NOM BLOG

Matthew Franck on The King & Spalding Skedaddle

In the Public Discourse Matt Franck discusses the weird truth revealed by this incident: it now takes courage to stand up not only for marriage, but for basic norms of institutional integrity:

... intimidation—“mau-mauing the flak-catchers,” Tom Wolfe memorably called it—is now the default tactic of same-sex marriage advocates. What else, for instance, explains the antics of now-retired federal judge Vaughn Walker, who wanted to broadcast the Proposition 8 trial in California, and then broke his promise—and his legal duty—to keep the trial’s video record from public view? What else explains the instantaneous denunciation of all opponents of same-sex marriage as “haters”?

Resistance to such intimidation, in the name of the ethic of institutional integrity, is fast becoming the duty of all persons in positions of institutional responsibility, whatever their private views on homosexuality or same-sex marriage. When we witness such principled resistance, as in the case of Dean Evan Caminker’s decision to stick with Ohio Senator and alumnus Rob Portman as the commencement speaker at the University of Michigan’s law school—despite the outcry of those who object to Portman’s 1996 vote for DOMA as a House member—we should applaud it heartily.

A sage older colleague of mine is fond of saying that integrity is something you can have just by deciding to have it. But you do have to decide. It’s that easy, and that hard. But those who would sacrifice ethics and the integrity of our institutions to the victory of a political cause must be sharply rebuked by fair-minded conservatives and liberals alike.

Maggie in Politico on Boehner and DOMA

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher was quoted in Politico yesterday on Speaker Boehner's defense of DOMA:

“We were extremely pleased with Speaker Boehner’s decision to intervene. That improved our prospects of prevailing,” said Maggie Gallagher, who chairs the National Organization for Marriage, which has become an active voice in opposing same-sex marriage laws since its creation in 2007. “He has shown a commitment to the law. … This is not about legal or political theatrics. It’s about the defense of marriage.”

Gallagher warned against the familiar media narrative of concluding that Boehner’s role is merely for show or that he is not committed to the case. “Everyone knows that there will be a PR hit in the mainstream media for standing up on these issues,” she said. “The story line is that the GOP will abandon social conservatives. That hasn’t happened with Boehner. … He has been magnificent.”

... With the boost from Boehner, conservatives contend that they are on a roll on the marriage issue. Gallagher said that recent legislative and election success in several typically liberal states should dispel the conventional wisdom that gay marriage is a bad issue for Republicans.

Will Rhode Island Dems Adopt a Unifying Beneficiaries Bill?

RI Democrats appear to be trying to split the difference between the beneficiaries bill approved by local Bishop Tobin and a NJ-style civil unions bill, as ProJo reports:

State Rep. Peter Petrarca said on the floor of the state House of Representatives on Wednesday that he will introduce legislation as early as Thursday granting gay couples the right to "civil unions."

The proposal, he said, would borrow heavily from a bill that the Lincoln Democrat has already introduced this year that would give gay couples access to "reciprocal beneficiary agreements."

Stay tuned.

Speaker Fox Takes Heat From SSM Activists in RI for Supporting Civil Unions

Will Marriage Equality Rhode Island kill a civil unions bill in that state?

ProJo reports:

"House Speaker Gordon D. Fox, in an emotional appeal to gay marriage advocates protesting outside his State House office, said that his decision to support civil union legislation was a sign of the strong opposition by both the state House of Representatives and the state Senate for gay marriage, and did not mean that he was stepping away from his drive for full-fledged marriage rights.

... The protesters urged Fox to put a bill that would grant gay couples full marriage rights to a vote before the full state House of Representatives, something that they say the speaker promised to gay marriage advocates and that has never been done before in state history.

But after months of saying that there was strong support in the House for gay marriage, Fox conceded that he did not have the votes to pass the lower chamber.

... But protester Wendy Becker, of Providence, was unmoved. She said she was "unwilling to put discrimination in our laws, which is what civil union does."

