Gay rights group targets King & Spalding in Atlanta

Last year, when Attorney General Thurbert Baker declined to join a federal lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama’s health care reform on behalf of Georgia, Gov. Sonny Perdue assigned the matter to outside counsel.

In Washington, House Republicans have done something of the same sort. The Obama administration last month announced it would no longer go to bat in court for the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only a union between a man and woman.

So at $520 an hour, with the money coming out of their own taxpayer-fueled budget, House Republicans have hired Paul Clement of King & Spalding to defend the act. Paul Clement is a former U.S. solicitor general for President George W. Bush.

For a time, Clement was the lead counsel hired by Gov. Sonny Perdue to appeal a federal court ruling challenging Georgia’s access to the water in Lake Lanier for drinking purposes.

The law firm of King & Spalding has its origins in Atlanta, in the early 20th century. The firm has 15 other offices now, including one in D.C.

All of which is to explain why the Human Rights Campaign, an organization dedicated to gay rights, announced today that it would target King & Spalding in a campaign to encourage the firm to drop its newest client.

“The bottom line is that K&S was under no obligation to take this case. They consciously chose to defend a law that discriminates against LGBT Americans, including K&S’s LGBT employees and clients,” said HRC president Joe Solmonese. “Discrimination, no matter how profitable, is never good business.”

Law school students and clients of King & Spalding in Atlanta can expect attempts to draw them into the debate – even though the HRC admits that success is unlikely.

- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

103 comments Add your comment

What Would Judge Bell Do?

April 20th, 2011
2:09 pm

It’s a shame what King & Spalding has become. Back in the 50s, firm partners closely advised the Governor on a peaceful desegregation of Georgia’s public schools. We’re obviously a long way from that set of firm values.

I can’t imagine any gay attorneys feeling comfortable there now. This is the same firm, by the way, that does not have a single Black associate in it’s Washington, DC office. They are not exactly winning on the diversity front.

Pete

April 20th, 2011
2:18 pm

Marriage is a religious institution that the US government chooses to acknowledge. Whether or not a church wants to recognize same sex couples is one thing, but if the US is going to acknowledge the union of two people, there is no reason, excluding religious stances, why the right for gay couples to marry on a legal level should be restricted.

Get the government out of all of it I say. Besides, it’s not a gay or straight issue, it’s the legally single people who really get the short end of the stick, regardless of sexual orientation.

Centrist

April 20th, 2011
2:24 pm

The Defense of Marriage Act is a United States federal law signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities.

We now have a liberal president who has unilaterally decided the federal government can ignore it. Let’s hope that this is not a precedent as someday a conservative president might do the same concerning abortion, separation of church and state issues, or other such agendas.

Irony

April 20th, 2011
2:26 pm

Liberals advance so much of their social policy aims through the courts — and often with pro bono assistance from elite law firms like King & Spalding — that it must be frustrating to for once see the white shoe on the other foot.

Good for K&S.

UGA graduate

April 20th, 2011
2:29 pm

Pressure from wealthy coporate clients will cause KIng & Spalding to either drop this assine attorney or he will quietly withdrew from the case, citing family matters.

All the talk about the huge deficits that were run up during George Bush’s watch, seem now that Republicans have amnesia over their tax cuts. They seem to be all about spending when they are in control. The just don’t like any spending when Democrats are in charge. Why are the Republicans wasting our money on attorney fees defending this unconstitutional law.

Would KIng & Spalding defend a segregationist?

Lexi

April 20th, 2011
2:30 pm

K&S surely has a right to represent clients whose causes are unpopular, irrespective of the individual preferences of the chattering classes, or any very small subset of it in a snit. Fact is, most people –gasp–oppose “gay marriage.”

Further fact: K&S represents causes all over the political spectrum, including representing terrorists who are detained at Gitmo, and common criminals on death row for their acts.

bb

April 20th, 2011
2:30 pm

Once again showing Atlanta as behind the times compared to the rest of the major cities in the U.S. What a joke.

Native Atlantan2

April 20th, 2011
2:38 pm

A “snit”, really Lexi?

Foncused

April 20th, 2011
2:41 pm

@ Lexi – Actually, your “facts” are incorrect.

According to CNN/Opinion Poll released yesterday, April 19, 2011, the majority now support legalized gay marriage 51 – 47.

It goes on:

ABC News/Washington Post on March 13, 2011: 53 (favor) – 44 (oppose)
Pew Research on March 1, 2011: 45 (favor) – 46 (oppose)

These numbers all show trendlines in support of gay marriage. You can read the poll results yourself here: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

I wish people would actually get the “facts” before they post.

Irony

April 20th, 2011
2:41 pm

@ UGA graduate
1. I doubt they’ll drop the case due to pressure. Clement is possibly the best oral advocate in the country period and is certainly one of the top conservatives. It was a coup for them to get him. He has real power at the firm. And they are also, with him, building their appellate practice. While the controversy may drive away some clients, it’s quite a boost to the stature of that practice.

2. Had the DOJ defended DOMA as is its current practice, the outside attorney fees would be unnecessary. And it’s a drop in the bucket anyway.

3. It’s not at all clear the law is unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” which is the constitutional test. And if criminal defendants deserve competent counsel in their cases, which they do, perhaps widely-approved bipartisan legislation should as well.

4. I doubt K&S would defend a segregationist. But I’m not sure the relevance of that.

SBinf

April 20th, 2011
2:43 pm

“The Defense of Marriage Act is a United States federal law signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities.”

Forgive my ignorance of the Constitution, but it was my understanding that the power to regulate such things as birth and death certificates, professional licensing, and marriage were reserved powers. That is, reserved for the states. Shouldn’t the so-called conservatives be incensed at this obvious breach by the federal government over the power of the states?

local yocal

April 20th, 2011
2:47 pm

Fact is Lexi, most people don’t oppose gay marriage. Latest poll numbers suggest the majority favor gay marriage. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51551.html

And your further facts do nothing more than suggest that K&S represents the worst of the worst, including those Republican house members wasting our taxpayer dollars.

DannyX

April 20th, 2011
2:49 pm

“Fact is, most people –gasp–oppose “gay marriage.””

Gasp!!!!! Not true. This issue is quickly moving in the direction of public acceptance of gay marriage.

In fact all the latest polls on gay marriage show exactly that,

CNN…51% favor….47 oppose
ABC…53% favor….44 oppose
Pew Research…45% favor….46 oppose

Average of all 2011 polls on gay marriage, 48.75% favor….44.25 oppose

Typical Redneck

April 20th, 2011
2:50 pm

Let me get this straight (no pun intended). The gays want their right to marry, but don’t want King & Spalding to have the right to represent whom they please?

AJ

April 20th, 2011
2:50 pm

I don’t think gay marriage should be prohibited, but neither do I think that it should receive the automatic protections of law in the same way as marriage. Government has a right to promote long-lasting relationships which (are supposed to)serve the cause of procreating the next generation of society and serving as the backbone of civilization. Obviously there are plenty of G/L couples who serve as great role models to adopted children, and plenty of married couples who serve as horrible role models, but the general principle is there.

SBinf

April 20th, 2011
2:53 pm

“Government has a right to promote long-lasting relationships which (are supposed to)serve the cause of procreating the next generation of society and serving as the backbone of civilization.”

I suppose women who are past childbearing age should be prohibited from marrying too, then?

Kev

April 20th, 2011
2:54 pm

What happened to the Republicans and Tea baggers who were elected who said their number one priority was “jobs, jobs, jobs”? Funny how they’re spending so much time (and money) on their social agenda while not having created one job.

GaBlue

April 20th, 2011
2:56 pm

Typical Redneck,

Actually, “the gays” are exercising their right to speak out against K&S for exercising their right to represent those who want to deprive others of their rights. If you’re going to snip and snipe, get it right, cooter.

Down in Albany

April 20th, 2011
2:57 pm

Typical Redneck: Yep, that’s basically what they are saying…typical liberal double standard.

JohnGalt4P

April 20th, 2011
2:58 pm

Is it just me, or are the the conservatives spending just as much time pressing social agendas as liberals? It’s appalling to me that so many people just plain don’t care that their government tells them how to live – and this isn’t limited only to marriage, it’s in almost every aspect of our lives. The only thing the House Republicans have done with this is to undermine every bit of their bitching and moaning over the last two weeks about the budget deficit – CLEARLY ya can’t blame it all on the Democrats, especially not when you’re willing to just “assign” $500,000 of taxpayer money (and let’s not forget that, contrary to what some believe, gay people are actually people who pay real taxes) in defending a modern-day Jim Crowe law of blatant discrimination. Social policies – particularly those that are based on one religion in a nation that is comprised of basically every religion on Earth- have absolutely no place in our government. Keep your laws off of my life.

Mec

April 20th, 2011
2:58 pm

Basic constitutional point we all learned in elementary and high school: the president, as chief executive of the executive branch of the government, is charged with executing the laws. He doesn’t get to choose which ones to execute. He’s bound by the constitution to execute them all. Until the law is repealed, it should be enforced, whether we (or he) like it or not. Paul Clement has been hired to make that point.

Down in Albany

April 20th, 2011
2:58 pm

Kev: Kinda like President Obama’s “laser-like focus on jobs…”, huh?

DannyX

April 20th, 2011
3:00 pm

““jobs, jobs, jobs”?”

Great question! Seems the Republicans have been side-tracked by their usual craziness,

Kill PBS
Kill Planned Parenthood
Kill new DADT law
Protect DOMA
Kill NPR
Kill Medicare
Kill Medicaid
More tax cuts

And of course the the very important non-issue Birthermania!

JohnGalt4P

April 20th, 2011
3:02 pm

@TypicalRedneck and Down in Albany: The true double standard, and what the gays are troubled by, is the fact that K&S touts itself as a gay-friendly (recruiting?), diverse and supporting firm, yet they would take on the defense of DOMA. Isn’t it interesting that the news feed on their homepage has no mention of the deal? One would think that a $500k contract would be cause for boasting…unless, of course, one feels guilty.

GA Red

April 20th, 2011
3:05 pm

Ga Blue, is it really correct that someone who wants to defend DOMA (it is law, after all) is depriving ‘others’ of their ‘rights’? The definition of ‘marriage’, according to the fed government, is ‘between a man and a woman’. This is not a ‘right’, it is a definition. So while I like your rip on cooter, you are a bit wrong in your assertion that homosexuals have ‘rights’ as it pertains to this case.

Typical Redneck

April 20th, 2011
3:09 pm

GaBlue, based on your response, I did have it right. Cooter is pretty fun though libtard.

