Ed Whelan at NRO's Bench Memos with the breaking news:
According to Politico, the King & Spalding law firm, which had agreed to serve as counsel to the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, is now backing out of the representation. Its about-face is a craven caving to pressure from gay-rights groups. King & Spalding chairman Robert Hays deserves special recognition as a profile in cowardice.
In response to the King & Spalding decision, superstar lawyer (and former Solicitor General) Paul D. Clement has just resigned from the firm "effective immediately."
...Clement will continue representing the House of Representatives in his new capacity with Bancroft PLLC.
We have been noting the harassment and intimidation tactics used by gay rights groups (particularly the Human Rights Campaign) against King & Spalding over the previous days. More from us soon.
Marc Mutty, chairman of the successful Stand for Marriage Maine campaign, responds to a new movie trailer and resulting commentary that, he says, "served to mischaracterize my positions on same-sex marriage and on the Question 1 campaign". An excerpt:
First and foremost, let me say directly that I fully support the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman...
Second, this campaign was a long, painful process, made all the more difficult by the fact that the campaign staff and I were harassed and threatened repeatedly, to the point that I was concerned for the safety of my staff and our families.
Our computers were hacked, our campaign office was vandalized, death threats were made and our family members were shunned and verbally attacked.
Why? Simply because we worked on a campaign that presented a view, a majority view I might add, that marriage is between one man and one woman.
It was with this in mind that I said I would never do such a campaign again, knowing the toll it would take on my personal health, and on the well-being of my staff given the degree of antagonism that our position generated from some gay activists and their supporters.
... But in the end, to me, and to the majority of voters here and in 30 other states nationwide, the true definition of marriage is worth defending in law, despite the personal attacks and political invective that its supporters faced.
Andrew Cohen, who has served as chief legal analyst and legal editor for CBS News and won a Murrow Award as one of the nation's leading legal analysts and commentators, writes in The Atlantic:
The Human Rights Campaign's misguided case against Paul Clement's law firm ignores the basic tenets behind the counsel of law
The Los Angeles Times's editorial writers have it right when they point out that the Human Rights Campaign has it wrong about Congress's decision to hire Paul Clement to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. Clement's fancy law firm has been hired by Republicans in the House of Representatives to pick up where the Justice Department left off when it decided a few months ago that a key section of the statute should no longer be defended by the government in pending DOMA cases wending their way through the federal courts.
Every client has a right to a lawyer. In a perfect world, every client can choose and pay for a lawyer, and defending the constitutionality of a federal statute (which with approximately 50 percent of all Americans still agree) is no disgrace. If I were Rep. John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, I would probably have chosen Clement, too, to take up the cause. The former U.S. Solicitor General is an excellent attorney and advocate, a conservative, and someone who is familiar with political cases and Supreme Court procedure. It's a no-brainer.
Is everyone entitled to a lawyer? Not in HRC's eyes. HRC is openly attempting to hurt an entire law firm, because one of its lawyers took on a client HRC does not like: the House's defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.
This kind of thing has been done behind the scenes many times--the use of class power behind the scenes to punish those who disagree with HRC on marriage. (I just spoke to the wife of a litigator in San Francisco who lost his job--was denied a partnership--because he donated to Prop 8.)
But this is even worse, and very public: the attempt to punish an entire business enterprise because a lawyer defends what is in HRC's eyes an unpopular client.
Will the legal culture permit HRC to tell it who can hire a lawyer? We'll see.
Protect Marriage, the official proponents of Prop 8, filed a killer legal response to the argument by gay marriage advocates that higher courts may not review Judge Walker's ruling, because ballot initiative proponents lack the standing to sue. A summary is here.
I love the quote from legal eagle Chuck Cooper's brief:
"[I]nitiative proponents have authority under state law to represent the State's interest in defending the validity of initiatives; in doing so, official proponents act as agents of the People, to whom this interest ultimately belongs," according to the brief authored by Cooper, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com.
Those opposed to the gay marriage ban had argued in a brief earlier this month that ProtectMarriage is out of luck because it lacks authority under the California Constitution to take up a fight that the governor and state attorney general have abandoned.