Becker urged the speaker to place gay marriage before House members, saying that the bill would never pass in the Senate, where its leaders have long fought against it, until it passed first in the House."

US Bishops Hire Policy Advisor for Marriage and Family

A new arrow in the bishops' quiver:

Mr. Daniel Avila, Esq. has been hired as Policy Advisor for Marriage and Family within the USCCB. Mr. Avila formerly served at the Massachusetts Catholic Conference as Associate Director for Policy & Research since 1997. He has researched and written about marriage and its protection on various occasions, and is keenly familiar with the opportunities and challenges associated with the promotion and protection of marriage. Mr. Avila received his Juris Doctor from Valparaiso University School of Law. As the bishops work to advance the promotion and protection of marriage at the level of public policy, Mr. Avila's service and expertise will be an important component.

Congrats, Daniel!

Tired Meme Alert: MN Gay Marriage Advocates Tout Bogus Economic Arguments

We've seen this argument floated before, and now it has popped up again - this time in Minnesota:

"In so many ways, this constitutional amendment [defining marriage as between one man and one woman] is bad for Minnesota employers and a distraction from the real priority for the state: growing the economy," said Charlie Zelle, CEO of Jefferson Bus Lines and chair of the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce.

The above was taken from a press release issued by a pro-SSM group in MN.

Maggie Gallagher took a look at this claim that gay marriage is an economic development plan when it was last floated in Indiana and demonstrated how it is bogus in her syndicated column:

Consider the state-level data on per capita personal income growth between 1999 and 2009, published by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The top five states for income growth in that decade are: Wyoming, North Dakota, Louisiana, Montana and Oklahoma. Four of the five states with the fastest income growth per capita have state marriage amendments, and none have gay marriage.

Or consider another potential measure of a state's business climate: What do CEOs think? Chief Executive magazine annually surveys 543 CEOs to identify which states are the best and the worst for job growth and business. In 2009, the top five states for job growth in CEOs' opinions were: Texas, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee. Four out of five have marriage amendments, and none have gay marriage.

(The worst? California, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, and yes, Massachusetts.)

Or consider another data point that comes from a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, "Enterprising States," which includes a ranking for what it called "middle-class job growth." These are presumably the good jobs that the creative class seeks or fosters.

The top five states for middle-class job growth between 2002 and 2009 are: Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, Hawaii and Texas. Once again, four out of the five have state marriage amendments, and none have gay marriage.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also compiles a list of states that are the top "overall growth performers": North Dakota, Virginia, South Dakota, Maryland and Wyoming. The top three all have state marriage amendments, and none have gay marriage. [Maryland has since rejected same-sex marriage as well.]

And back in 2004 Steven Malanga wrote a devastating critique of this "creative class" meme: The Curse of the Creative Class.

FRC's Perkins: Who Decides Who Gets Lawyers? SSM Activists or the Constitution?

From Family Research Council Tony Perkins' Washington Update:

The people who avoid a debate are the ones afraid of losing. That's why the groups like GetEQUAL and others are forming what is basically a mobile protest unit. [This week], its activists rallied outside the offices of King & Spalding--only to learn that its attorneys had bailed on the case. So what did they do? Hopped in the car, drove across town to Paul Clement's new firm, and started demonstrating there. "I think Bancroft PPLC just bought itself a world of pain," wrote one blogger. "Go get them!!!"

As far as they're concerned, the Constitution doesn't decide who gets lawyers--homosexuals do. Those intimidation games may have worked before, but don't count on it now, says the Washington Post. "It may just be that dumping the House of Representatives as its client is proving to be potentially more... damaging to the firm than sticking by a client."

Breaking News: Judge Grants Expedited Hearing on Motion to Compel Return of Prop 8 Tapes

Yet another new development in the Prop 8 case: Judge James Ware has set the hearing on Protect Marriage's motion to compel Judge Walker to return the videos of the Prop 8 trial to coincide with their separate motion to also vacate his judgment, which was recently set for June 13, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.