Typical Redneck

April 20th, 2011
3:10 pm

and gay marriage is not a right!

Lexi

April 20th, 2011
3:15 pm

Unscientific push polls foisted on the chattering classes prove only the gullibility of the dolts who want to believe the supposed results.

The “Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. constitution makes it possible for the whims of one gay friendly legislature to trump the will of the people of the other 49 states–some federalism.

DannyX

April 20th, 2011
3:16 pm

“He doesn’t get to choose which ones to execute.”

According to Chief Justice John Roberts he does!

DannyX

April 20th, 2011
3:22 pm

“Unscientific push polls foisted on the chattering classes prove only the gullibility of the dolts who want to believe the supposed results.”

Lol. You have nothing.

rob

April 20th, 2011
3:30 pm

Hey, “UGA graduate”. First of all, you don’t seem to understand that every plaintiff or defendant is entitled to legal representation, no matter the issue, and second, you spell the word “asinine”, not “assine”.

King

April 20th, 2011
3:36 pm

Hey Spalding, better run out and hire some minorities so everyone will be happy with us. What? No, it doesn’t matter that we have already hired the best and brightest – it’s diversity that counts.

Blackneck

April 20th, 2011
3:38 pm

Gays people have on place in this world! LMAO! Rights! You have the right to be disrespected!

JesusFreak

April 20th, 2011
3:39 pm

Fact is, most people DO oppose sham marriages which is what gay unions are. The very definition of the word marriage is that the two complement each other, as in man and woman or the phrase a “marriage” of flavors. Gays by very definition don’t complement, they are the exact same thing, hence, no marriage! Two of one kind together isn’t a marriage, it is an abomination of nature. The end of the species, and the end of humankind as reproduction comes to a standstill. You can’t argue with facts! Do all the perverted things you want, just don’t impose them upon society. You can skew all those polls, anyone who is a statistician knows that all too well. Let’s not let John Q Public believe that he is in the minority because “all” the polls show favor for such atrocities, the fact is it is weird and most are not in favor. Try explaining that weird situation to your child, uh – husband and husband? wife and wife? Too strange to even try it. Not normal is a better explanation, and pretending to be normal is what they are trying to do. Sorry, just telling it like it is. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Not bashing an individual, just their demeaning lifestyle.

Biff

April 20th, 2011
3:40 pm

So sick of perverts! Back in the closet. There’s not a dimes difference in most homo-sexuals and child molestors.

ATLDawg, ya dig?

April 20th, 2011
3:41 pm

Lawyers are hired to advance their clients cases. Conservatives were wrong to blast law firms who defended guantanamo detainees. Same here. Clement teaches seperation of powers at Georgetown law. Seems a perfect hire to argue a profoundly consequential seperation of powers issue….which is what this case is about. The holding in this case will effect executive-congressional relations for generations.

The budget arguments are bologne. City of Atlanta would spend $500,000 litigating the color of a stop sign. Let alone the federal government. $500,000 is a fraction of a fraction of a drop in the bucket. And for a holding that can bolster the power of Congress for the next 50 years….hmm, seems a pretty good investment.

GaBlue

April 20th, 2011
3:47 pm

Y’all are right. Gay marriage is not yet a “right.” However, “equal protection under the law” is something we should all expect to be our “right” as Americans. So, when the law recognizes Steve & Betty’s 9-yr-2-kid marriage that ends with the lining of lawyer pockets and split custody, the law should also recognize Liz & Deb’s decision to do the same. It’s Liz & Deb’s (and Matt & Brendan’s) right to expect the same from their gubmit as Steve & Betty. And until the gubmit does that, it’s everybody’s right to beetch, moan, & boycott until it does! Wooo-HOOO!

Christy

April 20th, 2011
3:48 pm

The biggest concern I have with this is the fact the Repubs are wasting 520$ an hour for this and I’m a conservative.

Kevin

April 20th, 2011
3:49 pm

So the country is broke, $12B in debt actually, but Republicans think it’s good to hire a lawyer at $520 an hour to defend a law about marriage – even though the Federal Gov’t has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a State issue — and don’t Republicans think the State’s should decide for themesleves. I guess the GOP is for big / expensive (at least $520/hour expensive) government.

G19

April 20th, 2011
3:53 pm

Why did you have to use UGA Graduate to post. Please use spell check or a UF Grad nom de plume.

songbird

April 20th, 2011
3:54 pm

JesusFreak – gays have always been around and the population keeps growing. The planet is actually becoming overpopulated. I don’t think the gays will cause the end of the species. Idiots with nuclear bombs will probably be the end of the species. Or we will destroy ourselves because we keep destroying our environment.

songbird

April 20th, 2011
3:55 pm

Biff – you are a moron. Most child molesters aren’t gay.

Ashley

April 20th, 2011
4:00 pm

I have always wonder why the ceremony of marriage is the only institution that can be perform in a church or at city hall. I personally don’t believe in marriage. We keep talking about the sacredness of marriage and all the grace that goes along with it, but why are there so many broken or publicity seeking marriages, not to mention reality show that exploit marriage for profit. A person getting married 3 or 4 times (sounds to me like its trial and error) if this is what marriage has been reduce to, I say if two human beings want to get marrying let them, because heterosexual aren’t doing a good job of it. If history serves me correctly marriage was more of a contract or arrangement(sic) to produce MALE heirs or gain allies , there wasn’t a lot of loving but there sure was alot of dealmaking with the woman being the pawn. In closing I really don’t see how two people of the same gender compromises anything a man and a woman might do, unless the two same-sex people actually love each other and truly want to spend eternity together.

Biff

April 20th, 2011
4:03 pm

songbird, how do you know? The thing that homos and child molestors have in common is that their wires are crossed. They are unnaturally sexually attracted to others who are not capable of natural reproduction. Say like a dude getting jiggy wid it with a prime breedable chick. Same could be said of freaks who commit bestiality. A dude has a serious problem if he wants another dude probing his nether regions.

Lexi

April 20th, 2011
4:04 pm

DannyX-I have a degree in statistics from an upper tier school. I’m quite comfortable that the polls cited prove the biases of those offering them to advocate, openly or not, for gay marriage and are not scientifically sound.

Curious that the loudest, shrillest advocates of “tolerance” tolerate only those who sing with the same voices as the advocates.

RGB

April 20th, 2011
4:04 pm

This is another Obama flip-flop. Candidate Obama supported marriage between one man and one woman. But President Obama failed to keep his word….again.

Like he did on closing Gitmo, “those illegal wars”, creating jobs, reducing the deficit, transparency in government, halting Iran’s nuclear program–somebody stop me.

I suppose Eric Holder would have defended the law, but heterosexuals must not be “his people”.

ATF

April 20th, 2011
4:08 pm

Unbelievable. We have too little money for medical care for the indigent and children, too little money for unemployment in an economy with 10% unemployment, too little money for indigent defense, mental health care, jails, education, roads, public safety – too little, but the Republicans will spend our money in a religious battle.

Denying government benefits to gay couples will not make more straight people marry or stay married. Gay rights will not reduce the number of people who cheat on their spouses. Gay marriage will not reduce spousal abuse or child abuse. It is a feel good for people who have no tolerance for those who are different.

Doug

April 20th, 2011
4:09 pm

I can’t believe Irony said Clement is the “best oral advocate in the country.” He ought to get an ad on Craig’s List, then.

songbird

April 20th, 2011
4:10 pm

Biff, the data doesn’t support your assertion. Pedophiles don’t only prey on boys.

Vocabulary

April 20th, 2011
4:10 pm

Okay folks, nobody said Obama wouldn’t be enforcing it anymore, just not defending it. SO… enforcement: v.tr. “To compel observance of or obedience to.” & defend: v.tr. “To make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.” Got it?

RGB

April 20th, 2011
4:12 pm

“So the country is broke, $12B in debt actually,….”

Gosh, now I FINALLY realize our problem. Libs don’t know whether we’re $12B in debt or $12T in debt. What’s a “T” between friends?

Actually, the U.S. has a national debt of more than $14 TRILLION–roughly $6 TRILLION more than when Nancy Pelosi was sworn into office as Speaker through the beginning of Boehner’s tenure (75% growth rate).

By the way, can I borrow a trillion dollars? I’ll pay you back $1.5B a year hence which is 50% interest. ; )

Doug

April 20th, 2011
4:15 pm

For all you HOMOPHOBES (most of you will have to look that up in the Dictionary) who don’t believe in gay rights, read this from today’s news in Austin TX: Jose Alfonso Aviles who is 45 has been charged with capital murder after killing his daughter’s girlfriend and her mother in Southeast Austin.

Biff

April 20th, 2011
4:15 pm

I believe there are more homos and child molestors around now because natural selection is no longer at work. Since the advent of agriculture humans no longer advance in fact we regress. The extremely weak and perverted are now protected and allowed to breed. Many homos reproduce as do child molestors and look at the result, a sick society. You politically correct idiots rock on and continue to destroy the world right in front of your eyes.

george

April 20th, 2011
4:17 pm

There is nothing unnatural about homosexuality, its part of our human nature..as old as mankind and part of the natural balance of nature..everybody was not meant to and should not breed..that should be painfully obvious..LOL

tater tot

April 20th, 2011
4:17 pm

Why be married anyway. Most str8’s are divorced soon enough if you look up statistics thus breaking a family home. The father does not pay child support which puts stress on the mother trying to make ends meet thus burdening other family members or friends for financial support and so forth. Yep, Glad i don’t live in Georgia no more. Too full of coonass bible beating rednecks who preach one thing then get caught with their hands down in all forms of perversion themselves later on down the road so S.T.F.U with your hateful comments jive turkey. Some of you could do well to live in other parts of the U.S. to learn about society and not staying where you are now screwing your sister so you can be the baby’s uncle as well as father !

SuperGeorge

April 20th, 2011
4:22 pm

From http://www.thegavoice.com

“The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force is among a group of national activist groups urging Georgia legislators and Gov. Nathan Deal to not allow immigration bills HB 87 and SB 40 become into law. If the bills do become law, the groups say a national boycott of Georgia will be planned.”

Let the Big Dawg Eat

April 20th, 2011
4:22 pm

This news must make all the gay lawyers at King & Spalding a bit nervous.

Anti-Lexi

April 20th, 2011
5:06 pm

Lexi – with your “degree in statistics from an upper tier school” where is your “scientifically sound” proof that most people oppose gay marriage? I suppose you have scientifically sound polls that prove it?

