Law firm backs out of DOMA defense, partner resigns in protest

posted at 1:35 pm on April 25, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

After the White House abandoned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),  the House of Representatives under Speaker John Boehner decided to defend the law and hired an Atlanta law firm, King & Spalding, to represent the government in the appeals.  Activists opposed to DOMA vehemently protested the law firm’s decision to take the case, and today King & Spalding dropped the case:

The Atlanta law firm King & Spalding on Monday filed a motion to withdraw from its participation in defending the Defense of Marriage Act, prompting the immediate resignation of high-profile partner Paul Clement.

The law firm had come under fire from gay rights groups when partner Clement agreed to defend the law for Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives. The act defines marriage as only a union between a man and a woman.

“Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal,” Robert D. Hays Jr., the firm’s chairman said.  “In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.”

Clement, the head of King & Spalding’s national appellate practice, was to be paid $520 an hour for his representation. He once served as U.S. solicitor general for President George W. Bush.  The Obama administration has said it will no longer defend the law in court.

As noted, Clement resigned from the firm after the decision, and he wasn’t quiet at all about why he left:

“Efforts to delegitimize any representation for one side of a legal controversy are a profound threat to the rule of law,” Clement continues.  “Much has been said about being on the wrong side of history.  But being on the right or wrong side on the merits is a question for clients.  When it comes to the lawyers, the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism.”

In his resignation letter, Clement also takes a direct shot at Hays, the firm’s chairman, who earlier today said through a spokesman that “the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate” — that is, that King & Spalding had not sufficiently looked into the issue before taking the case. “I would never have undertaken this matter unless I believed I had the full backing of the firm,” Clement writes.  “I recognized from the outset that this statute [DOMA] implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides.”

“If there were problems with the firms’ vetting process,” Clement says, “we should fix the vetting process, not drop the representation.”

When attorneys represent clients who murder, molest children, or embezzle billions, those who criticize the lawyers usually get lectured on the right to representation for clients and how that serves a higher purpose.  Of course, those are criminal defendants at risk of their lives or a substantial chunk thereof from the government.  However, the same defense routinely gets applied to personal-injury attorneys and class-action warriors.  The same Left that chased King & Spalding, for instance, also helped put John Edwards on the Democratic ticket in 2004 and nearly did it again in 2008.

I have no trouble with criticizing the choice of attorneys in defending the creeps in specific cases, as well as having no trouble with the general defenses of those decisions.  Attorneys get hired to represent clients in court, and while individual attorneys are open to criticism for the cases they take, the real issue is usually the cases themselves rather than the attorneys involved.  The usual “vetting process” is whether the client can pay the bill, and the House had agreed to a fee of $520 an hour.  I’m no lawyer, but that sounds like pretty good money to me, and it’s curious that K&S has suddenly discovered a vetting problem with a client like the House of Representatives and a fee that solid.  It sounds a lot more like intimidation than a process-oriented decision.

Plenty of other attorneys and firms will be happy to take the case and the money, and to show just a wee bit more testicular fortitude than Robert D. Hays, Jr.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I think the law firm made the wrong decision in dropping the case, but I am also troubled by the part of the representation agreement that prevented all employees (even those not taking part in this case) of the law firm from supporting legislation to alter or repeal DOMA. Heavy-handed and, IMHO, unconstitutional.

AngusMc on April 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM

What client would dare to hire that firm now?

the_nile on April 25, 2011 at 1:39 PM

FYI, King and Spaulding do pro bono work for Gitmo terrorists.

So, there’s that.

Aquateen Hungerforce on April 25, 2011 at 1:42 PM

What client would dare to hire that firm now?

the_nile on April 25, 2011 at 1:39 PM

And, to add to that point, I’m pretty sure Mr. Clement will soon be starting his own firm and will find a TON of new clients that appreciate his dedication, commitment to principal, and courage

GopherCon on April 25, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Sounds like Hays got skittish over the possibility that other clients would bail on them because of pro-gay protests over their defense of DOMA.

Considering the kinds of ugly actions by the gay protesters in Cali over Prop 8, such as harassing Mormons who donated to the pro-8 effort, they should have seen this coming from a mile away.

teke184 on April 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM

prevented all employees (even those not taking part in this case) of the law firm from supporting legislation to alter or repeal DOMA. Heavy-handed and, IMHO, unconstitutional.

AngusMc on April 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM

How did they define “supporting legislation”? It’s fair to expect that the firm’s employees not offer legal services in support of altering or repealing DOMA, but if they’re talking about limiting employees’ free speech, that’s a different matter entirely.

Dee2008 on April 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM

King & Spalding is a private corporation that is managing its brand. There is no shortage of law firms and another one will find the $520/hour worth it. Perhaps Clement will take the case and other clients with him to a new firm.

dedalus on April 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Can’t wait for crr6.

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2011 at 1:45 PM

I am an advocate for gay rights, so it doesn’t much bother me that this firm has dropped out of defending DOMA. It is their right to do so.

That said, I am not willing to give them a pass for, essentially, saying they’re dropping it to claim the moral highground. Come on, dudes, you provide free representation to Gitmo terrorist scum. You guys have no moral highground.

Vyce on April 25, 2011 at 1:45 PM

They’re here. They’re queer. They’re fascists.

