Maya Rupert, the federal policy director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, has a timely response to the Los Angeles Time's disingenuous defense of Paul Clement's decision to defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, in which the LA Times tried to equate defending DOMA with the right of individuals to legal representation in criminal cases. Rupert correctly states:*
The first [the right to counsel when facing criminal charges] is a fundamental right upon which we base our criminal justice system. The other is a fiction that mistakenly seeks to insulate a shortsighted law firm from criticism for its decision to defend a discriminatory law.
*
Whether the LA Times to face reality or not, DOMA is unconstitutional religious based discrimination writ large into the federal law. Anyone who says anything different is, excuse my directness, a LIAR. The special, unconstitutional privileges give to religious bigots needs to end NOW! Here are additional highlights from the Los Angeles Times op-ed response:
*
[T]here is an honorable tradition of lawyers defending unpopular and controversial clients. Civil liberties organizations, for example, have repeatedly, and admirably, defended plaintiffs whose views they abhor (such as members of the Ku Klux Klan), in order to protect cherished principles like freedom of speech and assembly. In this case, there is no greater good, no cherished larger issue at stake; the only issue contested is discrimination. There is no venerable tradition of lawyers defending laws that single out certain groups for discrimination.
*
DOMA forces the federal government to discriminate against same-sex married couples and to treat their families as unworthy of protection or respect. A law that serves only to designate some families as second-class citizens has no principled defense. Defending DOMA simply prolongs the harm to same-sex couples and their children. There is no countervailing good.
*
A private lawyer is under no obligation -- from a state bar, pursuant to ethical rules, or out of respect for the adversarial process -- to defend an indefensible law. Those who choose to defend such a law do so at the peril of their reputations as fair-minded and just advocates. Clement has made a decision not just to stand on the wrong side of history but to lead the charge on that side and, sadly, to bring his law firm, King & Spalding, along with him. He is free to do so, but we should not pretend that decision represents a magnanimous fidelity to the adversarial process or to justice.
*
King & Spalding had an opportunity to use its considerable power to further justice, not perpetuate discrimination. In declining to do so, it acted in a way that is indefensible.
The first [the right to counsel when facing criminal charges] is a fundamental right upon which we base our criminal justice system. The other is a fiction that mistakenly seeks to insulate a shortsighted law firm from criticism for its decision to defend a discriminatory law.
*
Whether the LA Times to face reality or not, DOMA is unconstitutional religious based discrimination writ large into the federal law. Anyone who says anything different is, excuse my directness, a LIAR. The special, unconstitutional privileges give to religious bigots needs to end NOW! Here are additional highlights from the Los Angeles Times op-ed response:
*
[T]here is an honorable tradition of lawyers defending unpopular and controversial clients. Civil liberties organizations, for example, have repeatedly, and admirably, defended plaintiffs whose views they abhor (such as members of the Ku Klux Klan), in order to protect cherished principles like freedom of speech and assembly. In this case, there is no greater good, no cherished larger issue at stake; the only issue contested is discrimination. There is no venerable tradition of lawyers defending laws that single out certain groups for discrimination.
*
DOMA forces the federal government to discriminate against same-sex married couples and to treat their families as unworthy of protection or respect. A law that serves only to designate some families as second-class citizens has no principled defense. Defending DOMA simply prolongs the harm to same-sex couples and their children. There is no countervailing good.
*
A private lawyer is under no obligation -- from a state bar, pursuant to ethical rules, or out of respect for the adversarial process -- to defend an indefensible law. Those who choose to defend such a law do so at the peril of their reputations as fair-minded and just advocates. Clement has made a decision not just to stand on the wrong side of history but to lead the charge on that side and, sadly, to bring his law firm, King & Spalding, along with him. He is free to do so, but we should not pretend that decision represents a magnanimous fidelity to the adversarial process or to justice.
*
King & Spalding had an opportunity to use its considerable power to further justice, not perpetuate discrimination. In declining to do so, it acted in a way that is indefensible.
1 comment:
K&S dropped the hot potato:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/04/25/state/n090817D78.DTL
Post a Comment