Tim

April 20th, 2011
5:08 pm

K& S is disgraceful, They probably already know they will lose this case..its clearly unconstititional..even 2 republican judges have already ruled that way..9 Supreme court justices in Iowa (again Republicans) also rule that way..there is not getting around the US Constitition..even though Religious groups keep trying..K and S will lose..and make a heft profit at the same time!!!
Defending discrimintion is always a losing battle..even if it takes awhile for Americans to realize it.

gary

April 20th, 2011
5:12 pm

Biff..your an imbecile. Want to go there? Open a newspaper..its the straight people who are killing, gang raping, molesting, and discriminating….not to mention if 97% of people are straight..its THEIR fault the world is falling apart..not the 3 % of gays. Using your disgusting slurs only goes to show your lack of intelligence.

Jerrold Fink

April 20th, 2011
5:27 pm

No particular problem with the firm/individuals in the firm representing a client/cause I or others might find abhorent. But, if true, K & S agreeing to a “gag order” to secure this work is outrageous ( in my opinion- Cite, The Good Wife; Season 2; Ep.18 )

Lexi

April 20th, 2011
5:50 pm

“Anti” there’s no need to have scientifically validated polls to know that the vast majority of normal people are against “gay marriage.” If that weren’t so gay advocates wouldn’t need to shop for sympathetic forums and judges in an effort to thrust the status on the great majority of people who oppose those unions, and Obama would not have needed to pretend (until recently) that the Dept of Justice was litigating to uphold the DMA.

Anti-Lexi

April 20th, 2011
6:02 pm

So the answer is that you have no real proof, just speculation. Yet you lash out at those who have at least provided some proof of the opposite. If the polls that they mentioned showed the opposite, I bet you would be refering to them as proof.

Anti-Lexi

April 20th, 2011
6:06 pm

Even better. At first you asked for “scientifically sound” proof, and now you say “no need to have scientifically validated polls”. So when you disagree with someone, they should have the proof, but you don’t need to have any. Classic!!!!

DannyX

April 20th, 2011
6:27 pm

Polls measuring American attitudes on gay marriage started in 1988, 12% of the public favored gay marriage back then. Less than 25 years later a majority now in favor gay marriage.

Lexi, do you think the Purple Teletubbies were actually able to subliminally program our children into accepting homosexuality as many leading Republicans believed back in the late 80’s.

Can the rapid acceptance of gay marriage be pinned on those now adult children? Programed to like gays and DADT and gay marriage?

Is this your proof of a conspiracy? This could be as big as the Birther issue.

Falwell was right! I guess this is proof too that we must get rid of gays and PBS. A twofer.

Joe

April 20th, 2011
6:36 pm

1) This is not a flip flop for Obama. Even in 2008, Obama ran on a platform that DOMA was unconstitutional and should be repealed.
2) Obama’s decision is not to defend DOMA. The administration does continue to ENFORCE DOMA though. there’s a difference.
3) Obama’s decision is neither unprecedented nor unconstitutional. In fact, in 1990, George HW Bush decided not to defend a law requiring minority ownership of broadcasters, a move that was supported by then Solicitor General John Roberts. If the name sounds familiar, it’s because he’s now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If the Chief Justice says it’s constitutional, it’s probably constitutional. George W. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, Kennedy, they’ve all taken the decision not to defend laws at one time or another.

Joe

April 20th, 2011
6:39 pm

Homosexual behavior is seen in over 450 species. Homophobia is only seen in one. Which one is “natural”?

Lexi

April 20th, 2011
6:43 pm

“Anti”/Auntie? One doesn’t need a poll to prove that the earth revolves around the sun, does one?

More empirical food for thought: Former federal judge Vaughn Walker, who struck down a California referendum (no less) banning “gay marriage” was just outed himself as a gay judge who violated (”allegedly”) several rules of ethics by failing to recuse himself from that show trial he conducted before striking down the law. Yep, even the voters of California oppose gay marirage and the judge had to hide his leanings in an effort to force his world view on that backwater state.

Obama is Wrong

April 20th, 2011
8:45 pm

Like one of the earlier posters said, “How can Obama choose which laws he will and won’t defend?” He swore an oath to faithfully defend the Office of the President of the United States. How is not defending the laws upholding his oath. One more lie out of the man’s mouth.

To those who say gays have the “right” to marriage, I say absolutely not. Their “rights” are being impeded by not being allowed to marry someone of the same sex. They are wanting additional rights because they don’t like the right they already have and is equally shared by everyone else – to marry anyone of the opposite sex that agrees to marry them. It is like saying I have a need for speed and my right to drive at 120 mph is being taken away from me. No, I have the right to drive at or under the speed limit as anyone else. Just because I might not like what society has deemed proper doesn’t mean my rights are being violated. Duh.

In my opinion, gays already have too many “rights”. I believe they are tearing apart the moral fabric of our society with their abherrent and abdominable behavior. I believe that they should not be allowed to have children and should not be allowed to work or volunteer with any organization (especially teaching, coaching, etc.) that involves children. The Bible is very clear that what they do is an abdomination before God. Anything that condones, permits, or promotes homosexual behavior should and must be outlawed. I believe that homosexuals should be institutionalized. We put others with mental problems in institutions why not homosexuals?

Gentry

April 20th, 2011
8:57 pm

I’m appalled that one of Atlanta’s premier and highly respected law firms would actively engage in defending discrimination. A short term profit for them will leave them tarnished forever. I’m happy to see some of the gay groups utilizing their freedom of expression in opposition to King & Spalding — and will happily support them with whatever boycotting scheme they concoct. Shame on King & Spalding.

td

April 20th, 2011
9:11 pm

Man you people are so naive. Do you not know that lawyers have no soul. They do not see any issue on a moral ground nor do they see color of an issue. The only thing they see is green. They will take any case anytime for the Green.