Jack Bauer on April 25, 2011 at 1:46 PM

This incident brings to mind another lawyer in quite different, yet similarly unpopular, circumstances: John Adams, defending the British soldiers after the “Boston massacre.”

cs89 on April 25, 2011 at 1:48 PM

As opposed to Wisconson thuggery pressure, I suppose we like this kind. Remember, you’re a Social Conservative too. Your agenda’s just different.

hawkdriver on April 25, 2011 at 1:50 PM

I am an advocate for gay rights, so it doesn’t much bother me that this firm has dropped out of defending DOMA. It is their right to do so.

That said, I am not willing to give them a pass for, essentially, saying they’re dropping it to claim the moral highground. Come on, dudes, you provide free representation to Gitmo terrorist scum. You guys have no moral highground.

Vyce on April 25, 2011 at 1:45 PM

+1

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 1:51 PM

The usual “vetting process” is whether the client can pay the bill, and the House had agreed to a fee of $520 an hour.

I’m pretty sure the vetting process is generally a little more complex than that.

crr6 on April 25, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Hat’s off to Paul Clement.

motionview on April 25, 2011 at 1:54 PM

April 25, 2011 11:42 A.M. By Kathryn Jean Lopez
Paul Clement has joined Bancroft PLLC, where Viet Dinh is a founding partner

NRO

Wethal on April 25, 2011 at 1:55 PM

I’m pretty sure the vetting process is generally a little more complex than that.

crr6 on April 25, 2011 at 1:52 PM

They always have to do a basic conflict search to see if this new representation conflicts with any clients they already have.

Wethal on April 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

What client would dare to hire that firm now?

the_nile on April 25, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Anyone who could afford it. King & Spalding is one of the country’s top law firms… so much the better for refusing to associate itself with a discriminatory governmental policy that is fast on its way to the garbage bin of American history.

IU_Conservative on April 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

The usual “vetting process” is whether the client can pay the bill, and the House had agreed to a fee of $520 an hour.

Nice waste of money there, Speaker.

It's Vintage, Duh on April 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Clement was also handling the NFL litigation in King & Spalding too, IIRC. Wonder if he took that business with him.

Wethal on April 25, 2011 at 1:58 PM

” It sounds a lot more like intimidation than a process-oriented decision.”

Ya think…?

Seven Percent Solution on April 25, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Nice waste of money there, Speaker.

It’s Vintage, Duh on April 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

If you want an experienced appellate lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court, you have to pay for it. Former Solicitors General don’t come cheap.

Wethal on April 25, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I am an advocate for gay rights, in other words, marriage should be redefined to include two guys who bolw one another. Vyce on April 25, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:01 PM

They’re here. They’re queer. They’re fascists.
Jack Bauer on April 25, 2011 at 1:46 PM

How is this even remotely fascism? This firm took the case, then realized, oh sh!t, this might upset some of our other clients / potential clients, and bailed.

Irresponsible, yes, but not fascist.

Vyce on April 25, 2011 at 2:02 PM

a discriminatory governmental policy that is fast on its way to the garbage bin of American history. IU_Conservative on April 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

What, exactly, are you trying to conserve?

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Either all lawsuits are entitled to defense or none are. If you’re going to bow to potential protests by those who support the gay agenda that means firms who represent any politically unfavored cause should be targeted.

Or is this the normal case of liberals believe in rights for others only if they agree with them?

katiejane on April 25, 2011 at 2:04 PM

So the law firm that will defend people who have no qualms killing someone for being gay in the name of allah won’t defend a law defining marriage? Liberal priorities.

gwelf on April 25, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Wow! An actual lawyer with a sense of ethics. Unlike his boss, for whom the word “ethics” means “stick your finger in the air and check the wind direction”.

GarandFan on April 25, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Either all lawsuits are entitled to defense or none are. If you’re going to bow to potential protests by those who support the gay agenda that means firms who represent any politically unfavored cause should be targeted.

Or is this the normal case of liberals believe in rights for others only if they agree with them?

katiejane on April 25, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Pssst…not all gays are liberals.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Yes, Akzed. And two guys who have butt sex too, if you want to be childish about this.

Vyce on April 25, 2011 at 2:05 PM

That the Gay Lobby is that powerful is no surprise.
That the Obama adiminstartion will not defend DOMA is no surprise.
That our country needs a DOMA just shows our moral compass is so far off is surprising and disheartening.

fourdeucer on April 25, 2011 at 2:06 PM

What aggravates me is that this issue has even gotten this far. DOMA is still the law of the land and the federal government has a duty to defend it until congress chooses to repeal the law. So now we have thugs in the justice department who refuse to do their jobs and defend DOMA leading to congress having to hire-out defense of the law to an outside law firm for high $$, and then we have gay activist thugs who threaten that law firm for representing congress in DOMA cases. Complete nonsense.

KickandSwimMom on April 25, 2011 at 2:07 PM

I am an advocate for gay rights, in other words, marriage should be redefined to include two guys who bolw one another. Vyce on April 25, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Because heterosexual married couples never, ever engage in…*ahem*…better redefine that “definition” of yours.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:08 PM

The sodomy lobby is trying to create sexual dhimmis, and they are making progress.

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Either all lawsuits are entitled to defense or none are.

For the most part, you’re not “entitled” to a defense in civil court.

