Living
Boehner: Cut DOJ funds to pay for House DOMA defense
Speaker taps Bush solicitor general to defend law

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Monday called for redirection of funds from the Justice Department to Congress to pay for defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court as he made public his decision to hire a U.S. solicitor general from the Bush administration to defend the anti-gay statute.
In a letter dated April 18 to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Boehner calls for cutting funds from the Justice Department to provide money to the House general counsel to pay for congressional costs to defend in court DOMA, the 1996 anti-gay law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
On the same day, Boehner’s office announced that Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, would assist the House general counsel in taking up defense of DOMA against litigation. Clement is now a partner at the D.C.-based office for the firm King & Spalding, where he manages the national appellate practice.
Boehner made the announcements on the deadline day for the House to decide whether or not to intervene in one case challenging DOMA, Windsor v. United States, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and is pending before the U.S. District Court of Southern District of New York. The House general counsel filed a notice of its intent to intervene on Monday.
In his letter to Pelosi, Boehner writes that funds should be redirected from the Obama administration to Congress to pay for expenses that the speaker says would have been more rightfully incurred by the Justice Department.
“Obviously, DOJ’s decision results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of DOMA,” Boehner writes. “It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the House, and not DOJ, defending DOMA.”
On Feb. 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder notified Congress that President Obama determined DOMA was unconstitutional and that the Justice Department would no longer defend the anti-gay law against litigation in court. Following a 3-2 party-line vote in March by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Council, Boehner directed the House general counsel to take up defense of DOMA in place of the administration.
In his letter, Boehner writes that the Justice Department would be in a better position to defend DOMA — both in terms of resource allocation and in expertise of personnel — but adds the administration’s decision to drop defense of the anti-gay law leaves Congress no other option but to face “that additional burden and cost.“
“I would also point out that the cost associated with DOJ’s decision is exacerbated by the timing of this decision,” Boehner writes. “Most of these cases are in the middle of lower court litigation and not ripe for Supreme Court review. Had the Attorney General waited until the cases were ripe for certiorari to the Supreme Court, the costs associated with the House defense would have been exponentially lower.”
Obama dropped defense of DOMA in court after litigation against the statute was filed in the U.S. Second Circuit. Since no legal precedent for laws related to sexual orientation exists within this circuit, Obama had the opportunity to examine DOMA with heightened scrutiny, which led to his determination that the anti-gay law was unconstitutional.
Boehner’s letter was in response to a March 11 letter that Pelosi sent to the speaker asking him if he had an estimate for House defense of DOMA and a plan to provide congressional oversight of these expenses. Earlier this month during a news conference, Boehner told the Washington Blade he doesn’t have an estimate on the cost for House defense of DOMA.
In his letter, Boehner asks Pelosi, a sponsor of legislation to repeal DOMA, to join him in backing the redirection of funds from the Justice Department to Congress to defend the anti-gay statute in court.
“I would welcome your joining me in support of redirecting those resources from the DOJ to the House that would otherwise have been necessary expenses on the Attorney General to defend this federal statute,” Boehner writes.
In another letter dated April 18 responding to Boehner, Pelosi writes that the speaker didn’t answer the central question in her initial missive on the total estimated cost for House defense of DOMA.
“Unfortunately, your letter did not respond to the central question in my March 11th letter: the cost to taxpayers of hiring outside legal counsel,” Pelosi writes. “Again, I am requesting that you disclose the cost of hiring outside counsel for the 12 cases where DOMA is being challenged.”
Pelosi also maintains that House defense of DOMA against litigation isn’t required and disputes an assertion from Boehner that administration’s decision amounts to the president unilaterally determining the constitutionality of the anti-gay law.
“As you know, only the courts can determine the constitutionality of a statute passed by the Congress,” Pelosi writes.
Finally, Pelosi takes issue with Boehner’s decision to hire Clement as an attorney in the case and says Democrats weren’t informed about the decision beforehand.