Pretty Cool

April 20th, 2011
11:11 pm

Here is an outstanding video of a child of lesbian parents. Seems he turned out pretty darn good! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

Ret

April 21st, 2011
12:17 am

Given the current failure rate for marriage, taxpayer money defending the institution is a waste of bucks. The solution is to give equal rights by using “marriaj” –or some similar spelling– for a consentual uniion between any two people who are not one man and one woman–like “he” to “she”, like “male” to “female” –equal rights by a different name. Problem solved–move on.

JJ

April 21st, 2011
12:25 am

Sacrificing the rights of minorities to make a buck. Ugh. They will get their comeuppance.

Anti-Lexi

April 21st, 2011
7:51 am

Lexi – “One doesn’t need a poll to prove that the earth revolves around the sun, does one?”

I love debating with people who get caught in their own traps. There is scientific proof that the earth revolves around the sun. You have yet to provide scientific proof that most Americans oppose gay marriage. Yet you insisted that others provide “scientifically sound” proof of the opposite. You then avoid the question by discussing the judge in California. Nothing you have said is scientific proof. You try to make arguments for your point that don’t have logical conclusions. Would you like to try again to provide the scientifically sound proof?

Tom

April 21st, 2011
8:22 am

Government shouldn’t be in the “marriage biz’ to start with.

Obama is Wrong

April 21st, 2011
8:39 am

Pretty Cool,

Your video proves my point. This man has been taught that immoral behavior of his “mothers” is acceptable and is trying to convince others. That is exactly the kind of demoralization of our society that occurs when children are exposed to such depravity.

Pretty Cool

April 21st, 2011
8:59 am

So exactly what are the negative results on this young man as a result of this “depravity”?

Lou Anne

April 21st, 2011
9:16 am

Obama is Wrong – First, your faulty comparison to speeding is laughable. Driving at 120 mph is obviously a danger to you and others on the road, therefore illegal. Allowing gay marriage will not affect your ability to marry, or affect your current marriage one iota. As for your bible references, the bible also says you can sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus), that adulterers need to be put to death (Leviticus), you shouldn’t eat shellfish (Leviticus), or even trim your beard (Leviticus). As for a demoralizaiton of society, your “morals” need not be impuned on society. (Remember what the bible says about judging?) The young man from the video, raised by lesbians, has obviously become a productive, thoughtful, well-spoken contributing member of society.

ROFL

April 21st, 2011
9:25 am

with all the items politicans could be doing the AJC throws out fodder like this;
NO ONE really cares about who you want to marry

How about Energy policy? or lack of one?
Fixing Obamacare?

These policitans are just throwing up misdirections; i still remember the congressmen in DC last year that went out in front of the Tea Party at the capital building waving a flag; it excited the crowd and knowing that the congressmen were thinking; “Ha, its so easy to trick these people”.

they talk a good game but it all about them in the end

Mike

April 21st, 2011
10:51 am

Wow, I’m not sure if that’s a good idea for our legal system to start protesting various law firms based on what clients they have on their roster. Can you imagine the implications at some of the criminal defense firms?

Obama is Wrong

April 21st, 2011
12:14 pm

Lou Anne,

You’re right, driving 120 mph is unsafe and illegal. The DOMA is in place to stop other illegal activity and K&S is helping to ensure the law is defended to keep us all safe. I’d much rather have a 120 mph car bearing down on me which I could possibly avoid than to have liberals trying to undermine the foundation of our society to achieve secular interests. You see the car will just impact me, whereas gay marriage affects society and my children, grandchildren, for years to come. The DOMA doesn’t just impose my morals on society, but the morals of Judeo/Christians for over 2000 years. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

I’m not in judgement of anyone, I feel sorry for the young man in the video that he was raised in a home that sought selfish sinful pursuits over understanding the need to separate yourself from sin. I believe what my parents taught me – Hate the sin but love the sinner. I attend a downtown church with a number of homosexuals. I try my best to love each of them, but I also hate the sin that they engage in, just as I’ve hated the adulterous sins of former family friends. I believe that each one of them should be in therapy to help understand and correct why they engage in such abberent behavior. That is what I mean by institutionalizing gays – get them the help/therapy they need to overcome their problem. That is not judgement, that is love, tough love.

I will continue to encourage my government to enact laws to take us as a society away from sin, whether it be gay marriage, abortion, or any other depraved secular pursuits.

Lou Anne

April 21st, 2011
1:33 pm

Obama is Wrong – so what exactly is DOMA and K&S keeping you safe from….???? You seem to think that gay marriage will affect your children, grandchildren, for years to come, but how exactly? What is the effect? And you are absolutely right in accepting YOUR Judeo/Christian morals, but you have not right to impose them on others. Nor is it your right to turn this country, which exists on the principles of separation of church and state, in a theocracy. You practice what you want, your personal views is not the basis for discrimination against others.

ed

April 21st, 2011
1:51 pm

Hey conservatives…don’t say a dang word about budget cutting! If you want your tax payer dollars used to keep two people from loving each other, then your arguments to cut other govt spending are meritless! Wake up!

