RECENT  POSTS:  » 2006: When Clinton vocally supported her state moving forward w/ marriage equality but Sanders did not » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Anti-equality advocates shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that pro-equality advocates are advocating

by Jeremy Hooper

This is the the closing of a letter that Human Rights Campaign prez Joe Solmonese sent to some of the top law firms in the country:

We acknowledge and honor your ethical obligations as attorneys. We of course believe that every client
deserves representation, even those with whom we vehemently disagree. But you are not required to take
on the House as a client in its defense of DOMA, and we urge you not to. The House General Counsel
can and will represent the House Republican leadership in court, at taxpayer expense, and will likely find
assistance from some willing outside source. There is no need for your firm to take on the defense of a
law that a majority of Americans oppose and history will view as a shameful and discriminatory act.
Thank you,

Joe Solmonese

**FULL LETTER: Lez Get Real

As you can see, Solmonese fully acknowledged that clients deserve representation, and that attorneys have their own obligations. HRC is simply urging these firms to not defend a law that has long proven itself to be discriminatory and is increasingly showing itself to be unconstitutional. In short: HRC is doing exactly what it should be doing, which is advocating on behalf of its membership. They are encouraging lawyers to do the right thing, not forcing anyone into any sort of cage.

But you know: Fact. Nuance. Actuality. Elucidated discourse. Since the National Organization For Marriage has chosen to make an enemy of all three, here is the disingenuous, historically inaccurate way they are choosing to reduce Solmonese's letter:

Apparently, law firms aren't allowed to help some clients without getting on HRC's bad side
John Adams, in defending the officers charged in the Boston Massacre, accepted the case at great risk to his family and personal career because he believed "No man in a free country should be denied the right to counsel and a fair trial."

For hundreds of years the legal profession has based itself on the idea that every person is entitled to counsel.

Except those defending marriage apparently.

HRC pressures 200 top law firms to not defend DOMA in court [NOM Blog]

A snarky closing line implying that HRC is somehow denying counsel? Of course. Because that's the strategy the anti-equality movement has long utilized: One that positions their side's every effort as morally sanctified, blessed by God, and therefore infallible, with every piece of principled resistance painted as the freedom-depriving work of careless gay militants. It doesn't matter how careful we on the side of basic rights are in terms of respecting the intricacies of a situation. It doesn't matter how much we acknowledge our opposition's right to advocate in return. The pro-gay side is always doing something out-of-line, per the professionally anti- crowd.

It's their heterosexist world: We just get faulted for wishing demanding to have a say within it.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails