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 (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
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.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
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.”
Paul Clement (photo courtesy King & Spalding)
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.”
As the spring market hits its stride, we are beginning to see more inventory and an increase in days on the market in parts of the DMV. This may result in professional home inspections becoming routine parts of contract offers again. A thorough home inspection can help catch safety issues early and is an opportunity to learn about the operation and maintenance of items in your home.
Pay attention to flickering lights, frequently tripped breakers, and discolored outlets—these are signs of potential electrical hazards. Outdated wiring, overloaded outlets, and faulty appliances can lead to electrical fires.
Structural issues are often overlooked until it’s too late. Crumbling foundations, weak or damaged stairs, loose railings, and uneven flooring can cause trips and falls. Water damage from leaks or flooding can weaken the integrity of floors and walls, creating a risk of collapse.
Toxic chemicals can pose serious threats to health and safety, often without obvious warning signs. Understanding and addressing these risks is crucial for maintaining a safe living environment for you and your loved ones.
Household products such as cleaners, pesticides, air fresheners, and even cosmetics can emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These compounds, when inhaled regularly, can cause a range of health issues including headaches, respiratory problems, hormonal disruptions, and in some cases, even cancer. To minimize these risks, homeowners should opt for low-VOC or VOC-free products, ventilate regularly, and consider investing in an air purifier.
Formaldehyde is another common toxin found in pressed wood products, insulation, and certain paints. Long-term exposure can lead to chronic respiratory problems and has been linked to cancer.
Radon gas, another possible carcinogen, is prevalent in the DMV. Your home inspector can do a radon test or there are DIY kits available at many hardware stores. If levels are above EPA standards, a professional remediation firm can install a system that extracts the radon and vents it safely outdoors.
Carbon monoxide (CO), a colorless, odorless gas, is produced by gas stoves, heaters, and fireplaces. Exposure can lead to headaches, dizziness, nausea, and even death. Install CO detectors near bedrooms and ensure that all fuel-burning appliances are properly maintained and ventilated.
Additionally, older homes may still contain asbestos in insulation, floor tiles, or roofing materials. If disturbed, asbestos fibers can become airborne and are highly dangerous when inhaled, leading to serious diseases such as mesothelioma, so when renovating an older home, it’s critical to have materials tested for asbestos before beginning work.
Mold and mildew thrive in damp, poorly ventilated areas such as bathrooms, basements, and around leaky pipes. While some molds are harmless, others can cause allergic reactions or respiratory problems and aggravate conditions such as asthma. Black mold (Stachybotrys chartarum) is notorious for producing mycotoxins that may lead to severe health issues.
Signs of mold include musty odors, visible growth on walls or ceilings, and excessive humidity. Preventing mold growth requires controlling moisture levels—using dehumidifiers and vapor barriers, fixing leaks promptly, and ensuring adequate ventilation. Professional mold remediation may be necessary for severe infestations.
Though banned in residential paints in 1978, lead-based paint still exists in millions of older homes. Lead exposure is especially dangerous for children, causing developmental delays, learning difficulties, and behavioral issues. Adults are not immune – lead can lead to high blood pressure, kidney damage, and reproductive problems.
Even dust from deteriorating lead-based paint can be hazardous. The EPA recommends professional lead testing for any home built before 1978, especially if renovations are planned. Certified abatement professionals can safely remove or encapsulate lead paint.
Improper use of heating equipment, fireplaces, unattended candles, and cooking accidents are common sources of home fires. Smoke alarms and fire extinguishers are essential for early detection and response. Test smoke detectors monthly and change batteries at least once a year.
Homes that are safe for adults may not be safe for children or pets. Small objects, unsecured cabinets, toxic plants, and open staircases can pose significant risks. Childproofing measures such as outlet covers, safety gates, and cabinet locks, along with safe storage of chemicals and medications, are essential precautions.
The good news is that many of these risks can be mitigated with awareness and action. Here are a few simple steps to enhance home safety:
• Conduct a thorough safety audit using checklists available online.
• Ensure proper ventilation to reduce indoor air pollutants.
• Regularly check for leaks and signs of water damage.
• Keep cleaning and chemical products out of reach of children.
• Educate all household members about emergency procedures, including fire escapes and first aid.
Our homes should protect us, not pose threats to our well-being. By identifying and addressing these toxic and unsafe issues, we can transform our living spaces into truly safe havens.
Valerie M. Blake is a licensed Associate Broker in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia with RLAH @properties. Call or text her at 202-246-8602, email her via DCHomeQuest.com, or follow her on Facebook at TheRealst8ofAffairs.
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].
ILGA World reinstates Israeli LGBTQ rights group
Brazilian police arrest two men who allegedly targeted Lady Gaga concert
Hidden hazards at home
A boy-meets-boy, family-mess story with heat
Australian prime minister re-elected
TRAITOR: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has blood on his hands
LGBTQ activist murdered in Lesotho
Theatre Prometheus spreads queer joy with ‘Galatea’
English soccer bans transgender women from women’s teams
