Compared to the federal spending on Planned Parenthood (nearly $400 million every year), the estimated legal cost to defend the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) would be less: Under $500 million over a period of years.
For background, read White House Torpedoed Marriage from Start and also read Obama 'Throws Marriage Under the Bus'
UPDATE 4/26/11: Coca-Cola "went to bat" for Gay Lobby - pressured law firm to drop DOMA
UPDATE 4/25/11: Defense law firm backs out after intimidation by powerful Gay Lobby
-- From "Pelosi questions costs in legal fight over gay marriage" by Catalina Camia, USA TODAY 4/20/11
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is raising questions about the GOP's contract with former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement to defend the law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Under the contract with Clement's firm King and Spaulding, costs are capped at $500,000.
"The minority leader's new-found concern for saving taxpayers money is encouraging. We hope it means we can count on her support for reducing DOJ's budget to recoup any costs incurred by the House so that taxpayers will bear no added cost for the administration's refusal to defend the laws of the United States," [House Speaker John] Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "House to pay up to $520 per hour to defend gay marriage ban" by Brian Montopoli CBS News 4/19/11
. . . Traditionally the federal government [the president's Department of Justice] defends challenges to federal law, but not in this case - after defending it for two years, the Obama administration announced in February it would no longer defend the law because it believes it is unconstitutional.
That decision left House Republicans, who largely oppose same-sex marriage, without "any choice" but to step in and defend the law, in the words of House Speaker John Boehner. In a letter earlier this week, Boehner asked for Department of Justice funds to be diverted to the House to pay for the costs of the defense, though that is not likely to happen.
Asked last month if Department of Justice would save money by not defending DOMA, Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Appropriations committee, "I'm not sure we save any money, frankly."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "The Defense of Marriage Act: A Measure for Children and Families" by Chuck Donovan, The Heritage Foundation 4/20/11
During consideration of DOMA in 1996, the House Judiciary Committee’s report to accompany the bill laid out four governmental interests that undergirded the legislation: (1) defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage; (2) defending traditional notions of morality; (3) protecting state sovereignty and democratic self-governance; and (4) preserving scarce government resources. Each of these interests is related to the public stake in the time-honored and nearly universal character of marriage as an institution designed to bring men and women together and orient them toward their responsibilities in the begetting, bearing, and raising of the next generation.
. . . the decisions made by popular vote regarding the future of marriage in the United States have had a uniform outcome. Voters in 31 states have cast 63,394,399 ballots on the question of marriage redefinition since the people of Hawaii and Alaska went to the polls in 1998. More than 40,000,000 of those ballots—63.1 percent—have been cast to preserve marriage as it has always been understood by Congress and the vast majority of state legislatures. No state’s people have voted to the contrary. Finally, just last November, the voters of Iowa registered their resounding disapproval of the Iowa Supreme Court’s invention of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage by removing all three of the judges on the statewide ballot who had signed the court’s ruling.
. . . the promotion and preservation of intact (married mother-and-father) families bear financial implications for governments across a broad range of social indicators that carry enormous social costs. Children raised in intact families by their own mothers and fathers commit fewer crimes as juveniles, have fewer pregnancies and children out of wedlock, suffer less physical abuse, experience more educational success, resort less often to divorce, suffer less from substance abuse, and even shoplift less frequently. Defending the core element of marriage, its one-man and one-woman character, is an indispensable part of defending the institution more generally and the public benefits it provides.
. . . The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is best seen, therefore, not as a measure singularly focused on a cultural debate occasioned by a state court decision, but as a response embedded within a growing awareness of the compelling public policy rationale to promote traditional marriage and encourage strong and stable homes where children can thrive and reach their full potential.
To read the entire testimony to Congress (above), CLICK HERE.