Stay tuned for the latest updates.

Video: Seeking the Vote to Define Marriage in MN

A compilation of video clips of this week's presser introducing a marriage amendment in the Minnesota Senate (also includes a photo from NOM's Summer for Marriage tour):

URGENT ACTION! MN Marriage Amendment Needs Your Support Today!

The Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee has just announced a hearing on the Minnesota marriage amendment at noon tomorrow. It appears that Minnesotans may finally get the chance to vote on marriage, but only if you take action today!

Jennifer Roback Morse

NOM's own Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse will be there to testify, and opposition groups are already organizing to "pack the hearing." Please, if you can possibly make time in your schedule tomorrow, come to the Capitol for the noon hearing. Come early if you can to make sure you get a seat. And even if you can't make it, please take 5 minutes to send an email to your state senator right now.

  1. Click here to send a message to your state senator urging him or her to support the marriage amendment. Your message can help sway undecided legislators–and let the Republican leadership know you appreciate their willingness to finally bring the amendment to a vote. Soon, the people of Minnesota may finally have their chance to vote for marriage! But only if you take action today.
  2. Come to the hearing! Gay marriage groups will be out in force tomorrow—help make sure we have a strong showing from marriage supporters as well!

Date & Time Friday, April 29, 2011
12:00 pm
Location Senate Judiciary Committee
Minnesota State Capitol
Room 15
75 Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Directions Click here for directions to the hearing.

And don't forget to tell your friends! Or even carpool together to the hearing! Many of you have been working for this moment for years . . . now is the time to step up and help push across the finish line!

Video: Legal Eagle Keith Sullivan Goes After Kirk & Spalding and HRC

Note how the People for the American Way spokeswoman doesn't even want to address the extraordinary campaign to prevent legal representation:

Victory in Rhode Island!! NOM Marriage News April 28, 2011

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Breaking news! Thanks to you, marriage has won another tremendous victory in yet another deep blue state: Rhode Island.

Gay Marriage Dead

Speaker Gordon Fox, after claiming for weeks that he had the votes to pass gay marriage, has just thrown in the towel.

"Based on individual discussions with many of you, I understand how difficult the marriage equality issue has been. Based on your input, along with the fact that it is now clear to me that there is no realistic chance for passage of the bill in the Senate, I will recommend that the House not move forward with a vote on the marriage equality bill during this legislative session," Speaker Fox wrote to his colleagues.

Just a few short months ago, this same Speaker Fox was pledging to push a gay marriage bill quickly through the House.

As late as April 13, Marriage Equality Rhode Island was telling its supporters to "prove NOM wrong," accusing us of "unfounded claims about the state of marriage equality" when I told you that the allegedly inevitable drive for gay marriage was faltering and "another tremendous victory was within our grasp."

Now, thanks to you, that victory is here! Together, by the grace of God, we've proved the pundits' relentless message of despair wrong once again!

Thanks to Bishop Tobin's tremendous leadership in Rhode Island, thanks to the Hispanic Pastoral Association which delivered thousands of petitions from Hispanic Christians in deeply Democratic districts, and thanks to thousands of ordinary Rhode Islanders who rose up to tell their political reps: Don't mess with marriage.

We knew something big was breaking when Kathy Kushnir, the Executive Director of MERI—the leading group advocating for gay marriage in that state—abruptly resigned after failing even to get the gay marriage bill out of committee in another state that was supposed to be a slam dunk for gay marriage this year. (We knew that because the heads of Equality Maryland and Equality California faced similar fates when gay marriage lost in both states.)

My hope is that Speaker Fox will pursue a "reciprocal beneficiaries" bill which respects religious liberty and will not invite Rhode Island courts to strike down marriage, providing some practical benefits to same-sex couples—such as hospital visitation rights—without endangering the state's marriage laws. This is manifestly the will of the people in Rhode Island and the only way to bring people together rather than to continue to divide the state in the middle of a difficult budget battle.