“According to reports, a contract engaging Paul D. Clement to serve as the outside counsel reportedly was forwarded to the Committee on House Administration, although not to the Democratic members or staff of the Committee,” Pelosi writes. “I would like to know when the contract with Mr. Clement was signed, and why a copy was not provided to Democrats on the Committee.”
One LGBT advocate lambasted Boehner for declaring that Congress should defund part of the Justice Department so that House can take up defense of DOMA.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Boehner’s decision amounts to a betrayal of House Republicans promise to work to improve the economy if elected to a majority in Congress.
“The House Republican Leadership continues to show that they’re more interested in scoring cheap political points on the backs of same-sex couples than tackling real problems,” Solmonese said. “As Americans across the country continue to struggle, Speaker Boehner’s prescription has been to keep families he doesn’t like from accessing needed protections. To add insult to injury, he’s now signed on to a right-wing plan to cut funding for the Department of Justice.”
Boehner cannot unilaterally redirect congressionally allocated funds from the Justice Department to the House for the purposes of defending DOMA. Both the House and the Senate would have to approve the fund redistribution legislatively through the appropriations process — and such a measure would need Obama’s signature for enactment.
During a news conference Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in response to a question from ABC News’ Ann Compton on Boehner’s call to redirect from funds the Justice Department that the administration would work with Congress on the issue.
“I’m not aware of that [letter],” Carney said. “I don’t any comment specifically on funding. I do know that the day that announced that this year. I spoke about it, but we obviously will work with Congress, if Congress so chooses to move forward.”
Pressed further by Compton, Carney deferred comment to the Justice Department. Both the White House and the Justice Department declined to comment further on the development in response to a request by the Blade.
The total amount of funds that Congress could redirect from the Justice Department to the House general counsel as a result of the Obama administration’s decision to no longer defend DOMA in court remains in questions. In testimony March 1 before the House Appropriations Committee, Holder said the funds that the Justice Department would save by not defending DOMA would be insignificant.
“I’m not sure we save any money, frankly.” Holder said. “The people who would be defending the statute, were we to do that, are career employees of the Department of Justice, who will not be spending their time doing that; they will be spending their time doing other things. I’m not sure that I see any savings as a result of the decision that I announced with the president.”
Boehner taps Paul Clement to defend DOMA
In addition to railing against Boehner’s call to defund part of the Justice Department to defend DOMA, LGBT advocates criticized Boehner for hiring Clement as outside counsel to defend the anti-gay law in court as well as the attorney for taking up the speaker’s cause.
According to his bio on King & Spalding’s website, Clement served as the 43rd U.S. solicitor general 2005 to 2008 and argued more than 50 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In private practice, Clement has focused on appellate matters, constitutional litigation and strategic counseling.
In September 2009, the Washingtonian reported that Clement was making $5 million at the law firm — while the average salary for other attorneys at the firm made $1.235 million in 2008. D.C. managing partner J. Sedwick Sollers reportedly wouldn’t comment on Clement’s salary.
Clement didn’t respond on short notice to the Blade’s request to comment on why he was interested in defending DOMA or what his legal fees would cost the U.S. government.
Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesperson, confirmed that the speaker had hired Clement to take on defense of DOMA, but didn’t have information the fees for taking him on retainer.
“The costs will be determined by Mr. Clement’s legal strategy,” Steel said. “Earlier today, the Speaker sent a letter to Rep. Pelosi, the Democratic Leader in the House, urging her to work with us to redirect the necessary funds from the Department of Justice — since they have declined to defend the law.”
LGBT advocates had harsh words for both Clement and King & Spalding for facilitating defense of DOMA in court. Solmonese rebuked the firm’s for allowing Clement to defend the ant-gay law as part of his private practice.
“The firm of King & Spalding has brought a shameful stain on its reputation in arguing for discrimination against loving, married couples,” Solmonese said. “No amount taxpayer money they rake in will mitigate this blemish on the King & Spalding name.”
