The Case Against Gay Marriage: Top Law Firms Won’t Touch It

[joeybee12]

WASHINGTON — The stacks of Supreme Court briefs filed on both sides of the same-sex marriage cases to be heard this month are roughly the same height. But they are nonetheless lopsided: There are no major law firms urging the justices to rule against gay marriage.

Leading law firms are willing to represent tobacco companies accused of lying about their deadly products, factories that spew pollution, and corporations said to be complicit in torture and murder abroad. But standing up for traditional marriage has turned out to be too much for the elite bar. The arguments have been left to members of lower-profile firms.

In dozens of interviews, lawyers and law professors said the imbalance in legal firepower in the same-sex marriage cases resulted from a conviction among many lawyers that opposition to such unions is bigotry akin to racism. But there were economic calculations, too. Law firms that defend traditional marriage may lose clients and find themselves at a disadvantage in hiring new lawyers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/the-case-against-gay-marriage-top-law-firms-wont-touch-it.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[merrily]

1. Bigotry akin to racism is correct, complete with laws that treat one group differently

from everyone else for no good reason.


I'm sure the bigots can always get someone to represent them, though, even if it's not a major law firm. The religious right has plenty of lawyers and there's always Orly Taitz.

[Downwinder]

2. Perhaps there is just no legal merit in the case.

[Omaha Steve]

3. Beat me to the post

K&R!

[Zorra]

4. Thank you, this is encouraging. nt

[Depaysement]

5. "Leading" law firms. . . .

. . . are about money. They take the occasional "liberal" case for P.R. purposes to convince young lawyers to work for them and coat their greed with a veneer of Justice. Pushing traditional marriage doesn't help either cause.

They fight a class war not a social one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Opposing marriage equality is wrong and it is also declasse.

[Depaysement]

9. I agree

I became a supporter of marriage equality and lesbian/gay adoption long before these issues were trendy.

Few members of the elite oppose marriage equality and they shouldn't. But that isn't surprising. It isn't a money issue and that is really what most of the elite cares about.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. It allows them to feel good about themselves without making any kind of sacrifice.

I became a supporter of marriage equality and lesbian/gay adoption long before these issues were trendy.

As well, there's enough acrimony in this world that if someone can find someone who makes em happy I don't give the proverbial "rat's ass" of the genders involved...

What union were you in ?

My uncle was in the Electricians Union...He got a great pension and subsidized housing while he worked.

[marym625]

6. Good! marriage equality needs to be the law of the land.

Unfortunately though, the fact the law firms backing bigotry are not as well known doesn't mean they don't argue well. I am afraid that Kennedy is going to decide on the side of the states and tip the vote against equality. One good argument for State's rights and we're doomed

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I really don't believe Anthony Kennedy wants to be on the wrong side of history./NT

[joeybee12]

11. I don't think Roberts does either...

Hope I'm right and it's 6-3...the other 3 are totally hopeless and expect a rally scathing, hate-filled dissent.