If you’re going to bow to potential protests by those who support the gay agenda that means firms who represent any politically unfavored cause should be targeted.

Is this not already the case? I would say you or I are quite justified in protesting against the firm for their Gitmo policy.

Vyce on April 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM

They’re here. They’re queer. They’re fascists.
Jack Bauer on April 25, 2011 at 1:46 PM
How is this even remotely fascism? This firm took the case, then realized, oh sh!t, this might upset some of our other clients / potential clients, and bailed.
Irresponsible, yes, but not fascist.
Vyce on April 25, 2011 at 2:02 PM

I don’t think this is a case of fascism but social cons are continually told that all gay people want is to be treated the same as everyone else yet example after example demonstrate that this is not the case – whether it’s gay people demanding special treatment or their straight advocated handing it out.

gwelf on April 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Yes, Akzed. And two guys who have butt sex too, if you want to be childish about this. Vyce on April 25, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Childish? What then is the basis for gay marriage?

Because heterosexual married couples never, ever engage in…*ahem*…better redefine that “definition” of yours. JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:08 PM

No problem with that because they are heterosexual and married, genius.

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:11 PM

I don’t think this is a case of fascism but social cons are continually told that all gay people want is to be treated the same as everyone else yet example after example demonstrate that this is not the case – whether it’s gay people demanding special treatment or their straight advocated handing it out.

gwelf on April 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Look, I’m no supporter of the vast leftist gay vocal groups out there…but honestly, what “special rights” have any gays demanded?

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:12 PM

KickandSwimMom on April 25, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Just the tip of the iceberg. Vote Obama in for a second term and The Decameron, by Giovanni Boccaccio, is nothing.

Still, the lawlessness of this administration is way worse than their immoral compass.

Obama is not a socialist, he is a radical the likes of Chavez.

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Betcha Nancy Pelosi is behind this.

rockmom on April 25, 2011 at 2:12 PM

What client would dare to hire that firm now?

the_nile on April 25, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Nobody who needs a Supreme Court lawyer, that’s for sure.

rockmom on April 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Childish? What then is the basis for gay marriage?

*facepalm*

You realize people do…well, again *ahem*…without getting married, right? The marriage fight certainly isn’t about having sex…heck, from everyone I know, marriage tends to lead to less sex.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Please, hotairheads, from the left to the right, and no matter what your sexual predilections are, focus on the topic at hand.

It is a very serious matter – to respect the constitution, the laws, or not to do so.

All else is insignificant if the land falls into lawlessness. She is way on that path and this administration has expedited her decay exponentially.

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM

The Gaystapo strikes again!

You people do realize that the Nazi brownshirts were, in fact, led by gays, right? Until they were no longer useful to the rulers….

But this is par for the course, naturally. After all, as JetBoy can tell you, if little old ladies with Crosses deserve to be beat up because it’s their fault they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, then certainly it is only fair that anyone on the wrong side of a gay approved issue deserves threats and harassment, such as King and Spaulding.

What does it say about the relative threat level here? King and Spaulding happily defend terrorists but buckle before the gaystapo?

I fully expect that whomever gets hired to defend DOMA next will receive protests, and steadily progressing levels of harassment (physical and financial), now that King and Spaulding have shown their level of gutlessness here. That’s the gay activist way, after all, as demonstrated almost relentlessly over the last few years. Heaven forbide they try to, you know, play fair! No, violence and tactics that would make a labor leader smile is their preferred method of “winning the future.”

Vanceone on April 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Well, you know, I immensely enjoyed The Decameron in my English Lit. class in college, but I am certainly not enjoying the lawlessness of this federal government. They won’t defend their own laws! They won’t enforce the border! This is freakin unbelievable. Anyone who votes for this POS in 2012 needs their head examined.

KickandSwimMom on April 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

How did they define “supporting legislation”? It’s fair to expect that the firm’s employees not offer legal services in support of altering or repealing DOMA, but if they’re talking about limiting employees’ free speech, that’s a different matter entirely.

Dee2008 on April 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Nonsense. That’s not a matter of ‘free speech’. Try calling a press conference to criticize your private employer or your employer’s management or your employer’s products and see how long you have your job.

slickwillie2001 on April 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

After all, as JetBoy can tell you, if little old ladies with Crosses deserve to be beat up…

Well, that’s my cue to go…when this BS starts in. For the record, she was not “beat up”…and I never would say she deserved to be “beat up”. Now, grow up.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Look, I’m no supporter of the vast leftist gay vocal groups out there…but honestly, what “special rights” have any gays demanded?

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:12 PM

The right to have additional charges leveled against someone in court if the offense is a ‘hate crime’.

sharrukin on April 25, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Vyce on April 25, 2011 at 2:02 PM

You don’t think it’s “remotely” fascist for radical homosexuals to spend all their time trying to shut down, dehumanize and delegitimize any opposition to their political views.

How is that NOT a fascistic mindset?

Maybe I should have been clearer and included all who seek to impose the party line on everyone:

They’re here. They’re queer. They totalitarians.

Jack Bauer on April 25, 2011 at 2:20 PM

You realize people do…well, again *ahem*…without getting married, right? The marriage fight certainly isn’t about having sex…heck, from everyone I know, marriage tends to lead to less sex. JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM

You completely miss the point.

I have no problem with sxe, believe me.