Cooper countered Tuesday that the authority exists in state precedent. "[T]he California courts have repeatedly allowed official proponents to vindicate the People's interest in defending initiatives when elected officials will not," according to the 40-page argument, supplemented by 12 additional pages.
This is par for the course. Gay rights activists attempting to punish any Trump business for Trump's stance:
Donald Trump's bluster may be raising the would-be GOP presidential candidate's poll numbers and ginning up ratings for his reality-TV show, but his remarks about same-sex marriage are already causing problems for his hotels and casinos.
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation posted an online list of all Trump hospitality and entertainment properties, urging readers to "consider Trump's decision to stand against LGBT families when you're deciding whether to patronize" any of them.
And a spokeswoman for the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association, which has 2,200 travel industry-related members, told AOL News that it will discuss at its May board meeting whether to boot Trump's hotel-condos in New York and Las Vegas as members.
Already, many gay travel agents are directing customers elsewhere.
The bill not only requires teaching of gay history, it bans any criticism of gay historical figures, or religion. There is no parental opt-out (related story here):
In a show titled "From the Front Lines of the Culture War" for the new Catholic Radio of San Diego, our friend Charles Limandri interviews NOM President Brian Brown.
Thomas Messner at the Heritage Foundation writes about emerging threats to conscience, including threats posed by SSM:
People and groups with traditional understandings of sexual morality, including the understanding that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, face at least two types of burdens on conscience. The potential for conflicts already exists under nondiscrimination laws that treat marital status, sexual orientation, and gender as protected statuses. Redefining marriage would increase the number of conflicts.
... In New Mexico, a family-owned photography business declined to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” because the owners’ religious beliefs conflict with the message communicated by the ceremony. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission prosecuted the small business under the state’s sexual orientation nondiscrimination law and demanded that it pay thousands of dollars in costs.
In Illinois, “[j]ust one month after Governor Patrick Quinn signed the civil union bill into law, a homosexual couple [] filed complaints with both the Illinois Attorney General and the Illinois Department of Human Rights for the refusal of two innkeepers to rent out their privately owned bed and breakfasts for a civil union ceremony and reception.” The complaints reportedly alleged that the innkeepers violated the Illinois Human Rights Act, “which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by businesses open to the public.” According to one report, one of the bed and breakfasts is owned by “a Christian father of five children who has been deluged with vicious, hateful emails and phone calls.”
Conflicts like the ones in Illinois and New Mexico will only become more common if states redefine marriage or enact other legal recognitions for homosexual unions. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty studied more than 1,000 state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, or marital status and found that more than “350 separate state anti-discrimination provisions would likely be triggered by recognition of same-sex marriage.”
Read the full report, with many more examples, here.
[T]he make-up of the Senate has shifted since 2009: five senators who voted no then [on SSM] have been replaced by legislators committed to vote yes, while three yes votes have been replaced with nays. The result: advocates have 26 of the 32 votes required for passage. (Times Union)
Coming soon to a billboard near you, beaucoup bucks being spent on a new "education" campaign:
On their website, they explain they are currently targeting Catholics, Evangelicals, Southern Baptists and Mormons. But how soon before they also include the Orthodox, Conservative Jews, and well, every denomination represented on lists like this one?
The marriage debate, as we know, is heating up again in New York. This from the Wall Street Journal:
"...the [SSM] bill is still a hard sell for a number of Republicans, even those in more moderate districts. An important factor is pressure from the state Conservative Party, a small but influential third party that has given a number of vulnerable Republicans a decisive boost in tight races.
Conservative Party chairman Michael Long said the state party wouldn't endorse any Republican who votes for the bill. "I feel very strongly that we will prevail. We consider it a line in the sand and very detrimental to a legislator if he or she votes to destroy marriage as we know it," he said.
Brian Ellner with the Human Rights Campaign replied:
"We will obviously be disappointed if the Conservative Party decides to make a position of conscience a litmus test for electoral support..."
Life, marriage and religious liberty--yes, those are all issues of conscience.
