Doma Lawyers Back Out.

King and Spalding the firm chosen by republicans on the so-called bi-partisan legal advisory group (they didn't even tell the two sitting democrats that they were hiring the firm) have backed out of defending section three of the Defense of Marriage Act.

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/04/king-spalding-withdraws-from-doma-defense/

This leaves house republicans in a difficult place.

No other "first tier" law firm will be willing to take on the case as it has already suffered a de-facto defeat through this measure. This means the only people likely to take up the mantle will be highly biased operations like the "Liberty" Counsel or the American "Family" Association.

The trouble with these outfits is that their animus and hatred (not to mention incompetence vis Prop eight) is well documented and is, therefore, all the more likely to make judges consider the cases under the review standard of heightened scrutiny which, in my opinion, makes a loss almost inevitable for the defendants.

I predict this facet of DOMA will fail and fail fast.

 

DOMA is unconstitutional, and many competent lawyers know it. Gay marriage will eventually be legal in all 50 states.

 

In my opinion, DOMA was always just "feel good" legislation enacted to placate the extreme right. I also think that eventually, gay marriage will be legal throughout the 50 States. There is already a number of cases that are waiting to be files with SCOTUS however, there are two loose cannons on the bench that make it problematic right now...Scalia and Thomas.

 

Maybe that's part of the plan. Force these ultra-right homophobic organizations to front their own money to defend the unconstitutional DOMA and drag them kicking and screaming out to burn in the spotlight.

 

You mean there are two who are not loose cannons.

 

Yep. Just like in California. Governor refuses to defend his own states constituion, the court prevented any cities or counties from interviening in the case, leaving only some non profit, anti gay marriage group to defend the states Constitution. All they needed was their gay judge, and the decision was a foregone conclusion.

 

Oh yeah... that's EXACTLY how it all transpired (not).

 

To say the lawyers "backed out" is dishonest. They were threatened and coerced into refusing to represent the case. Repreenting murdering pedophiles is honorable, though.

 

You wouldnt have a clue about such things and thats precisely what happened. You are all emotion and hormones while fact are but an inconvenience to you.

 

Oh I suspect there would be an endless supply of first tier law firms willing to take the case and few that would cave to angry homos who are upset they did, like King and Spalding did.

 

Ultimately, abject bigotry will be shoved to the margins (as it typically has been). Hatred isn't stronger than truth.

 

1950: Can't have those black judges ruling on black civil rights!

2011: Can't have those gay judges ruling on gay civil rights!


1950: Can't have marriage between two people of different skin colors! That's unnatural and expands the definition of marriage!

2011: Can't have marriage between two people of the same gender! That's unnatural and expands the definition of marriage!

I'm seeing a pattern here.

 

"Bigotry"? "Hatred"??? You are insulted by your own sexuality dude. Dont try and attribute that to my bigotry or hatred of anything.

 

??? We already have them doing that. Thats why that particuliar court was chosen to make their challenge of the law.

 

Yep. Most anti-gay expressions, sentiments and ideas... are just that.

No, I'm not insulted by my sexual-orientation; though I have been 'insulted' by others due to the same. I'm certain they were all bigoted jerks. I'm a confident homosexual man.

Who could (really) know you are hateful or bigoted (as a person), unless you admit to it (as you seem to above)? Are MANY of the things you SAY 'bigoted' and/or 'hateful'? You bet they are, and you should NEVER expect all others to agree with or necessarily approve of what you're expressing. If you DO expect others to automatically agree/approve, then you need to be realistic about the things you are saying. You see, I KNOW that many people disagree with homosexuality or anything having to do with it. Still, that doesn't mean I do not FIGHT for the things I believe in. I'm sure you are pretty much the same, when it comes to fighting for your beliefs.

 

"anti-gay"???? "Homos" is simply easier to type than "homosexuals". Dont interpret YOUR delicate as a flower sensibilities about your sexual orientation as MY bigotry or hatred.

 

Do you use the "N-Word", because it is easier to say/type than, "African American"?

Words have meaning.

 

Threatened and coerced by who? Do you have evidence of this?

Representing criminal defendants is absolutely honorable. What does that have to do with this thread???

 

And homosexuals have delicate as a flower sensibilities.

 

Ok, if you feel more comfortable imagining that homosexual people can't stand up to you and anyone else... just keep thinking that.

I don't blame one homosexual person for being intolerant of bigotry and bigots.

 

Are terrorists criminal defendants?

 

They are. Or, well, they should be. Not sure how that's relevant to this thread, though.

It certainly does not change my position that defending the criminally accused is an absolutely honorable thing to do.

 

That is stupid comparison.
When anti-miscegenation laws were struck down, people of all races were allowed to marry each other.
When insane judges invented gay marriage, marriage rights were extended to homosexuals only.

 

So two heterosexual male friends will not be allowed to marry if they wish?
Or are you just making things up to go along.
Answer the question...

 

This is a very old thread!