1. What you people want is to be recognized and tolerated -if not celebrated- for the kinds of sxe you enjoy.

2. You people (or some of you anyhow) want to change the definition of marriage to include two dudes bolwing one another (and per Vyce, nesting their mudsnakes).

The advocacy of that agenda is more perverse than the acts you commit.

But I don’t care what kinds of acts you engage in

I don’t ever do anything to stop people from doing what you do so long as you don’t scare the horses.

But you people can’t help but scare the horses.

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM

KickandSwimMom on April 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

To be certain, we agree!

Schadenfreude on April 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM

And as for what rights do the gays demand that none of the rest of us get: They want full veto power over society and everyone. If you don’t preach their message, they want to punish you. There IS no freedom of speech to criticize gays, in the world that they want. Or freedom to assemble. Or publish.

For proof, see the Boy Scouts, being hounded out of public society. See what is going on in Canada. See the wedding photographers and churches being forced to submit or go bankrupt.

JetBoy and the gay activists here are DREAMING if they think that their fellow travelers will ever rest until you go to jail for saying Sodomy is a sin.

After all, look what they try to do to the Mormons for disagreeing. I have yet to hear any of the gay defenders here confidently tell me that Mormons would be okay under a country where gays had complete control. Do you honestly think that Mormons (or Catholics, for that matter) would NOT face severe governmental harassment under the gay activist regime?

Reason enough to fight them at every turn.

Vanceone on April 25, 2011 at 2:24 PM

The right to have additional charges leveled against someone in court if the offense is a ‘hate crime’.

sharrukin on April 25, 2011 at 2:19 PM

It’s far from just some gays demanding “hate crime” legislation…btw I am against “hate crime” laws.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Dude! That is one funny post. LOL!!

KickandSwimMom on April 25, 2011 at 2:26 PM

But I don’t care what kinds of acts you engage in

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Look, this thread has gotten way OT…and I’m not brushing off part responsibility for that.

But…”kinds of acts” are ALL you care about! Every time the word “gay” is mentioned, you comment right off about sex acts. Every single time.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:27 PM

And JetBoy, you are still on record as saying that that little old lady got what was coming to her–because she had the audacity to carry a cross into a crowd of gays. It was “her fault” for what happened. Not the ppor gays, Oh, No. They just couldn’t help themselves, I guess. We can’t expect any self control from gay mobs. That’s the standard of conduct–if you see a gay mob, don’t provoke them because whatever happens, you deserved it.

If that’s the standard of conduct we need to give gays, then darned right I’m against that. The only other group that gets that level of treatment is fundamentalist Muslims–don’[t offend them, because they just can’t help themselves!

Vanceone on April 25, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Understood that, if you don’t like DOMA, you might applaud King & Spalding’s withdrawal. That’s a political (or, fine, call it moral) issue. Yes, K&S is a major firm (particularly in the SE), with significant political ties. Fine and good. If you’re a lobbying firm (well, they might be that, too) but, in this case, they had a client in a lawsuit.

The point Mr. Clement (a highly respected member of the bar) makes, however, is legitimate. A law firm abandoning a client they have committed to represent in the face of howls of protest is simply reprehensible. In fact, it borders on a violation of the canons of legal ethics.

Jeffrey Dahmer OK = House of Representatives NOT OK

Gerald P. Boyle, Esq., Marquette Law School graduate, former Deputy District Attorney, attorney for Jeffery Dahman, serial killer and cannibal.

Attorney for U.S. House of Representatives = [TBD]

Mr. Hays’ explanation isn’t credible. As Mr. Clement points out, fix the vetting process if there’s a problem with it. What Mr. Clement is saying, indirectly, is that this decision had nothing to do with the firm’s vetting process.

What Mr. Hays should have done, but won’t and probably cannot do, rather than telling us that the “vetting process” was inadequate, was to answer the operative question: “Had your ‘vetting’ process been more exhaustive, what is it that you would have discovered that would have prevented your firm from undertaking the representation of this client?”

The DOMA, regardless of our views on it politically, is not some leaflet distributed by some hate-monger (who would, no doubt, find freedom-of-speech advocates lining up to offer their legal services); it is an Act of Congress. Which, until recently, the U.S. Gov’t was defending. As it should.

We get to pick the laws we like before they’re passed. Not later (unless they’re unconstitutional, of course).

Same goes for clients. If lawyers start dropping clients because people raise hell, then the rule of law is in trouble, not merely one client.

IndieDogg on April 25, 2011 at 2:29 PM

gwelf on April 25, 2011 at 2:10 PM
Look, I’m no supporter of the vast leftist gay vocal groups out there…but honestly, what “special rights” have any gays demanded?
JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:12 PM

I don’t think all gay people want special rights bit the most vocal ones seem to.

There are numerous examples of gay people suing others (including shutting down Catholic adoption services).

It’s the attitude and behavior following prop 8 – black listing, threats, etc. These are not the actions of people who just want to be left alone – they want government sanction and to force others to agree with them.

I’m all for getting government out of marriage in general but gay marriage advocate seem to want more government involvement.

