While that caricature accurately portrays those excellent lawyers over the past several decades who have defended evil tobacco companies, factories emitting harmful pollutants, and corporations that hire mercenaries to do their bidding abroad, it’s not accurate when the matter being contested in court is so-called “homosexual marriage.”
The same can be said of prestigious law firms.
According to the New York Times, voicing opposition to so-called “homosexual marriage” is treated as if it’s equivalent to racism. Defend traditional marriage? Clients will dry up. Recruit the best and brightest from the best law schools? Forget it. Perceptions about exclusion and disrespect.
Here’s how bad it is:
- Imagine a former Federal Appeals Court judge saying he has learned to avoid topics where important distinctions—for example, that it is possible to be pro-homosexual marriage as a policy matter without believing that the Constitution requires it—are lost. “You’re going to shut up, particularly if you don’t care that much. I usually just keep it to myself,” said Michael W. McConnell. He continued: “The level of sheer desire to crush dissent is pretty unprecedented.”
- Paul D. Clement was Solicitor General in the George W. Bush administration. In 2011, Clement’s law firm withdrew from United States v. Windsor under pressure from militant homosexuals who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act the firm was defending. Clement left the firm. “I resign out of the firmly held belief,” Clement wrote, “that a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters.”
- On April 28, when the Supreme Court hears arguments concerning homosexual marriage, John J. Bursch—who served as Michigan’s Solicitor General—will lead the opposition. But Bursch’s firm won’t have anything to do with the case. “When the State of Michigan asked me to handle the case, I asked the firm’s management committee about the engagement, and the management committee declined the representation,” Bursch said. “I am still a partner…but the firm has no involvement at all in the marriage case.”
Apparently those are only three three examples of a much broader phenomenon: Pro-homosexual marriage militants are bullying lawyers and law firms into silence. And, if that doesn’t work, those militants will drive them out of business.
So much for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.
One might think this would be happening in Putin’s Russia, the Supreme Ayatollah’s Iran, or the Dictator’s Syria. It may very well be happening in those nations. But, it’s happening today in the United States of America.
Let the discussion begin…
To read the New York Times article, click on the following link: