Law firm pulls out of Defense of Marriage Act case - CNN.com ---------- Post added 25th Apr 2011 at 12:37 PM ---------- Haha. Would you look at that! Defending DOMA is now viewed as "unpopular."
Teehee. This certainly sends a message to Boehner and other bigots. Not that it will stop them from continuing their campaign of hatred and bigotry, but it at least will make them think a little.
I love how brian brown, the president of NOM, had a reaction of criticizing the HRC for what he called "cultural intimidation". Brian Brown, you're such a hypocritical jackass.
^This! As much as I want to see DOMA being thrown out as soon as possible, I am a little wary of the fact that it is going to be thrown out unrepresented.
I know really, that kind of hypocrisy is just sickening, absolutely sickening. I'm glad that the law firm pulled out though--even gladder than Boehner is upset about it.
Most likely some of their gay clients objected. Or some of the partners in the firm are themselves gay. Given the demographics of lawyers, not surprising they'd find it difficult to find the best to be against us.
Oh, it won't get thrown out unrepresented. Some bigoted, conservative law firm that doesn't care about what a bunch of faggots think will eventually take the case
A significant number of Congresscritters and Senators are lawyers. If the House can't find a law firm, these lawyers are more than capable of representing DOMA. Also, unlike people, not every position deserves representation. It is imperative that every person accused of a crime be well-defended, but I am not at all convinced that this is true of positions. A position has no rights to be respected, no personal integrity or dignity.
A position that no one holds is arguably an irrelevant and invalid position and hence should not be represented. However, this particular position was voted in by the House of Representative and subsequently signed by the Senator and the President. And even today, this position is still supported by many in the country. Just because one President, a few judges, and a big group (but not all) of citisens feel so, does it warrant that this position, which is still supported by many citizens, and was voted in by the majority of the houses, not be represented?