But if government is going to be involved in marriage then I’d argue that straight marriage is vastly different than gay marriage because it’s the most fundamental unit in society which creates and raises new citizens.

gwelf on April 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM

You don’t bail out on a client because of the “heat”. A good law firm, especially one of this high profile, new exactly what it was doing. It is unethical to decide, because it “might hurt your business”, to dump a client.
Clement had honor, and ethics, he knows what the law firm did was unethical…for God’s sake, law firms defend murderers, rapists, and have no problem.
The “no vetting” is a cop out, you don’t think these guys knew exactly what this suit was about? These guys have been doing cases like this for decades…someone put the screws to them, and they buckled.
The most insidious of all attorneys, abandon their client under pressure, under threat.

right2bright on April 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM

This is just flat out amazing. Abandoning a client because of political pressure is exactly what lawyers are NOT supposed to do.

Mark30339 on April 25, 2011 at 2:32 PM

And JetBoy, you are still on record as saying that that little old lady got what was coming to her–because she had the audacity to carry a cross into a crowd of gays. It was “her fault” for what happened. Not the ppor gays, Oh, No. They just couldn’t help themselves, I guess. We can’t expect any self control from gay mobs. That’s the standard of conduct–if you see a gay mob, don’t provoke them because whatever happens, you deserved it.

If that’s the standard of conduct we need to give gays, then darned right I’m against that. The only other group that gets that level of treatment is fundamentalist Muslims–don’[t offend them, because they just can’t help themselves!

Vanceone on April 25, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Well, correction…there’s two things I’ll take to my grave. One, my past support of Charlie Crist, and Two, my position on that thread loooong ago…which I still stand by (unlike Crist).

But let’s be clear, I NEVER condoned any violence. I NEVER condoned even that woman having her “cross” knocked out of her arms. Remember, she herself was NEVER hit, scratched, nothing.

What I DID say was she intentionally went into the “lion’s den” so to speak, not to bring peace…but to provoke. And I DO stand by that remark. The crowd did not go to her…she went to them to make a statement.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:33 PM

If attorney’s are only going to accept politically correct cases, hasn’t the outcome already been decided?

No Constitution required.

John Deaux on April 25, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Isn’t intimidation how all lefties, gay and straight win at everything? If you can’t win fair and square, win by cheating or intimidating the other side into giving you what you believe is rightfully yours anyway.

Susanboo on April 25, 2011 at 2:35 PM

To add: She went to the crowd to provoke a reaction. And she succeeded.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:35 PM

But…”kinds of acts” are ALL you care about! Every time the word “gay” is mentioned, you comment right off about sex acts. Every single time.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Well first of all, gays are defined by the sex act, that is what makes them different, the sexual orientation. Look at the protest signs of any gay movement and how the protesters are dressed, you don’t see a sexual context in those protesters?
But how about storming Catholic Churches by gay activists…which always makes me wonder even more about the gay society. The first and basically only church that set up Aids hospitals, and Aids/HIV clinics when no one else even would consider it, and they are vehemently attacked by the gay activists as being anti-gay.
Strange group…defined by sex, but you can’t mention sex…

right2bright on April 25, 2011 at 2:38 PM

To add: She went to the crowd to provoke a reaction. And she succeeded.
JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:35 PM

What about the blacklisted businesses and individuals?

What about all those who have been civil but sued for essentially believing that homosexuality is a sin?

gwelf on April 25, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Law firms breakup all the time. There is nothing here but a bunch of lawyers that could not get along anymore……move on.

SC.Charlie on April 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM

All I have to say is that based on their recent violent and hate-filled actions I must conclude that homosexuals are certainly not gay.

Pattosensei on April 25, 2011 at 2:43 PM

To add: She went to the crowd to provoke a reaction. And she succeeded.
JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Does this mean the crowd is absolved of all responsibility for their actions? If I publicly oppose your point of view to your face, does that mean you can assault my person? (Yes, he did not hit her, but he did violently attack the property within her hands. Had he “accidentally” broke her fingers or bruised her arms it still would have been assault)

Pattosensei on April 25, 2011 at 2:47 PM

But how about storming Catholic Churches by gay activists…which always makes me wonder even more about the gay society.

How about we just compare all Christians to, say, Westboro Baptist? The only time I “storm” a Catholic church is to get myself to a pew for Sunday mass. There are gay Catholics (and Protestants, and Jews, and various religions) too you realize.

All I ask is that not such a wide brush be used to condemn a whole group of people. Are there anti-religion gays? Absolutely. Are there anti-religion straights? Absolutely. Get my point?

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:47 PM

JetBoy, in that thread you were attacking the little old lady for defending traditional marriage. Only when called on, repeatedly, to denounce violence by the gays did you make a tepid “Oh, we shouldn’t fight, and this lady shouldn’t be hit…. but she brought it on herself! What did she expect…” stuff.

Okay, maybe the old lady DID provoke them. That’s kind of the point: show them a cross to remind them of what God wants.

But it’s wholly on the gays how they respond. It was like a vampire and garlic.

And I am not comfortable with allowing how gays are going to react to determine what I can and cannot say or do. In a legal fashion. But the gays sure want to make it all about them!