According to HRC, media reports have indicated that Clement’s hourly fees could top $1,000, which could his role in defending DOMA pricey for the U.S. government if the litigation, as expected, takes years to reach the Supreme Court.
James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender and AIDS project, said Boehner’s decision to take on a private attorney to defend DOMA is notable at a time when deficit reduction is a top priority among U.S. leaders.
“It’s striking that Congress has decided at a time of budget cuts that this where they want to spend their money,” Esseks said. “They want to spend taxpayer dollars to try to defend a law that clearly is unconstitutional instead of trying of getting rid of the law, which they can easily do.”
Esseks said he doesn’t have an estimate for how much retaining Clement would cost the U.S government, but — noting his job history and his position at a prestigious law firm — said Clement’s legal fees would be probably be “pretty high.”
But Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which has two pending cases challenging DOMA — Gill v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management and Pedersen v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management — had more mild words for Clement.
“Paul Clement is obviously a well-respected attorney,” Buseck said. “We’re happy the House has chosen its counsel so that the DOMA litigation can once again go forward.”
Advice
I make more money than my partner and getting resentful
She’s taking advantage of a joint credit card

Hi Michael,
I make a fair amount more money than my girlfriend does and I’m happy to contribute more to our life (we are both in our 20s and living together).
But Meg doesn’t seem to care how much money she spends and then asks me to front her when she’s running low. She seldom pays me back.
Last week she had a big night on the town with her best friend (formerly her girlfriend) for the friend’s 30th birthday. She hired a limo and spent a lot on drinks and dinner. She put the entire night on our joint card which we are only supposed to use for shared household expenses, because she had maxed out her own card. Of course I will wind up paying for it. (And I am slightly jealous. Why am I paying for her evening out with her former GF?)
I pay for all sorts of stuff all the time because her credit card gets too big for her budget.
And somehow I almost never end up getting her share of the rent, which is already prorated according to our incomes.
She always tells me she’ll pay me back but her tab pretty much just keeps getting bigger.
If I bring this up with her, she tells me I am cheap because I make a lot and we’re a couple; and if she made more, she’d have no problem sharing everything with me.
Am I just being ungenerous? I don’t know. Sometimes I think she’s an ingrate, but then I think if you’re in love, you shouldn’t be thinking of money, just taking care of the person you love.
Also, although I make more than she does, I’m by no means rich. I have my own student loans, and paying for the bulk of our lifestyle stretches me thin some months.
Michael replies:
For starters: Most couples must contend with some version of your struggle with Meg, because most couples have some income disparity.
Do you maintain a lifestyle that both of you can afford? That works for some relationships where the lower earner may not want to feel indebted to the partner who makes more. Other couples work out a system where they pay for expenses in proportion to their income. And in some instances, the higher earner may have a “what’s mine is yours” philosophy and the lower earner is OK with that.
What matters is that both partners come to a mutual agreement and are comfortable with the arrangement. In other words, they collaborate.
That’s not the case with you and Meg. You sound resentful, angry, and feeling like Meg is taking advantage of you.
It’s great to be generous in your relationship, but it’s also important to have a boundary when you think it’s important to have a boundary. Yet you’re continuing to subsidize Meg even when you have trouble making your own ends meet.
Important question: Have you told Meg that you’re stretched thin some months? If not, I’d be curious as to how you’ve made that decision. If so, I’d be curious as to Meg’s response.
If you don’t want to keep serving as Meg’s piggy bank, what is stopping you?
There’s a great saying in psychotherapy: If it’s hysterical, it’s historical. Meaning, our “big” actions and reactions have their roots in our history.
Think about your life history: How does it make sense that you are acting like a powerless victim?
Is not having a boundary an old and familiar dynamic for you? Were there important players in your life—for example, your parents—who insisted it was their way or the highway? Or perhaps you learned as a kid that if you ever said “no” to your friends, there’d be negative consequences?
Now ask yourself what might be keeping you stuck in a relationship of resentment. Are you re-creating an old and familiar dynamic? Sometimes we keep putting ourselves in the same miserable situation, over and over again. What’s familiar can be comfortable, even if it’s miserable; and we may be trying to get some understanding of the dynamic and some power over it, to finally get it right.
