« Student Blogger - Crime, Inequality, and Federalism | Main | Student Blogger - Let's Work Together: Coordination Among Government Agencies »

April 25, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nick Tarasen

I think this is a highly uncharitable view of the position of these advocacy groups.

First and foremost, they're advocacy groups whose primary goal is to change the U.S. discourse to a point to where it is simply a morally indefensible position to defend this type of discrimination. Why is it wrong for them to move our discourse in that direction? The point isn't that they can't -- the point is, they shouldn't, particularly when they call themselves a gay-friendly firm. Every client may deserve a defense -- but not every law or policy does. That same logic would seem to suggest that the AG's decision not to defend was wrong in the first place.

Secondly, the by far most objectionable part of this agreement was the "gag rule" that it included -- the representation agreement prevented ANY employee of King & Spalding ANYWHERE from supporting the repeal of DOMA. This is not only plainly in violation of the laws of the state of CA and NY, but also potentially in violation of sexual orientation non-discrimination laws. And it's reprehensible for King & Spalding to have agreed to it.

Manuel Little

If DOMA was made an Act of Congress with legal advisors, then the constitutionality of DOMA must be a matter of who the legal advisors were/are. Is it that litigation against a Fed. law is more profitable that litigation defending a Fed. law?

I am not a lawyer, but am a scientist, and therefore see that formal scientific peer review will be critical in this debate. I mean that Pres. Obama wrote that homosxual behavior is inherently "immutable" in some people. It will be therefore circular reasoning to explain deviations from that alleged finding.

How many MORE citizens and their immigrating "spouses" will civil marriage at the Fed. level include, for distribution of Fed. benefits previously reserved for Motherhood?

Other types of couples will also claim discrimination (blood-related, minors, any two roommates who need some extra benefits and tax deductions, polygamists). Where's all that money coming from? Or, is that too practical a matter to be of interest??

The comments to this entry are closed.