From The Wall Street Journal's Review and Outlook blog:

Is it now so politically incorrect to oppose gay marriage that a white shoe law firm will throw over a client rather than defend a law signed by President Bill Clinton? Apparently so, after yesterday's show of invertebrate representation by King and Spalding, the giant Atlanta-based law firm.

...The likely story here is that King and Spalding began to fear a political backlash after activists at the Human Rights Campaign launched a campaign to "educate" (read: intimidate) the firm's clients about "King and Spalding's decision to promote discrimination." Clients include Coca-Cola and other Fortune 500 giants that prefer to avoid hot-button social issues.

That's fair enough, but once a firm takes on a client it is the firmest of legal obligations to see a case through save for a clear conflict of interest. To drop a case under political pressure is especially unethical. Imagine the outcry if a firm of similar standing stopped defending Guantanamo detainees?

Whatever one thinks of Doma, it passed both houses of Congress with huge majorities, and Vice President Joe Biden was among 85 Senators who voted "aye." The law defines marriage as between a man and a woman and says states aren't obliged to honor gay marriages recognized in other states.

Social mores have changed in 15 years, but not so much that gay marriage should be imposed by judicial fiat in a way that further inflames the culture war. The Human Rights Campaign has every right to challenge Doma in court, but it does itself no honor by trying to deny that same right to Doma's supporters by harassing their legal counsel. As for King and Spalding, better not turn your back on its lawyers in a firefight.

"I think it’s important for lawyers on the other side of the political divide from Paul, who’s a very fine lawyer, to reaffirm what Paul wrote [in his resignation letter from King & Spalding]. Paul is entirely correct that our adversary system depends on vigorous advocates being willing to take on even very unpopular positions. Having undertaken to defend DOMA, he’s acting in the highest professional and ethical traditions in continuing to represent a client to whom he had committed in this very charged matter."

– Seth Waxman, former U.S. Solicitor General (under President Clinton) and current WilmerHale partner, commenting to Washingtonian magazine on the decision of fellow former S.G. Paul Clement to resign from King & Spalding and join Bancroft PLLC. At Bancroft, the D.C. boutique law firm founded by former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, Clement will continue to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives in its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). - Above the Law

Gay marriage activists have tried to claim that DOMA is "indefensible." Over at the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, William C. Duncan has published a legal analysis of DOMA (read it here) to see how it withstands these claims.

He explains the brief: "Examining precedent from various courts, it demonstrates that the weight of authority is strongly in favor of the argument that DOMA is constitutional and that there is no reason to believe that strong arguments can’t be made in its defense."

Jordan Lorence, Senior Vice-President and Senior Counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, contributes and points to even more compelling arguments that DOMA is constitutional.

From earlier today on NRO's The Corner blog, William C. Duncan:

News reports this morning indicate that King & Spalding — the law firm whose partner, former solicitor general Paul Clement, was slated to defend the Defense of Marriage Act — has decided to withdraw.

This follows a campaign of intimidation with threats from law schools and activist groups that retribution would follow if the firm continued to defend the law. This tantrum and its seeming success tell us that many on the left believe they have a veto on the principle that everybody deserves to be represented in court. It also suggests that there are few limits on what gay marriage supporters will do to marginalize those with whom they disagree.

It’s worth remembering, as Maggie Gallagher says, that this is what “marriage equality” means. Paul Clement’s principled stand, which Kathryn has noted, is a much-needed grown-up decision and a very powerful rebuke to the intimidators.