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.”
One of the biggest headaches of the new home process is the actual moving part. By the time someone is buying a home, most people are beyond the “I just need a pickup truck, a pizza and a case of beer for my friends.”
If that is still someone’s preferred way to move, that’s great. However, many people find they need a much more robust plan. It can also trigger a lot of feelings about items one owns, what to do with them, do they have too much, should I keep this memento that I never use? Etc.
Moving is a chance for a person to “clean house” literally, figuratively, spiritually and energetically. A person can figure out which items they want to keep, and which need to go. As someone who recently moved across the country, I can speak to this experience. It’s also time for what people call “the fresh start effect.” This phenomenon, according to psychologists, can happen in little moments (like the start of a new work week) and bigger moments (such as moving from one home to the next).
The fresh start effect offers these benefits often mentioned by psychologists:
- Mental Accounting: Dates act as chapter breaks, letting you put past failures into a previous period.
- Psychological Distance: You separate your flawed past self from your aspirational future self (“That was the old me”).
- Optimism Boost: New beginnings clear mental clutter and increase your sense of agency and control
Does this mean that “the new you” will be the perfect version you envisioned? Probably not. We are humans. But it might mean you get a chance to “leave some of the old you behind” within the walls you used to live in, and now have a chance to have a new layout, a new décor, a new color pattern, new wallpaper, donate old furniture and books or magazines, throw out clothes you no longer use or fit in, and enjoy the opportunity to literally use the, “Does this spark joy?” method that was made so popular by Marie Kondo in her Netflix series.
So, for all its hassle and headache, moving is a chance to shake off the “old you” and try on the new you, to incorporate the items you would like to keep and use more of, and shed the items, habits, and ways of thinking that you feel no longer serve you.
I can speak to the experiences that several of my clients had when they moved from a previous residence to a newer one. It usually coincided with a change in relationship status, a change in employment, a change in family size, but sometimes it just seemed to correlate to a new attitude and perspective that the client was really hoping for.
I have literally had clients come to me after the fact, in tears, that they were so happy they made the decision to move out of a situation that no longer served them, and move into one that felt like a much better fit.
Change can be annoying and overwhelming at times, but usually most people come out the other side, not wanting to return to the way they were before.
Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with RLAH. Reach him at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].
Despite a U.S. political climate that has made electric vehicles about as welcome as a vegan at a Texas barbecue, automakers haven’t gotten the memo. The 2027 BMW iX3 and Rivian R2—in showrooms soon—prove the point. But think of them as distant cousins: one arrives impeccably dressed; the other probably has a kayak strapped to the roof.
BMW iX3
$62,000
Range: Up to 434 miles
0 to 60 mph: 4.7 seconds
Cargo space: 30.4 cu. ft.
PROS: Huge driving range. Distinctive styling. Cutting-edge interior.
CONS: Quirky digital controls. Only one U.S. trim level. Pricey options.
WHAT’S NEW: This is BMW’s first production model on its state-of-the-art Neue Klasse platform, radically changing the technology, cabin and electric drivetrain.
The iX3 arrives on our shores in one trim level, the iX3 50 xDrive. Load it up with options and you can sail well past $80,000.
Depending on configuration, this luxe EV delivers an astonishing range before recharging. And a dual-motor, all-wheel-drive system produces 463 horsepower, which allows you to tootle around as fast as a Porsche 718 sportster.
The new “Panoramic iDrive” spreads information across the base of the windshield, supplemented by a central display and steering-wheel controls. An available 3D head-up display adds even more info. It’s futuristic, busy and unmistakably BMW—like someone decided the dashboard needed its own coming-out party.
Then there’s the “Heart of Joy” computer, which coordinates the motors, braking and steering for sharper responses and smoother control. The name may sound like something from a self-help retreat, but the innovation makes the iX3 seriously entertaining to drive.
You also can charge the iX3 from 10 percent to 80 percent in just 21 minutes. Nice.
This isn’t merely an electric X3 with the gasoline bits removed. It’s a tech reset for BMW. Compared with the R2, the iX3 is more polished, more luxurious…but, alas, considerably pricier.
RIVIAN R2

$45,000
Range: Up to 345 miles
0 to 60 mph: 5.9 seconds
Cargo space: 28.7 cu. ft.
PROS: Affordable luxury. Rugged looks. Clever storage.
CONS: No smartphone integration. No glass-roof shade. Touchy touchscreen.
WHAT’S NEW: Everything—the R2 is Rivian’s all-new, smaller electric SUV, and it brings the brand’s adventure-first attitude to a price point far below the larger R1S.
If the BMW iX3 is wearing a beautifully tailored jacket, the Rivian R2 has its sleeves rolled up.
With edgy styling, this is no anonymous crossover wearing an EV costume. Chunky details. Upright proportions. Distinctive lighting all give off an outdoorsy vibe without turning the R2 into a rolling REI catalog.
There are four configurations, with pricing from $45,000 to $58,000. That’s a big difference from the BMW—and potentially the R2’s biggest weapon.
The stats aren’t shabby, either. Driving range is from 275 to 345 miles. The dual-motor, all-wheel-drive setup produces between 350 horsepower and a frankly bonkers 656 horsepower. And the high-performance model lets you zip from 0-to-60 mph in just 3.6 seconds.
Drag-racing credentials? Absolutely!
Inside, there is lots of clever packaging, with flexible seating and generous storage. This EV is designed to carry actual stuff, not merely impress your neighbors.
Yes, there are quirks. Rivian skips Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, while everyday controls—some of which are less than intuitive—live on the touchscreen. And the panoramic glass roof lacks a conventional shade. Huh?
For some owners, those will be minor annoyances. For others, they’ll become daily reminders that Rivian marches to its own beat.
Perhaps that’s not a bad thing, though. The R2 feels less buttoned-up, more mischievous. It’s the automotive equivalent of Billy Porter ignoring the dress code and somehow looking better than everyone who followed it.
Advice
We’re getting married but our parents object
Will their disapproval and shortcomings derail our hopes for a happy life?
Dear Michael,
My girlfriend and I are getting married! We’re really excited, but we’ve got some big concerns as well.
All of our parents have had multiple marriages. I think 10 between the four of them. So we don’t have much in the way of role models for a successful marriage.
Also, we don’t have any parental support. Except for one of my ex-stepmothers whom I’m close to, none of our parents are happy that their daughter is getting married to another woman. That’s an understatement. Religious objections, moral objections, being angry that we’re “embarrassing them,” these are some of the things we’ve been told.
We do have some supportive siblings and step-siblings, which is great, although they’re getting pushback from parents about attending our wedding.
Given all this, what suggestions do you have for how we can make a go of our marriage? The divorce rate is over 50 percent for everyone. With all this baggage, we’re worried that we have even less of a chance. Thank you.
Michael replies:
First, congratulations!
Regarding your lack of family support: I’m sorry that you both have to deal with so much criticism, disdain, and judgment. Please don’t let your parents’ negativity influence your own views of yourselves and your relationship. Focus instead on the love and caring you will get from friends, community and the family who are present on your big day (I hope your siblings are brave enough to make it!). Being the recipients of that support is one of the sweetest parts of getting married.
Don’t worry about the high divorce rate. While some couples really shouldn’t stay married, lots of people get divorced because they don’t know what is required to have a good marriage, or don’t put in the effort to do so. That does not have to be your fate.
Similarly, your parents’ terrible track record doesn’t mean you have to repeat their marital histories. The skills to have a strong marriage are learnable.
To that end, here are the best tips I can offer the two of you:
- If you want a loving marriage, be a loving partner. Don’t snipe, sulk, or do the silent treatment when you’re mad. Unconditional love is largely a myth. Even our dogs won’t love us if we are mean to them.
- Don’t spend much time or effort focusing on what your spouse is doing wrong or how she is letting you down. Doing so leads to resentment and feeling like you’re a powerless victim. Instead, ask yourself what your own contribution is to the problem, and what you can do to make things better. You don’t have much power over your partner, but you have a lot of power over yourself.
You can certainly ask your spouse for what you’d like from her, but don’t expect to always get it. And don’t base your own wellbeing or good behavior on what your partner does or doesn’t do.
- Because any two people are always different in some important ways, there is no way that you both can always want the same things, or think the same way, or have the same priorities. Accept this! There has to be room for each of you to be an individual, not only part of a couple.
- Be generous as often as you can be, and have a boundary when it’s important for you to have one.
- When your spouse states that she has a boundary, respect it. Do not push her to back off from something that is important to her.
- Don’t keep score, including how much more you do or how often you don’t get your way. Instead, work together to have a collaborative marriage where you work together to make decisions and get things done.
- Strive not to weigh the relationship down with neediness. Once we’re grownups, it’s mainly our own job to soothe ourselves. You don’t want to burn out your partner’s empathy.
Of course you can ask for a hug, love, reassurance, support, advice, and a shoulder to cry on when you’re down. Just aim be the first person you turn to when you’re upset, and do your best to keep your own mood steady.
- Do not wait for your significant other to go first. Not on planning a date, not on apologizing, not on loading the dishwasher or cleaning the bathroom. If you wait for her to make the first move, you will have a resentful relationship where nothing good ever happens.
Keeping these principles part of your operating system, even — and especially — at those moments when your spouse isn’t doing her best, will go a long way toward helping you build and maintain a loving and happy marriage.
Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, New York, and all PSYPACT states. 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].