Anti-Lexi

April 21st, 2011
2:23 pm

“Obama is wrong” – I’m curious to know how you determine what Judeo/Christian morals a sin and which are not. The Bible has thousands of things it says are a sin, but I bet you don’t believe every one of them is. So how to do you separate them (like eating shellfish is a sin)? Not long ago interracial marriage was considered a sin, but we moved passed that, or do you still consider that a sin?

Also, if someone is born deaf, do we say that they need therapy? No, they just live their life as a deaf person. There is nothing wrong with that. Why can’t you believe that some people are just born gay? A guess what, those gay people are made in God’s image just like the deaf or blind person.

Yep

April 21st, 2011
2:39 pm

I think that every straight soldier should be allowed to honorably exit the armed forces once don’t ask don’t tell is finally ratified IF they feel uncomfortable showering or bunking with homosexuals. The reason being is that they were recruited with certain expectations and now have to defend their own personal or religious rights against a pro homosexual agenda to allow a behavior in the ranks that was formerly suppressed.

This legislation will hurt our military in the long run.

Obama is Wrong

April 21st, 2011
4:41 pm

Lou Anne,

DOMA is trying to keep us safe from society falling deeper down the tubes of immorality and chaos, just like we suffered as a society when school prayer was abolished and after Roe v. Wade. I grew up in the sixties and watched as morals crumbled under the laws and court decisions. There no longer is corporate punishment in the schools, no prayer, we have no-fault divorces and marriage has become an inconvenience to some. So, yes society as a whole is going in the crapper (excuse my language). Just look at today’s news of a teen being beaten, shot and burned in FL. We have become a mean society, a selfish one. I want my children and grandchildren to live in a better Christian society – not a secular one. Not a society more concerned with following the politically correct path instead of the Godly one.

I’m not imposing my Judeo/Christian morals on anyone, the Judeo/Christian morals were the foundation for laws and social behavior for over 2000 years. I simply want them to continue and hopefully be strengthened. I believe DOMA helps to do that.

You are wrong when you say that this country exists on the principle of separation of church and state. That concept, I believe, was not brought forth until a Supreme Court decision (penned by Hugo Black?). Like any Supreme Court decision, it can be subsequently overruled, just like I hope someday Roe v Wade will be and the decision not to conduct school prayer.

What you call discrimination, I call standing up for moral and principled behavior. Look, I’m not calling for gays to be put to death or stoned (see Islam), just that they get help and not try to cram their immoral views on the rest of society. They need to learn to live like the rest of us, not to satisfy their own selfish interests.

Anti-lex,

Judeo/Christian morals are not a sin, the absence of those morals, or the failure to follow them is a sin. I don’t know about thousands, but yes, the Bible does have lots of issues that are called out as a sin. And yes, I am a sinner, just like you and others as I/we don’t follow what the Bible, Gods Word and his laws, expect from us. However, I do try to separate myself from sin and do follow His laws as best I can, but yes I do fall short. That is why I am happy to be a Christian as Jesus told us that we can receive God’s grace and be forgiven of our sins by believing in Him.

Yes, I do believe that inter-racial marriage is a sin. I don’t believe God wants the races to mix.

And no, you wouldn’t get a deaf person therapy, but you would get them help such as a hearing aid. And for a gay person you get them therapy. I believe that God gave us the ability to distinguish right from wrong, to make choices. We can choose to follow him and believe in him, or not. However, just as with any other decision, our choices have consequences which we may not be happy with.

BobC562

April 21st, 2011
7:17 pm

All the DOJ said it was not going to do is defend it on the grounds that it’s constitutional. It didn’t say that it wasn’t going to defend it at all. But another little twist is that the firm is prohibiting all its employees, whether they’re on the case or not, and apparently firm-wide, to comment or work or have anything to do with DOMA defense or repeal. Since that restriction comes out of the contract with the government, it’s pretty clear illegal prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment becasue the firm’s now acting with the imprimature of the state.

Gentry

April 21st, 2011
7:20 pm

For those of you that are opposed to gay marriage — I’ll post a link to a YOUTUBE video where someone ASKS participants a a TEA PARTY rally THIS WEEK in New Hampshire. HOW has gay marriages affected them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yVltbQPi58

Feel free to continue posting your bigotry.

It only make YOU (as well as King and Spalding) look small.

WE — as the MAJORITY of a nation — REJECT discrimination on ALL FRONTS — even misinterpretations of religious documents.

Tired of BS

April 21st, 2011
7:25 pm

I have compassion for your situation but Jeezus people. Don’t you think it’s time to drink a cup of stfu? You’re acting like whining, screaming children.

You want tolerance and yet you have none!

Surely U Jest

April 21st, 2011
11:16 pm

When discrimination needed a champion, history will note that King and Spalding was there to lead the charge. The outcome of the case doesn’t matter, the firm is forever tainted. When they slapped a gag order on all associates, they went beyond the norm of providing neutral representation and crossed over to promoting the cause advocated by their client.

Steve From Dalton

April 22nd, 2011
4:29 pm

I agree “Discrimination, no matter how profitable, is never good business.” So let’s start by getting rid of Affirmative action.

