level” and allow states the flexibility to expand the definition of marriage as they see fit.

Today’s decision is consistent with President Obama’s opposition to DOMA during the presidential campaign. “I support the full and unqualified repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether,” Obama said in November of 2007.

UPDATEPress Secretary Jay Carney stressed that the two lawsuits filed in November of 2010 pushed the administration to reach its decision. He is why:

Unlike previous challenges, the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York — one of the only circuits with no modern precedent saying how to evaluate claims that a law discriminates against gay people. That means that the administration, for the first time, may be required to take a clear stand on politically explosive questions like whether gay men and lesbians have been unfairly stigmatized, are politically powerful, and can choose to change their sexual orientation.

Court Finds DOMA Unconstitutional, Say It Forces MA To ‘Violate The Equal Protection Rights Of Its Citizens’

By Igor Volsky Today, a Federal District Court in Boston ruled that Section 3 of Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) — the section of the 1996 law which denies federal

benefits to legally married same sex couples — is unconstitutional, stating that it interferes with the traditional state right to define marriage and forces the state to “violate the equal protection rights of its citizens.” [Read the decision HERE.]

The decision is composed of two separate challenges, one brought by the state of Massachusetts and the other by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) “on behalf of eight married couples and three surviving spouses from Massachusetts” who have been denied federal benefits available to heterosexual married couples.

In his decision, U.S. district court Judge Joseph Tauro concluded that “there is a historically entrenched tradition of federal reliance on state marital status determination,” and found that DOMA not only violates the tenth amendment but also “induces the Commonwealth to violate the equal protection rights of its citizens” embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

“DOMA plainly conditions the receipt of federal funding on the denial of marriage-based benefits to same-sex married couples, though the same benefits are provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples,” the Court ruled:

As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The decision is a milestone, but is expected to be appealed by the Justice Department. In the case, the federal government maintained that it “has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits — including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.”

“The next step in the case is for the federal government to decide whether it will appeal Judge Tauro’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That decision should come within the next 60 days,” GLAD said in a press release.