- House overwhelmingly approves $16 billion cash infusion for VA overhaul
- Obama admin to blame for HealthCare.gov woes, $840M cost: GAO
- Al Gore’s climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Army’s 3-D printed bombs will create ‘a whole new universe’ of deadly capabilities
- Hamas calls on Hezbollah to join in fight against Israel
- Senators to FIFA, others: Don’t reward Putin with the World Cup in 2018
- U.S. condemns shelling of U.N. school in Gaza
- Obamacare shoots premiums up by 88 percent in California
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- Obama to Republicans: ‘Stop just hatin’ all the time’
By Ted Cruz
Israel saves its enemies; Hamas endangers its friends
Topic - Paul D. Clement
The federal government has a "powerful interest" in a single, uniform definition of marriage, even if it excludes gay unions that are legal in individual states, the lawyer defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act said Wednesday as the Supreme Court concluded two days of landmark arguments on gay marriage.
Attorneys for the House of Representatives this week asked a federal court to throw out a case against the Defense of Marriage Act, saying the 1996 law is both constitutional and rational.
A top partner in the law firm that abruptly dropped the House of Representatives as its client in defending the federal law defining marriage blamed the move on "an unfortunate misunderstanding" that caused the firm to lose one of its top lawyers.
In preparing the legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman - attorney Paul D. Clement was twice cited as saying attorneys must defend unpopular political causes ("Firm drops defense of marriage case," Page 1, April 26).
The Republican leadership in the House stepped up its efforts Monday to defend the federal government's marriage law, which is already under attack or implicated in as many as 10 lawsuits.
He said, "Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do."
He said it would be permissible to require a purchase once someone shows up at a hospital or doctor, which prompted Judge Marcus to wonder whether the courts should second-guess Congress' decisions.