Vanceone on April 25, 2011 at 2:47 PM

But how about storming Catholic Churches by gay activists…which always makes me wonder even more about the gay society. The first and basically only church that set up Aids hospitals, and Aids/HIV clinics when no one else even would consider it, and they are vehemently attacked by the gay activists as being anti-gay.
Strange group…defined by sex, but you can’t mention sex…

right2bright on April 25, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Agree with you on this. When I saw pictures of the gays demanding Holy Communion dressed in drag at the Catholic church in San Francisco a few years back, I was so disgusted and enraged that my previous tolerance of the gays evaporated. It’s strange, but I liken it to my feelings about muslims after 911. Prior to that day, I could care less what religion anybody belonged to. Since then, the muslim activists and the murderous Islamists have completely changed my view of Islam.

KickandSwimMom on April 25, 2011 at 2:48 PM

But…”kinds of acts” are ALL you care about! Every time the word “gay” is mentioned, you comment right off about sex acts. Every single time. JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:27 PM

What else could it be about?!

That’s all it is!

That’s what this thread is about: legal representation being withdrawn from congress based on the sodomy lobby’s ability to intimidate a law firm. Period.

It’s sexual dhimmitude.

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:48 PM

As opposed to Wisconson thuggery pressure, I suppose we like this kind. Remember, you’re a Social Conservative too. Your agenda’s just different.

hawkdriver on April 25, 2011 at 1:50 PM

It took awhile to sink in but you know, you are quite right.

fourdeucer on April 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM

right2bright on April 25, 2011 at 2:38 PM

So by your definition, straight couples are simply defined by their sexual acts. A man and woman marry based only on sex and said acts.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Vanceone on April 25, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Yes!

The goal?

Sexual dhimmitude.

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:50 PM

When I saw pictures of the gays demanding Holy Communion dressed in drag at the Catholic church in San Francisco a few years back, I was so disgusted and enraged…

Believe me…so was I.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Atlanta? Atlanta is the gay mecca of the South.

SouthernGent on April 25, 2011 at 2:53 PM

JetBoy, the problem is that, like moderate Islam, we have no voice of “moderate gays” to rein in the excesses of your fellow gay activists.

Whenever we have a post about something like this, all we hear about is how poor, persecuted, etc. the gays are. Not about how there is any sane gay group out there trying to educate the crazies. Are all gays like the gaystapo? Not at all. But if all that you ever have to deal with is the gaystapo… it doesn’t make much difference if there are gays who are not as virulent, does it? Where’s the group trying to take the “gay side” back from the gay thugs who DO want to jail pastors and force teenagers to “try anything?” Until such a group arises, then we have to deal with the thugs. If you get caught in the crossfire, well, I’m sorry. But allowing some gay to political blackmail and put me and mine out of business means that I’m opposed to it.

And that’s not even the moral issues. It’s just protecting MY freedoms to say or assemble or worship as I choose, which the gay groups want to take away from me.

Put bluntly: I’m sure there were lots of fantastic communists following Lenin. But who stood up to him? They didn’t. And we got Soviet Russia. Marx was probably a decent dude, for the most part. It’s his followers that gave him a bad name….

Vanceone on April 25, 2011 at 2:54 PM

*facepalm*

You realize people do…well, again *ahem*…without getting married, right? The marriage fight certainly isn’t about having sex…heck, from everyone I know, marriage tends to lead to less sex.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM

And being gay is all about decorating and coordinating clothing and not about two men drilling each other’s dirt chutes.

/

fossten on April 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM

So by your definition, straight couples are simply defined by their sexual acts. A man and woman marry based only on sex and said acts. JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM

No, that’s dog bites man. It’s taken for granted, so that an adult who e.g. regales you with tales of him and his wife cavorting in the sack would soon become the office pariah.

But “I’m gay” means “I like certain forms of sex,” whereas, “I’m normal” has no sexual connotations whatsoever.

There’s a guy my wife works with who is into wife swapping. Everyone basically told him to keep that to himself if he wanted to continue to have anything to do with the normal people in the office.

Normal adults do not talk about their sexual exploits or preferences, or introduce themselves by saying, basically, “Pleased to meet you, here’s my list of favorite sexual practices.”

No one cares, and to insist on being that guy is to ask for certain people not to want to have much if anything to do with you.

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:58 PM

All I ask is that not such a wide brush be used to condemn a whole group of people. Are there anti-religion gays? Absolutely. Are there anti-religion straights? Absolutely. Get my point?

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Sorry JetBoy, but your “I can find someone on your side” argument doesn’t hold water to someone who is well read and versed.
Everyone knows that Westboro is an aberration of a few family members who formed a “church”, a shameful attempt at quantifying gay activism…but the gays who stormed, and others who are anti Catholic, aren’t just a dozen of activists, but hundreds, thousands…hence the Folsom Street Fair, where thousands participate.
My comment to you is that you worry about someone always commenting about sex, about a group who are defined by aberrant sex. You were maybe seeking other protests that were not “sexual” in nature, and I gave you one. That should have been end of argument.

And in a blog, broad statements are made, but most based on facts.
To you to try to pretend that the gay establishment isn’t at war with the Catholic Church is ridiculous.

right2bright on April 25, 2011 at 2:58 PM

To add: She went to the crowd to provoke a reaction. And she succeeded.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Yet when Pelosi, Lewis and Cleaver decided to stroll through the crowd of protesters after gloating about Obamacare, they were untouched. Of course that doesn’t fit the media pattern so they made something up and it was the crowd’s fault.

Double standards.