I’m just speculating here, to encourage you to think for yourself why you are staying in the dynamic you describe. You haven’t mentioned anything positive about your relationship, or about Meg.
Another possibility: I wonder if you might be so fearful of being alone that you’re willing to tolerate all sorts of treatment in order to stay in your relationship. Or perhaps you don’t think you deserve to be treated any better than this.
Again, if this is the case, where might this belief be coming from? Understanding why we are stuck in behaviors that keep us miserable can help us to get unstuck.
You have an opportunity to do something different here: Set a boundary and take power over your life. Perhaps if you did so, Meg would surprise you by shifting her stance, which would be good news if you have some good reasons to stay. Or perhaps she would not. Your challenge now is to get some sense of what’s holding you back, if you want something different for yourself. And unless you act on your own behalf, you will stay in this position.
One more point to consider, regarding Meg’s dinner date with her ex: Whether or not anything is going on, I take your jealousy as a sign that you don’t trust Meg. And without trust, you can’t have a decent relationship.
Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].
Real Estate
April showers bring May flowers in life — and in real estate
Third time’s the charm for buyer plagued with problems

Working in the real estate sector in D.C. can be as uniquely “D.C.” as the residents feel about their own city. On any given day, someone could be selling a home that their grandmother bought, passed on to the relatives, and the transfer of generational wealth continues. In that same transaction, the beginning steps of building of generational wealth could be taking place.
Across town, an international buyer could be looking for a condo with very specific characteristics that remind them of the way things are “back home.” Maybe they want to live in a building with a pool because they grew up by the sea. Maybe they want a large kitchen so they can cook grandma’s recipes. Maybe they will be on MSNBC once a month and need to have a home office fit for those Zoom sessions where they will be live on air, or recording their podcast. Perhaps they play the saxophone and want a building with thick walls so they can make a joyful noise without causing their neighbors to file a cease-and-desist order.
What I found fascinating was getting to know my buyers. Why were they purchasing their property? What did they want to do with it? Was this their grandmother’s dream that they would have a place of their own someday? Did they finally think they would write that award-winning play in the home office? What dreams were going to be fulfilled while taking part in this transaction?
Somedays, the muck and paperwork slog of navigating home inspection items and financing checklists could get to be distracting at best, and almost downright disheartening at worst.
One of my clients was under contract on THREE places before we finally closed on a home. One building was discovered to have financing issues, and the residents were not keeping up with their condo fees. Another building had an issue with the title to the unit, which meant the seller could not sell the home for at least another year until that legal snag was resolved. As the months rolled by, she was losing heart and feeling defeated. When we finally found the third home, everything seemed great – and then about two weeks before the settlement, the rains came down and the windows leaked into the bedrooms.
Another delay. (Our THIRD). This time, for several more weeks.
I think she wanted to pack a suitcase, go to the airport, get on a plane somewhere and never come back. What ultimately happened? The building repaired the windows, the seller’s insurance replaced the hardwood floors, and she bought her first condo, which she still enjoys to this day.
As Dolly Parton says, “If you want the rainbow, you’ve got to put up with a little rain.” And finally, after months of looking, waiting, and overcoming obstacles, the rainbow peeked out from behind the clouds.
Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with Metro Referrals. He can be reached at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].
Autos
Sporty sedans: BMW 530i xDrive, Mercedes AMG CLA 3
Tariffs are here and the result is financial chaos

It’s official: Tariffs are here, and the result is financial chaos.
So, what to do when purchasing a new vehicle? If you need one in the not-so-distant future, buy sooner (like yesterday) rather than later. Expect prices to rise quickly, as inventory dwindles, demand soars, and automaker incentives evaporate. Of course, if a new ride isn’t a priority for at least a year or three, then hold off until the dust settles.
But for those of you looking for new wheels now, I recently drove two sport sedans that were a pleasant reprieve from the usual plethora of pickups, minivans, and SUVs.