In a rather belligerent statement, MERI spokesman Bill Fischer said his group will oppose any partnership-benefit bill except marriage: "Leadership in both in the House and Senate need to understand we have no intention of compromising on civil unions. By voting for legislation to establish civil unions, members of the General Assembly will essentially be legalizing a two-class system that subjects thousands of Rhode Island same-sex couples to discrimination."

Take a deep breath, and celebrate this victory—and meanwhile, stay tuned for the next fight!

MN Constitutional Amendment

More good news, in Minnesota: State senators Warren Limmer and Paul Gazelka introduced a marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

If the Minnesota Marriage Amendment passes both the House and the Senate, it will go to the people of Minnesota in November 2012, where it must gain a majority of all votes cast in the election in order to become part of Minnesota's constitution

"This issue constantly comes up during legislative sessions and it's time for the people to decide," said Sen. Limmer. "Allowing a small number of politicians or activist judges in St. Paul to decide the definition of marriage would not be acceptable."

Amen to that!

Finally, I can't neglect to share with you the amazing drama unfolding under our eyes these last few days with regard to the defense of DOMA, and the growing backlash against a campaign of intimidation by the Human Rights Campaign carried out in full public view.

It started a few weeks ago when HRC sent a letter to every major law firm, warning them not to let any lawyer in their firm take on the House's defense of DOMA.

Paul Clement

When Paul Clement agreed to take on DOMA's defense we thought that threat was moot.

I already knew Paul Clement was an extraordinary lawyer. We all owe Speaker Boehner a debt of gratitude for recruiting a legal mind of his caliber to defend DOMA on behalf of the House before the Supreme Court. As Solicitor General, that was Paul Clement's full-time job: winning cases for the government before the Supreme Court.

Every single expert I spoke to about Paul Clement's selection as the lawyer to defend DOMA told me the same thing: He's the best there is. Speaker Boehner could not have made a better choice.

Then on Monday the unthinkable happened: The gay press was claiming that Paul Clement had dumped DOMA! Clement was backing out!

I heard the news with a sinking feeling; if true, this would be a huge blow.

But then a quick phone call from Speaker Boehner's office delivered the incredible news: It was not true. It was not bad news. It was instead an incredible, inspiring story of courage, of standing up to intimidation and doing the right thing. Paul Clement was not going to back out. He was going to lose his job, if that was what it took to keep faith with his client.

Now I know—now we all know—not only what an extraordinary lawyer, but what an extraordinary man Paul Clement is!

True, the law firm, King and Spalding, folded like a broken chair within hours of HRC's announcement that it would be "educating" their clients and potential recruits in an effort to hurt the firm economically.

But Paul Clement refused bow to pressure, or admit defeat.

His resignation letter is a beautiful thing to read:

"Efforts to delegitimize any representation for one side of a legal controversy are a profound threat to the rule of law. ...When it comes to the lawyers, the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism," he wrote (pdf) in resigning from his law firm, Kirk & Spalding, which tried to force him to dump his client.

By responding with courage and grace, Paul Clement has set off a growing backlash against King and Spalding and the HRC campaign—a backlash which goes way beyond the usual party lines.

Usually the gay-marriage advocates who threaten people's livelihoods do so behind the scenes. This time they did it in broad undeniable daylight and it looked really ugly.

How big is this backlash? Well, let me tell you, when a major gay-marriage advocate like Andrew Sullivan headlines his criticism, "Bullies in the Gay Rights Movement": Something new is afoot.

Sullivan wrote, "When civil rights groups bully, they lose the moral high-ground. When you have men like David Brock leading the charge—and there are no means he has ever eschewed to achieve his ends—the danger is that we prove the far right's point."

The Wall Street Journal headlined its editorial against the law firm's violation of core ethics "Knave and Spalding," ending its editorial with this thought:

"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."