John Deaux on April 25, 2011 at 2:59 PM

So by your definition, straight couples are simply defined by their sexual acts. A man and woman marry based only on sex and said acts.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Boiled down to basics, yes. The marriage commitment traditionally was about raising children…sex is inherent to the process.

The difference is that heterosexuals don’t form large groups proclaiming “Hetero Rights” and demanding gay bars for patronage. The heteros also don’t typically insist that school explicitly teach the normalcy of heterosexuality…seems like kids pick up on that just fine somehow. To put the cherry on top, when was the last time you had a group of people join together based solely on the fact that the are all heterosexual?

Pattosensei on April 25, 2011 at 3:01 PM

So the law firm that will defend people who have no qualms killing someone for being gay in the name of allah won’t defend a law defining marriage? Liberal priorities,

gwelf on April 25, 2011 at 2:04 PM

…duplicity and hypocrisy.

Fallon on April 25, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Not enforcing drug laws, not enforcing voter intimidation laws, not enforcing immigration laws, not enforcing DOMA. If they won’t enforce laws they don’t like, why should we obey laws we don’t like?

Big John on April 25, 2011 at 3:02 PM

So by your definition, straight couples are simply defined by their sexual acts. A man and woman marry based only on sex and said acts.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Where did you see that definition of straight couples…I don’t think I posted anything about defining straight couples, please point that out to me….of course you can’t because you made it up, a fantasy post of yours.
But I did say that gays were defined by their sexual preferences and acts, you apparently think there is another definition…please share it with us.

right2bright on April 25, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Where did you see that definition of straight couples…I don’t think I posted anything about defining straight couples, please point that out to me….of course you can’t because you made it up, a fantasy post of yours.
But I did say that gays were defined by their sexual preferences and acts, you apparently think there is another definition…please share it with us.

right2bright on April 25, 2011 at 3:02 PM

So let me get this…*cough* straight…you’re saying gays marry based on sex acts, but straights marry based on a whole plethora of reasons, not the least of which are love and commitment?

JetBoy, the problem is that, like moderate Islam, we have no voice of “moderate gays” to rein in the excesses of your fellow gay activists.

Whenever we have a post about something like this, all we hear about is how poor, persecuted, etc. the gays are. Not about how there is any sane gay group out there trying to educate the crazies. Are all gays like the gaystapo? Not at all. But if all that you ever have to deal with is the gaystapo… it doesn’t make much difference if there are gays who are not as virulent, does it? Where’s the group trying to take the “gay side” back from the gay thugs who DO want to jail pastors and force teenagers to “try anything?” Until such a group arises, then we have to deal with the thugs. If you get caught in the crossfire, well, I’m sorry. But allowing some gay to political blackmail and put me and mine out of business means that I’m opposed to it.

And that’s not even the moral issues. It’s just protecting MY freedoms to say or assemble or worship as I choose, which the gay groups want to take away from me.

Put bluntly: I’m sure there were lots of fantastic communists following Lenin. But who stood up to him? They didn’t. And we got Soviet Russia. Marx was probably a decent dude, for the most part. It’s his followers that gave him a bad name….

Vanceone on April 25, 2011 at 2:54 PM

I disagree a bit…there ARE moderate gay (and Islamic) voices out there, but for sure, are drowned out by the crazies. But so many people only want to believe that the crazies are all there is. And by default, all are labeled “crazies”.

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Here’s my question. For gays, it is all about “Why are you so hatin’ on me? I’m just wired to like the same gender… I can’t help myself, why you all hatin’ on me? Why can’t I be eeeequalll?” Or something like that.

Well, guess what? I’m a guy. I’m built to like women. In fact, I’m built to think lots of women are hot. I’m married, too. Now, if I somehow ended up in a room with the entire Victoria Secret catalogue of models, all of whom were willing to do whatever I said–would I want to? I’m wired to want to!

That doesn’t make it right, though, does it? Even were I single, it doesn’t make it right. It might be understandable, but it wouldn’t be right.

Here’s the difference between me and the gays: If I WERE to do that, I doubt I’d be going around banging the drum for “adulterer’s rights” and demanding that we teach infidelity in schools. Or demanding that we teach “how to bang hot models” in schools. A course, I might add, that would be far more popular than the current “you might be gay–try it out” routine we see being pushed nowadays.

Point is, just because gays claim to be “wired” that way (and I disagree, but let’s assume that for the moment), why should they get special privileges? Adulterers, alcoholics, and others who cannot control their urges don’t get them, why should gays? (let’s set aside Teddy Kennedy, who is no doubt getting his reward right now).

Vanceone on April 25, 2011 at 3:13 PM

so much the better for refusing to associate itself with a discriminatory governmental policy that is fast on its way to the garbage bin of American history.

IU_Conservative on April 25, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Such is the callowness of youth. It seems for most people that agreement with gay marriage means they must hate DOMA. A conservative should not have to equate the two positions. DOMA was clearly necessary to combat the judges who would find a previously “hidden” right to gay marriage in the constitution. It’s not there. States can add gay marriage if they want to, and that is part of the value of federalism. DOMA protects the states that don’t want to. That is also federalism. Conservatives are supposed to be interested in “conserving’. Think through and own your conservatism, or admit you’re really just a College Republican after all.

alwaysfiredup on April 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Two arguements can be made on non-religious that gay marraige is not good for society.