BMW 530i xDRIVE
$63,000
MPG: 28 city/35 highway
0 to 60 mph: 5.5 seconds
Cargo space: 18.4 cu. ft.
PROS: Rakish looks. Race-car vibe. Rock-star amenities.
CONS: Rad-but-quirky infotainment system. Rich price.
IN A NUTSHELL: Classic good looks, from the iconic grille and swept-back headlights to chiseled side panels and a tasteful tush. For a gearhead like me, the BMW 530i xDrive — completely redesigned last year — is as rapturous as Michelangelo’s David. Everything here is in proportion, from the design to the drivetrain, which — along with a gutsy 255-hp turbo and all-wheel drive — helps deliver a divine experience behind the wheel. Even better, my test car came equipped with the heavenly M-Sport Package: 21-inch wheels, athletic suspension, and assorted styling upgrades.
A tech-laden cabin is outfitted with a sparkly 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster and 14.9-inch touchscreen infotainment system. With the windshield head-up display and a slew of knobs and toggle switches in the center console and on the steering wheel, I wondered if this is how it feels to pilot the Space Shuttle. There is even a back-lit interaction bar with touch-sensitive controls to adjust vent direction and other climate control settings.
All this gadgetry takes some getting used to, but the overall effect is dazzling. While a 12-speaker Harman Kardon stereo comes standard, I was jammin’ to the 16-speaker Bowers & Wilkins premium audio. Of course, such options add up quickly (on my test car, the extras totaled $13,000).
Just how fun is this car? In my favorite episode of “Hacks,” sassy Jean Smart drives a rockin’ Rolls Royce Wraith. Trust me, this four-door BMW is every bit the badass as that $300,000 super coupe.
MERCEDES AMG CLA 35

$58,000
MPG: 22 city/29 highway
0 to 60 mph: 4.8 seconds
Cargo space: 11.6 cu. ft.
PROS: Slick styling. Spiffy cabin. Sublime seats.
CONS: Smallish trunk. So-so rear headroom and legroom.
IN A NUTSHELL: Need a smaller sedan that’s just as marvy as the midsize BMW i530? Look no further than the compact Mercedes CLA-Class, which is 14 inches shorter. That’s a benefit when jockeying for parking or navigating rush hour.
Another plus: This is Mercedes’s least expensive sedan, available in three trim levels. All come with the same potent turbo but in varying power levels. The base model starts at $46,000, but I tested the first of two high-performance versions: the AMG CLA 35, which costs $12,000 more. You can open your wallet even further to snag the $67,000 AMG CLA 45.
But why bother? The AMG CLA 35 is plenty quick — faster than the BMW i530 — and boasts sport-tuned brakes, deft handling and a gritty-sounding exhaust system. The laundry list of standard features includes all-wheel drive, automated parking, gobs of the latest safety gizmos and even something called “safe-exit assist,” which prevents passengers from opening a door into traffic or speeding cyclists.
The interior is pure Mercedes, with top-notch materials, customizable ambient lighting and Burmester surround-sound audio. The overall layout—sleek and modern, but with elegant stitching in the seats and on the door panels and dashboard—is comfortable and user-friendly. Digital displays and touchscreens are similar to what’s in the BMW i530, just smaller.
Size matters, of course, which is why this vehicle’s shorter length can be a blessing but also a curse, especially when trying to squeeze passengers with longer legs into the backseats. And the dramatically sloped roofline, attractive from the outside, limits the amount of rear headroom and cargo space. Thank the automotive gods for panoramic sunroofs, which—at least for anyone in the front seats—makes this cabin feel surprisingly spacious.
-
Opinions2 days ago
TRAITOR: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has blood on his hands
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
Ruby Corado sentencing postponed for third time
-
The Vatican3 days ago
Potential Pope Francis successor views homosexuality as an ‘abomination’
-
Movies3 days ago
Jacob Elordi rides high in ‘On Swift Horses’