On the question of spending money to defend marriage, Pelosi gets religion

When I tweeted this story it generated a great deal of interest so I decided to bump it up to a full blog:

Here is the NYT news story the above tweet points to: “Pelosi Questions Legal Cost on Marriage Law.”

I really thought Pelosi had reached the point where she could no longer surprise me, but I was wrong. Pelosi’s complaint that defending DOMA will cost too much surprises me.

After all, when Pelosi took over the gavel the national deficit was $162 billion. When she was ousted at the beginning of this year it was $1,290 billion (= $1.2 trillion).

Nancy Pelosi's Private Jet

On the personal side, Pelosi spent tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands of dollars) on travel, parties, entertainment, etc. during her tenure as Speaker.

I’m not saying this makes her unique among other Speakers of the House and politicians, but it really begs the question: is Pelosi such a spendthrift as to think there is no money lying around to defend marriage? And yet she wrote this after it was announced that Congress would intervene in the lawsuits against DOMA to defend the law Congress passed to define marriage in 1996:

“It is important that the House receive an estimate of the cost to taxpayers for engaging private lawyers to intervene in the pending DOMA cases.”

Does Pelosi seriously expect us to believe she is worried about the cost to taxpayers?

If Pelosi believed in defending marriage, she could afford the DOMA lawyers out of her own pocket.

The fact that she has suddenly “got religion” on the taxpayer expense of running government tells us something about her political views, and everything about her calculated malice against marriage.



  • Roy Wickham

    Pelosi is a smear on the pages of American History. I think she is a disgrace
    to the Catholic Faith.

  • Pingback: Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana » “Catholie” Pelosi: Defending DOMA Would Cost Government Too Much Money

  • gdc

    Ryan great point. These are the same kind of people that like to judge the Church by her sinners rather than her saints. Thankfully She is still letting sinners in. If perfection is the standard for defense under the secular law then I suppose there would be no instituion, organization, group, family or person worthy of protection. Good then we don’t need a law to invent then defend gay marriage either.

  • Russell

    Seems as if the Church in general and some bishops in particular (think Oakland) don’t mind spending what is collected at Mass and/or their own personal money to defend marriage as they see it. So, what’s your point with this article?
    I stand by my belief that if marriage were the bedrock, the foundation, the unalterable truth people claim it is (divorce and people’s lack of outcry against it, not withstanding, of course) it would not need a law to defend it.

    • Ryan Haber

      Russell, you have kids? When they were little, were they important to you and your life? Did that mean they didn’t need laws to defend them?

      Of course not.

      A LOT of people, myself included, are deeply scandalized by the state of marriage. We must try to see beyond the wreckage of marriage as it exists in worst-case scenarios, and try to see it as it is *in itself*. Our best bet for doing so is to look for glimpses of marriage when it is done well.

      Then I think we will see something very worth defending.

  • Greg Smith

    In all fairness I should be pointed out that the Sergant-at-Arms of the House initiated the idea. Does it make sense? Well, the Speaker is third in te line of Sucession and plots we once thought of as the stuff of techno-thrilers are now real. A C-20 is not anywhere as costly to operate as Air Force One (A Boing 747 platform) or Air Force Two (a Boing 757 platform.) If something horrible happened in Washington, I’m not sure I’d want the current speaker sitting in Coach on a United flight.

    • Davide

      Nancy needs to get to old folks home and take a few of her friends with her..she can serve lemonade to Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer as they sit on the front porch swing-reminiscing over the “Kennedy years”..where’s John Kerry? He’s in the tub with his toy yacht (didn’t pay taxes on this one either)–what about Harry Reid? Oh, he’s in hiding in the bushes (looks like a guy that would be hiding in bushes) squishing bugs pretending they are his old adversaries–the mean republicans!! This is politically incorrect? Totally!!! But you have to admit very funny 😉

  • Davide

    Nancy Pelosi stood to close to Micowave as child…Wait!! No microwave in them days–had to be the leaded paint chips–anyways bravo great read-Grazie

    • Russell

      Sarcasm loses its impact when your incorrect spelling AND bad grammar show through.

      • Davide Mancinelli


        English is my second language…I have only been in American for ten years..almost eleven…. Moved here when I was 14. To think I even have a college degree…silly Americans…giving this dumb Italian kid a degree even though his English is “incorrect” and “bad grammer”…who’s silly now?

        BTW sarcasm runs deep in Italian blood…born and breed to be brusque!!!!

        Next time I will toss in some Italian then it will be me correcting you……

        anyways amico have a great weekend and be in good cheer…..

        • Davide

          BTW forgive me this post was not ragging on older generation–my grandparents are old and I love them!!! So no this is not to be an insult on those who give us young folk wisdom and courage…



Receive our updates via email.