Edward

April 23rd, 2011
8:40 am

As an openly gay man living in Georgia, I’ve exercised my 2nd Amendment right to own a gun. I’ve also exercised my right to have a license to carry that gun as a means of protection against some of you imbeciles that are so prevalent around here. I will also make use of the law that allows me to use my weapon any time I feel physically threatened. As Dirty Harry said, “Go ahead, make my day.”

edgewaterprog

April 23rd, 2011
1:42 pm

Obama is Wrong – You attend a downtown church with a group of people whom you consider sinners set on destroying civilization? And your only statement is “love the sinner, hate the sin”?

To OiW and the rest of the people on here arguing for the sanctity of “traditional” marriage.

1. I would like to remind you that the LGBT rights and marriage equality movements had nothing to do with the disintegration of marriage in this country. That process started long before either movement began and was purely the work of heterosexuals and a lot of Christian heterosexuals who decided that they wanted to change the meaning of marriage. That horse long left the stable. I do not see any real movement to legally strengthen heterosexual marriage. Divorce laws are still being liberalized, the marriage rate is still climbing, and the rate of cohabitation is rising. These trends have occurred regardless of the status of gay rights.

2. Marriage has been declared a “fundamental” right by the Supreme Court. That means that the opponents have to prove why gays should not be permitted to marry.

3. Arguments have beeen made that this is part of a secularist strategy. My response is, “so if it is?” The last time I checked, this country does not have an established religion or denomination and discussions about whether this fits into some sort of Judeo-Christian worldview are moot since there are pleanty of sincere Christians and Jews who do not believe that the biblical prohibitions to same-sex relationships apply any longer.

4. Some comments were made on here about how heterosexual relationships “bring the two great parts of humanity together”, ala NOM and Maggie Gallagher. This statement is posed as some kind of philosophical statement without bearing in religious teachings. That argument is in fact an innovative notion of the traditional understanding of marriage. Marriage was understood in most cultures during most historic periods (Judeo-Christian cultures included) as being the transfer of a piece of property from one man (her father) to another man (her husband). The children that resulted from this economic activity were often a contractual obligation or an afterthought. Ms. Gallagher’s notion which is quoted above, seems to assume that women have full equality in marriage. This idea is obviously not a traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage but it is very modern. So, as is usually the case, if the religious right make up new rights or understandings of the Bible, it is unarguable. If others attempt to do the same thing, society is sliding down the slippery slope to oblivion.

It has become obvious to everyone involved in the politics of LGBT rights (including somewhat belatedly the Obama Administration), that the opinions of the public are changing fast. The right wing is making a strong effort to codify the status quo of marriage law into Federal Court opinion. All of the effort over the past ten years for a marriage amendment and the current situation of the House Republicans hiring an expensive insider law firm to handle the defence of DOMA.

daily planet

April 23rd, 2011
8:50 pm

Actually, recent polling (past couple years) shows a plurality or majority of Americans favoring same sex marriage:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/

That said, I’m not sure HRC’s strategy is all that smart. Unpopular positions, like unpopular criminal defendants, are still entitled to a fair hearing. Only a few decades ago, a law firm could have been picketed and generally reviled for having an attorney take a pro-gay-rights position. I’d rather see HRC find some more direct way to make their point.

Karen

April 25th, 2011
11:59 am

KIng & Spalding is currently spending client money to defend Gitmo terrorist for free. Yet, the refuse to defend a law. King & Spalding does not believe in those who respect traditional marriage to have their day in court, but support those who fly planes into building, targets Jew and Christians?

King & Spalding forgot what lawyers do. They gave into far-left extremists, and all of their current clients will receive millions of letters from those who respect marriage. Boycott King & Spalding – the law firm that defends terrorists but not families.

crossdawg

April 25th, 2011
1:49 pm

If King & Spaulding are scared of a bunch of misfits, they should close thrie doors.

observer

April 25th, 2011
2:53 pm

@ Obama Is Wrong- I’m not sure what you mean by “corporate” punishment. I think the term is “corporal” punishment. Also, could you address the issues brought up by Lou Anne? You addressed only the homosexual part. How can we Christians cherry-pick what we want to accentuate in society? I am a Christian, yet I don’t place the same emphasis on condemning homosexuality as you and a lot of others do. It is not listed as a Commandment, which is what I was taught were the most important tenets of Christianity. How do you explain people choosing to harp on homosexuality and ignoring other condemnations in the bible (the eating of shellfish, trimming of the beard, support of slavery) ? Please address these issues and why they aren’t at the forefront of a national debate? Is slavery right to you? Thank you!

[...] practice group of a major national Law Firm, I’ve found myself uncomfortable with the demonization of Clement and K&S and with the insistence by some gay-rights supporters that defending DOMA’s constitutionality [...]

[...] practice group of a major national law firm, I’ve found myself uncomfortable with the demonization of Clement and K&S and with the insistence by some gay-rights supporters that defending DOMA’s constitutionality [...]

Keggie

April 26th, 2011
7:09 am

And our taxpaper money has helped this firm become what it is today. To bad they bowed to special interest groups from OUTSIDE THE STATE, rather than representing the people of Georgia and what the majority of the people want. Would they change their mind again if WE demonstrated in front of their offices? I doubt it. We the people of Georgia can provide them no “political, liberal clout”!

[...] practice group of a major national law firm, I’ve found myself uncomfortable with the demonization of Clement and K&S and with the insistence by some gay-rights supporters that defending DOMA’s constitutionality [...]

[...] appellate practice group of a major national law firm, I’ve found myself uncomfortable with the demonization of Clement and K&S and with the insistence by some gay-rights supporters that defending DOMA’s constitutionality is [...]