As expected, some of our savvier readers understood why I posed the thought experiment about a hypothetical business decision in Wisconsin in a post yesterday. I was addressing both the failure of the state of California to defend Proposition 8 and of the federal government to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Not to mention the hissy fit HRC and its allies threw when the House of Representatives attempted to retain the law firm of King and Spalding to defend the constitutionality of a law overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed by a (Democratic) President.
Now, I don’t like that law and grant that some of DOMA’s provisions may indeed violate the “full fail and credit” clause of the constitution. I think Congress should overturn it. But, it is the law of the land.
I have many more thoughts on this issue and expect to address them in due time. But, my father is in town and family takes precedence over politics. So, while he and his wife are taking a nap to recover from jet lag, I have a brief moment to blog — and to take care of other pressing tasks.
As always, Jennifer Rubin can be counted on for insightful observations on a controversial matter. She has posted, by my count, five pieces on the matter. Calling DOMA “rotten legislation“, she still believes its supporters have the right to defend it and faults the left for favoring “politically bullying to deter lawyers from representing clients it doesn’t like”. Also read her subsequent posts on why King & Spaulding decided to drop their defense of DOMA here, here, here and here.
Glenn Reynolds has a mini-roundup here.
Stacey McCain wonders what happens “When You Give in to Thuggery” and places before us the common sense of the matter in terms so plain and simple that we all can understand what’s at stake:
Byron York accuses the law firm of abdicating responsibility:
Once again, I ask, why are gay marriage advocates so reluctant to make the case for gay marriage and so ready to demonize those who support the traditional definition?
Now, I don’t like that law and grant that some of DOMA’s provisions may indeed violate the “full fail and credit” clause of the constitution. I think Congress should overturn it. But, it is the law of the land.
I have many more thoughts on this issue and expect to address them in due time. But, my father is in town and family takes precedence over politics. So, while he and his wife are taking a nap to recover from jet lag, I have a brief moment to blog — and to take care of other pressing tasks.
As always, Jennifer Rubin can be counted on for insightful observations on a controversial matter. She has posted, by my count, five pieces on the matter. Calling DOMA “rotten legislation“, she still believes its supporters have the right to defend it and faults the left for favoring “politically bullying to deter lawyers from representing clients it doesn’t like”. Also read her subsequent posts on why King & Spaulding decided to drop their defense of DOMA here, here, here and here.
Glenn Reynolds has a mini-roundup here.
Stacey McCain wonders what happens “When You Give in to Thuggery” and places before us the common sense of the matter in terms so plain and simple that we all can understand what’s at stake:
It is important to understand that the heart of the question raised by the King & Spalding decision is not whether we approve or disapprove of homosexuality, or even whether we support or oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. What is at issue is whether the concept of “gay rights” should empower advocates of that agenda to bully and intimidate their critics.John Hinderaker faults the left for politicizing the practice of law.
Byron York accuses the law firm of abdicating responsibility:
In the furtherance of its political position, the Obama administration has abdicated the Justice Department’s traditional responsibility to defend laws passed by Congress, and now King & Spalding has abdicated the lawyer’s responsibility to represent a client. And they did it over a law that passed with huge bipartisan majorities in a Republican House and Senate, was signed by a Democratic president, and was defended by two Democratic administrations and one Republican one.In due time, I hope to digest these pieces a little more thoroughly and offer my own observations. But, the one issue that stands out right now is that once again, we see the various gay rights’ groups preferring to intimidate than to argue. They call defending a three thousand-year-old (at least) definition of an institution discrimination, behaving as if it is just plain wrong (not to mention hateful) to defend this definition that ten years ago only a handful of people would even have challenged.
Once again, I ask, why are gay marriage advocates so reluctant to make the case for gay marriage and so ready to demonize those who support the traditional definition?
No comments:
Post a Comment