It was my intention to discuss a topic other than marriage, but circumstances conspired to scuttle my plans. The hyperbole and misinformation some conservatives are spewing regarding Republican plans to defend marriage inequality is the reason. Republican House leaders recently hired a major law firm, King & Spalding, to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
But, DOMA is so badly drafted that even its author, former congressman Bob Barr, wants repeal. He calls it a "a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions" and says this violates "the principles of federalism" it was supposed to uphold. Barr says, "The law should be repealed."
King & Spalding, one of the largest law firms in the country, took the case and a few days later announced they would drop it. In the meantime, the Human Rights Campaign had done lots of posturing and a few press releases.
But HRC, in this writer's opinion, is largely ineffective. It typically comes to the party late, drags its feet, and seems to put interests of the Democratic Party ahead of the LGBT community. When King & Spalding dropped out, HRC immediately took credit for it. The Right took this dubious claim and ran with it.
A shrieking Debra Saunders blamed "the intolerant Left," describing this as an act of "intimidation" and "intolerance."
While there was no time to actually organize a boycott of the firm, Focus on the Family howled that the imagined boycott was "Bullying, Strong-arming, Veiled Threats, etc." They wrote it was "an exercise in political and financial power (bullying) by LGBT advocacy organizations and their allies." In other words, when advocates of equality talk about a boycott it is "bullying."
Yet, Focus on the Family engaged in "bullying," by their own definition:
Conservatives attribute the King & Spalding decision entirely to the few pieces of paper HRC released. This, of course, plays well with conspiracy-minded conservatives who imagine a gay plot to destroy America, no doubt run by the Learned Elders of Sodom. But these simplistic attacks ignore the problems the law firm was having behind the scenes.
Shortly after the contract was announced, there were rumblings that employees at the firm were very unhappy. Republicans had inserted a clause in the contract that would have stripped firm employees of First Amendment rights. It stipulated that no employee may engage in "lobbying or advocacy" regarding "any legislation" that would "alter or amend in any way the Defense of Marriage Act." This contract explicitly included employees "who do NOT participate in the litigation."
This would mean that secretaries, cleaning staff and lawyers working on other cases, are forbidden from expressing opposition to DOMA. King & Spalding has a few hundred attorneys and associates in their offices around the world. They also have secretaries and other support staff who assist them. All would have lost their First Amendment protections at the bidding of the Republican House leadership. This realization was rumored to have caused consternation among employees, with some considering leaving the company as a result. The LGBT site Box Turtle Bulletin reported that the company was "facing a growing backlash among its own employees."
In addition, there are stories that Coca-Cola, a major client of the firm, had expressed displeasure that their law firm was engaged in defending blatantly discriminatory legislation.
Another complicating factor, ignored by knee-jerk conservative commentators is that King & Spalding had close ties with LGBT legal groups. They are a sponsor of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, providing it with pro bono services. The firm also had advertised it "seeks opportunities to partner with LGBT student organizations to help their members successfully navigate the process of moving from law student to lawyer."
The "gag order" was so broadly worded that existing programs and policies of the firm could be challenged by conservatives. Would King & Spalding have been required to drop its work with Lambda Legal because of it? The law firm itself said the case was dropped because "the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate." That may not have been smoke and mirrors, as critics assumed.
To this observer, it seems the matter is more complicated than conservatives pretend. It is unlikely that a few press releases would have this immediate a response. Even the HRC said they were surprised by the announcement, though they quickly took credit for it. Far more likely, is that King & Spalding was telling the truth. This seems especially likely, if you consider that the gag measure created a backlash among firm employees, may have required cancellation of existing programs and partnerships, and complicated work with major clients such as Coca-Cola.
I suspect that the Republicans, by including such broad restrictions on all King & Spalding employees, shot themselves in the foot -- even if the HRC wants to take credit for pulling the trigger.
From Rep. Steve Simon of Minnesota. There's a youTube of his speech.
