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.

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."

Here is Clement’s resignation letter.

...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.

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.