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson threw his hat in the ring yesterday. According to the Manchester Union Leader, his announcement speech was heavy on the economy light on "social" issues (like legalizing pot, or approving "gay unions"). But does he support gay marriage?
But while various sources, including Fox News, POLITICO.com and the New Mexico Independent, report that Johnson is a “strong” supporter of gay marriage, his own website disagrees.
A page devoted to civil rights at the Our America Initiative website notes that “Governor Johnson does support gay and civil unions. However, he does not support gay marriage.”
Q: Isn’t the true libertarian position to support gay marriage? Johnson: I’ve taken the position that I support gay unions.
Q: Why not marriage? What’s the difference? Johnson: Right or wrong, that’s what I’m advocating.
Q: So it might be wrong? Johnson: Look, it’s the notion that government probably shouldn’t be involved in marriage in the first place.
Q: Do you draw the line at marriage because you are religious? Johnson: I was raised a Christian. I’d like to think I have Christian values. I don’t attend church.
And finally, interviews like this (hop to 1:52 in this clip):
W. Bradford Wilcox, Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute writes in the Public Discoursethat "Cohabitation does not serve the “best interest” of children, regardless of what the courts say."
[According to a new federal study,] children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents. Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself in is a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend—especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself.
But children living with their own father and mother do not fare much better if their parents are only cohabiting. The federal study of child abuse found that children living with their cohabiting parents are more than four times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than their peers living in a home headed by their married parents. And they are three times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents.
... This latest study confirms what a mounting body of social science has been telling us for some time now. The science tells us that children are not only more likely to thrive but are also more likely to simply survive when they are raised in an intact home headed by their married parents, rather than in a home headed by a cohabiting couple.
A communication from a good friend who LOVES Rick Santorum:
Thought you might be interested to see how Senator Rick Santorum is making headway in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
New Hampshire:
Rick Santorum has been to NH 14 times. More than any other candidate. He just won a NH Tea Party Straw Poll with 26%.
He is putting together a broad spectrum coalition of supporters that include social conservative, tea party members, old guard conservatives, fiscal conservatives, second amendment supporters and establishment party folks.
South Carolina:
RJS has been to SC 15 times. More than any other candidate.
The Senator just won the largest SC straw poll (Greenville County), April 9th. Rick appeared with Gingrich and Barbour at the straw poll and defeated them both. Rick defeated Gingrich 31% – 14% and Barbour 31% - 5% of the vote. The Greenville Straw poll was won by Huckabee in 2008.
Santorum finished 3rd in the Charleston County straw poll a week later (4/15). Rick did not appear at the Charleston Convention and managed a strong 3rd place finish. Barbour, who appeared at the convention won the straw poll with Romney finishing 2nd (1% higher than Rick). Romney finished 2nd in Charleston in the 2008 primary. Especially strong finish as Charleston is a fiscal conservative town where social conservatives typically do not fare well.
Rick finished 2nd in the Dorchester County straw poll on 4/16. Impressive showing for the Senator since he hasn’t visited Dorchester County since May 2010 with Gresham Barrett (Dorchester went heavy for Nikki Haley).
Compared to Haley, Newt, and Bachman, Rick has spent 1/10th the resources in SC and still has managed to win and run strong in the heavy GOP counties like Greenville, Aiken, Horry, Charleston and Dorchester.
Iowa:
Senator Santorum has been to Iowa eleven times since late 2009 and will be returning again on Monday, April 25.
"Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced today that Cody Brown, former campaign manager for Ben Lange's congressional run (IA-1) will manage Senator Santorum's testing the waters effort in Iowa. Cody will be joined by Lucas Draisey, former Chairman of the Iowa Federation of College Republicans, who will serve in a field director role. Cody and Lucas will join consultants Nick Ryan and Jill Latham of the Des Moines, IA-based Concordia Group LLC who have served as advisors to Senator Santorum for the past several months."
Ed Whelan at NRO's Bench Memos with the breaking news:
The marriage debate, as we know, is heating up again in New York. This from the 