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) said, "King and Spalding's cut and run approach is inexcusable and an insult to the legal profession. Less than one week after the contract was approved engaging the firm, they buckled under political pressure and bailed with little regard for their ethical and legal obligations. Fortunately, Clement does not share the same principles. I'm confident that with him at the helm, we will fight to ensure the courts—not the President—determine DOMA's constitutionality."

Ted Olson, the lawyer trying to strike down Prop 8, was shocked. "I don't know of anything comparable to this. You have to be willing to stand your ground," he told reporters.

Pres. Clinton's Solicitor General Seth Waxman agreed, telling the Washingtonian, "I think it's important for lawyers on the other side of the political divide from Paul ... to reaffirm what Paul wrote ... having undertaken to defend DOMA, he's acting in the highest professional and ethical traditions in continuing to represent a client."

One of the New York Times' and NPR's favorite legal ethicists, Prof. Steve Gillers of NYU Law School, said flatly that Clement was "entirely right," and that "King & Spalding was scared off by the prospect of becoming a pariah," adding that the "firm's timidity here will hurt weak clients, poor clients and despised clients."

By the end of yesterday even Pres. Obama's own Attorney General Eric Holder was siding with Paul Clement, telling reporters that Clement is "doing that which lawyers do." "Paul Clement's a great lawyer," Holder said. "He has done a lot of really great things for this nation."

Some things we still do not yet know about DOMAgate: Did a Coca-Cola executive actually try to take away lawyers from marriage? Talking Points Memo, a hard left blog, is claiming so. Over at the legal-eagle website Volokh.com, legal experts are saying that Congress may have a right to know:

According to some accounts, King & Spalding was persuaded to drop its representation of the House of Representatives in litigation over the Defense of Marriage Act due to pressure from one of the Atlanta-based firm's largest clients: Coca-Cola. If this is true, it raises some interesting legal ethics questions that the good folks at the Legal Ethics Forum have been exploring, including Brad Wendel, Rob Vischer, and Richard Painter. One interesting point raised by Prof. Painter here is that any communications from Coca-Cola pressuring King & Spalding to drop the DOMA defense are unlikely to be privileged. Indeed, under ABA Model Rule 1.4, King & Spalding could have to disclose such information to Congress.

I promise you, we will stay on top of this unfolding story.

And thanks to the thousands of you—especially you new folk, joining NOM this week!—who have responded to our call to let King and Spalding know what you think of their behavior. We are not going to back down from this fight or any fight to protect marriage.

With your help we will keep the so-called impossible victories coming!

Next week the New York legislature comes back into session.

Ruben Diaz

Rev. Rubén Díaz is issuing a call to fight for marriage, and he is reaping the whirlwind of hatred and abuse which is now directed against anyone who stands for God's truth about marriage.

He wrote an amazing letter to the Village Voice this week about the raw hatred and threats directed against him and, by extension, against millions of others of good New Yorkers who do not believe that same-sex couples are marriages:

When I read Steven Thrasher's column, "Ruben Diaz Sr.: Gay Marriage Over My Dead Body," I realized that your point was not to explore the beliefs of people opposed to homosexual marriage, but to vilify my principled and vocal defense against attacks on marriage as we know it.

When I read the comments posted online that followed your article, I considered that you or your editors have espoused an "at all costs" approach to achieving your goal of passing a gay marriage bill. One reader, Wayne writes: "....as you wish, Mr Diaz.....I can arrange your final resting place in a local dump."

Would the authors and editors at the Village Voice have been so quick to tolerate any comments hoping for the demise or imminent death of one of their favorite political leaders? ... It's so sad to see people in journalism abuse their positions, but it's outrageous to see how the editors of the Village Voice use their editorial discretion to facilitate and encourage homicide.

On May 15, Rev Díaz called for a rally in the Bronx and I will be there!

Talk about fighting for marriage in the deep blue country! But marriage is an extraordinary issue which gathers together people of all races, creeds and colors in defense of an idea: Marriage is the way we bring together the two great halves of humanity, male and female, in part so that children can know the love of their mom and dad.