A) Gays in general are well off, and generally are not raising kids (yes, there are exceptions). Marraige confers some small financial benefits to society, and is generally given because in the majority of cases, straight people end up having kids. Kids are a big financial burden. In an era of increasing financial drains, gay marraige adds one that is unacceptable. Exceptions could be made for gays that are raising kids (including giving them benefits that they may have missed up until they have kids…)

B) You may disagree, but gay marraige, in line with a general liberal desire to widen liberties, opens the door to multiple spouses. Once you open the first door, equal protection is going to allow that. As a society, we need to make a decision as to whether this should be expanded.

I’m not just refering to muslims here. There are mormons who are into multiple wives, and probably a few hollywood types.

Combine A and B above, and you have a better arguement. And you don’t turn off those who reflexifly reject religious arguements (I am not one of those, but they exist on the libertarian side). Like abortion, the more you frame something in non-religious terms, the more support you will get. Its just an ugly truth in today’s America.

DrEvilDoer on April 25, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Don’t mess with Islam or same sex attraction zealots, unless you can stand the heat. There is a law firm that will stand up and take this case. It’s just a matter of finding a firm with some courage, which should be an interesting search.

Hening on April 25, 2011 at 3:25 PM

So let me get this…*cough* straight…you’re saying gays marry based on sex acts, but straights marry based on a whole plethora of reasons, not the least of which are love and commitment?

JetBoy on April 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM

I guess you have a difficult time reading…show me where I even mentioned “straights” in defining them.
I clearly state, and you have a difficult time understanding…is that gays, I didn’t mention married gays (in fact I think you inserted the words “couples” into the argument), but gays are defined by their sexual preferences and acts…now you tell me what definition of gays you use? That they prefer goats? The term gays is defined by sexual preferences, you didn’t know that, or you are being really stupid today…
You have a strange way of arguing, you put your own words into my conversation, than debate them as if I actually stated them…please, try to be honest and comprehend what I post.
But I will assure you, I am pretty confident that gay couples are attracted to the same sex, just a guess, but you may have another way of looking at the gay couple. And another guess is after that “attraction” they may even have sex with each other, which would mean most gay couples have sex with the same sex as them…just a guess, but if I am way off base, please correct me (not what you think I am stating but what I am actually posting).

right2bright on April 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM

There’s a guy my wife works with who is into wife swapping. Everyone basically told him to keep that to himself if he wanted to continue to have anything to do with the normal people in the office.

Akzed on April 25, 2011 at 2:58 PM

And to make the comparison, if he were like the gay and lesbian community, he would be demanding the following:

- All of his relationships being recognized as marriage and be eligible for all government benefits and tax treatment
- Hiring quotas and preferential treatment in receiving Federal contracts
- Immunity against being fired and the ability to claim “discrimination” if he is
- Welfare payments to be made to every one of his sexual partners
- Automatic Federal involvement in any crime against him
- Automatic enhancement of penalties for any crimes committed against him
- The right to silence as “hate speech” any criticism of him
- Civil and criminal penalties against anyone who prevented him from adopting any child he wanted
- Demands for churches and church members who criticize him to be harassed and punished by the government and stripped of their rights to speak or protest against him

That’s really all that is taking place. And JetBoy, here’s the lesson I share with you as a fellow gay person: until these people are driven out of power in the gay and lesbian community, there will be no peace, nor should there be.

northdallasthirty on April 25, 2011 at 3:31 PM

A profile in courage. Almost unheard of in our frightened and faddish culture.

rrpjr on April 25, 2011 at 3:35 PM

King & Spalding can be seen as a subsidiary of 4 Atlanta firms: Coca-Cola, SunTrust Bank, Home Depot, and UPS. The Gay managers at those firms must have explained to K&S that the Republican House is not as popular a client as the law firm seem to think, which signals that this battle is already a lost cause.

jimw on April 25, 2011 at 3:39 PM

@northdallasthirty aww you finally crawled over here did you, Bless, well It’s good to know you can spread your particular brand of stupidity everywhere.

Tim

Zekecorlain on April 25, 2011 at 3:48 PM

@northdallasthirty aww you finally crawled over here did you, Bless, well It’s good to know you can spread your particular brand of stupidity everywhere.

Tim

Zekecorlain on April 25, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Whats stupid about what he said?

sharrukin on April 25, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Well, guess what? I’m a guy. I’m built to like women. In fact, I’m built to think lots of women are hot. I’m married, too. Now, if I somehow ended up in a room with the entire Victoria Secret catalogue of models, all of whom were willing to do whatever I said–would I want to? I’m wired to want to!

Vanceone on April 25, 2011 at 3:13 PM

If pursued by a pack of libidinous Victoria Secret models I wouldn’t let them take long to catch me–even if they were scampering along in heels. If my wife meets Johnny Depp she has a pass. Both seem unlikely but either way the government doesn’t need to weigh in on the question of our marriage.

dedalus on April 25, 2011 at 3:52 PM

sharrukin, Zekecorlain is, if I remember correctly, one of those who cheers gay thuggery. He (or she) is gay, no bones about it, and wants everyone else to bow and kiss his feet.

So naturally he doesn’t want rights for anyone opposed to giving the most extreme gays everything they want.

That’s all. Zeke on gays is about as neutral as Cindy Sheehan on George W Bush. If anything, Cindy is more fair….

Vanceone on April 25, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2