Priceless.
So what makes an action "right" or "wrong"...has more to do who WHO is doing it, and what impact it has on their "tribe"...than on the nature of the action itself.
So any action that negatively impacts their tribe (conservative Christians) is seen as "wrong"...and they start to march out the "oppressed minority" rhetoric.
Yet, they have no problems with using tactics that are vicious and ruthless on other people, in order to get their own way. Which is why people see them as such hypocrites.
Because they are...because their principles are not...and never were intended to be universally applied.
Since to allow discrimination and bigotry without complaint is to tacitly condone it that is simply a way for them to make themselves feel comfortable with their bi.goted ig.norance.
If those that oppose DOMA really want to do something about gay marriage then PLEASE Don't have one but to claim that you are not the intolerant and big.oted party is disingenuous at best.
We have come a long way legally since I came out in 1979 but we have had a long and bitter struggle and I hope we have finally reached the tipping point where laws like DOMA and the bi.gots who want to "defend" them are looked on with the same contempt as those who did the same with Jim Crow
Seems like the people using J es us' name are the least like him!
Full speed ahead on redistribution of the nation's wealth and income. Full speed backward on personal liberties and rights.
Anti-gay bigots have used whatever civil and religious institutions available to them to oppress, discriminate against, persecute and even murder gays.
These people are the real "bullies".
Bullies never like it when you stand up to them. Too bad for them.
and then it moves on with it's boilerplate propaganda in order to kill all rational thought.
Anti-gay bigots have used every civil and religious institution for centuries to oppress us, discriminate against us, persecute us and even maim and murder us... and somehow WE are the "bullies"?
It is like someone has their foot on your neck and your do what it takes to remove their foot and then they complain about you removing their foot as a sign of "aggression".
It is a bit confusing but, if my reading is correct, this would have prohibited all King & Spalding employees from work on a wide range of political topics that have nothing to do with gay rights, regardless of if it was done as a private citizen during nonwork hours or if it was done as an employee working on an existing, unrelated, case.
It doesn't say any legislation it only say legislation dealing with DOMA and it says this applies regardless of which House the legislation is in or which committee is looking at it. But it is limited to one topic along, altering or amending DOMA.
Full quote (from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/19/house-republicans-500k-defense-marriage-act_n_851035.html ):
"That all of its partners and employees who perform services pursuant to this Agreement will not engage in lobbying or advocacy for or against any legislatioÂn (i) that is pending before the U.S. House of RepresentaÂtives or any committee thereof during the term of the Agreement, or (ii) that would alter or amend in any way the Defense of Marriage Act and is pending before either the U.S. House of RepresentaÂtives or the U.S. Senate or any committee of either body during the term of the Agreement.Â
"That all of its partners and employees who do not perform services pursuant to this Agreement will not engage in lobbying or advocacy for or against any legislatioÂn (i) that is pending before the Committee [on House AdministraÂtion] during the term of the Agreement, or (ii) [same as above].Â"
This is different:
1) the gag order was in a contract draw up by CONGRESS - i.e. the very government which is forbidden from interfering with First Amendment rights
2) DOMA is not a private issue like the representation of a client in a contract dispute - DOMA is an issue of PUBLIC interest and importance. We are all entitle to advance our private opinions in a public forum.
3) the gag clause violates at least 3 major statutes in CA, so how could it be enforced? This is not a preemption issue, i.e. federal law does not trump state law re marriage because marriage laws are left tot the states.
Bottom line: Congress should be ashamed of itself for even trying to push such an unconstitutional clause on the private citizens who work for K&S. Shameful.
My guess is that the Management Committee saw the numbers and said "sure Paulie [Clement] Boy! Bring it on!". THEN someone actually read the contract.
Bottom line: K&S is gonna get shot at from both sides now. No worry. A few well placed lunches and golf games will put them back on top, the VA Attorney General notwithstanding.
Snark off.