We're gearing up with Rev. Díaz and thousands of New Yorkers to fight for marriage.

Pray for Rev. Díaz and for all on the front lines of this fight, will you? And following Rev. Díaz's lead, pray for those who wish to redefine marriage—for their safety, for a new spirit of civility and decency—and for the conversion of their hearts to support for marriage.

God bless you and keep you safe and in good spirits!

And may He bless our country.

Semper fi,

Brian brown

Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

P.S. NOM has spent close to $400,000 in Rhode Island alone in the last few weeks for ads, mailing and calls to reach out and activate ordinary citizens to achieve this great victory. This expense came right on top of our great victory in Maryland in which we once again threw all the resources we have—time, money and prayer—into the fight for marriage. Looking ahead, the fight for New York is next, along with Minnesota (another bluish state!) and the fight for DOMA, and battles in other states—with no time to stop, rest and rebuild our finances in between. Will you celebrate our extraordinary victories by stepping forward today to help us win more victories across America for marriage? If you can afford it (and we know in this economy not everybody can, so thank you for everything you do, too!) can you pledge $100 or $500 today to fight for marriage? Your gift of even $5, or $8, or $19, especially pledged monthly, gives us the resources we need to get your message out to other Americans who believe, as you do, that marriage is worth fighting for—God grant us more victories in His name!

Maggie's Column: Paul Clement's Courage, A Law Firm's Cowardice, and a Movement's Will to Power

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher's latest column:

What happened this past Monday in the fight to defend marriage was one of those moments that reveal the character of a man, a movement and perhaps a country.

It's a story that displays one man's courage, a law firm's cravenness, and a movement's will to power.

The drama unfolded in the space of just a few hours.

Continue reading at Yahoo News.

NY Sun Editors on Paul Clement's Courage

The Sun mistakes marriage for an unpopular issue generally, but then they are a Manhattan paper; otherwise a lovely defense of legal honor:

It happens that we’d been thinking about the courage of a certain kind of lawyer who sticks with an unpopular client even when attempts are made to drive him off a case. For we’d just gone to see Robert Redford’s powerful movie called “The Conspirator,” about Mary Surrat, who went to the gallows for her role in the plot to assassinate President Lincoln. It centers on her lawyer, Frederick Aikin. He was reluctant to take her case, but took it on principle. He was reviled for doing so, but he stuck with the case and came to have doubts about her guilt. When she was hung, he left the bar altogether and became the founding managing editor of the Washington Post.

That is the kind of grit being shown by Paul Clement, the former solicitor general of the United States who just quit the prestigious law firm of King & Spalding to stick with his promise to represent the House of Representatives in its fight with the government over the Defense of Marriage Act...

The principle of sticking by an unpopular client is as old as our republic, whose second president, John Adams, when he was a young lawyer, won the acquittal of Captain Preston and most of his fellow redcoats in the killings that became known as the Boston Massacre. Most recently, some lawyers representing detainees at Guantanamo had come under criticism for being over-zealous in their defense. The lawyers were defended by President Bush’s last attorney general, Michael Mukasey, in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. The toll taken on lawyers who stick by unpopular clients is a remarkable thing, and Mr. Redford’s movie about Mary Surrat’s case gives a powerful insight. It would be fun to see who plays the part of Paul Clement should, a generation from now, Hollywood make an attempt to capture his courage.

Why Speaker Fox Caved on Gay Marriage

Via ProJo:

"An opponent of same-sex marriage, Rep. Jon Brien, D-Woonsocket, called Fox’s shift “a practical political move … [because] the votes were not there on the [House] floor,” a point that even Fox did not dispute. Had that bill gotten that far, Brien said the speaker also knew that he intended to seek a public referendum on “whether marriage is between a man and a woman,” which would have passed over Fox’s objections."

Was the goal really to prevent the people of Rhode Island from deciding? We hope not.