
The Case Against Gay Marriage: Top Law Firms Won’t Touch It - akg_67
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/the-case-against-gay-marriage-top-law-firms-wont-touch-it.html?_r=0
======
akg_67
The article raises issues that go beyond just the gay marriage issue. The
imbalance in representation being created by "popular" opinion on any issue is
concerning. It seems we are becoming more "closed-minded" and "conformists"
and subject to "Groupthink" and unable to handle and manage contrary opinions
and positions.

> Representing unpopular clients has a long and proud tradition in American
> justice, one that experts in legal ethics say is central to the adversarial
> system.

~~~
cubano
This totally captures the essence of the "debate" (not that there seems to be
any), and the writing of the article in particular.

------
ScottBurson
An old friend of mine was kicked out of his prestigious East Coast law firm
for being gay. He moved to Palo Alto and continued his career. (I don't know
exactly when this happened, but I'd guess it was around 20 years ago.)

My, how times change.

------
mahyarm
The tobacco industry has a lot of concentrated money to back up their lawyers.
I don't think the anti gay marriage 'industry' has the concentrated capital on
their end.

------
agrona
I don't understand the headline. It seems to be saying "Top Law Firms Won't
Support Gay Marriage", this is a mark against it.

However, the article seems to be saying the opposite: top law firms are all
FOR it, and those opposed don't have top representation.

~~~
cleverjake
its a double negative. top law firms will _not_ touch the case _against_ gay
marriage.

~~~
agrona
Oh I see.

The confusion arises because the antecedent of "it" is unclear.

I read "it" as referring to "gay marriage" and not "the case against gay
marriage". How confusing.

------
marak830
Good. Also there is no client needing representation, just an out dated law
that should never have existed. No one is missing out on being represented(at
least if it did mention someone in the article, i missed it).

Edit: i dont get the down votes, but im leaving my comment.

~~~
cubano
here goes nothing...

Have you ever even thought to consider that maybe there was once a really good
reason why marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman?

You know, all those thousands of years before antibiotics were invented in the
1950's, when childbirth was very dangerous, and surviving childhood was only a
4 in 5 shot?

Not to mention the hard-scrabble fact that families needed unpaid workers to
work the farm to survive?

Civilization needed babies, and lots of them, to keep things moving along.
Promoting a lifelong union between people who couldn't naturally have children
just wouldn't even make sense in that world, since for most of human history,
that was the very _reason_ for marriage.

Now...flame on! I needed some downvote cred anyway...

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I am not downvoting you or flaming you, as you are trying to engage in a
debate, not being "needlessly negative".

However, that's a rubbish argument ... (Slight flaming then)

 _raising_ children is a good argument for stable marriage, irrespective of
sexuality, and history is full of non typical arrangements (raised by
grandparents, adoptive parents, neighbours etc)

Homosexuality has been more or less socially acceptable at different times as
well (from nearly compulsory in Sparta or Ancient Greece to well he _is_ the
king, so we may as well)

No, the case against gay marriage has always been the case against dissent and
the case for obedience to a central authority. It seems there are "social
norms" at the case by case level and those at the official lip service level.
A society that has less dissonance between those in my opinion has less
tolerance for dissonance between other stances (like superstition vs science).

~~~
cubano
_I am not downvoting you or flaming you, as you are trying to engage in a
debate, not being "needlessly negative"._

I appreciate that...without honest discussion this whole site is suspect,
IMHO.

I am all for homosexuality if that is your thing!

But I'm sticking to my guns...for most of human history it was impossible for
a man to have a child with a man, or a women with a women. That is a simple
fact.

The idea marriage wasn't a social construct with the primary purpose of
creating a situation that would optimize the _creating AND caring_ of
offspring seems just as factual to me.

Now of course, one can parse the whole of history and find exceptions and all
that...that's fine, great in fact!

And yes, there is no doubt in the Judeo-Christian framework, obedience meant
control, but I believe in this case you are totally throwing out the real
biological basis with the bullshit one.

------
enupten
I'm not entirely sure what the whole hullabaloo is all about. I mean, the Govt
should restrict itself to recognizing unions for finance/medical purposes, and
possibly regulate adoption.

The Republicans (modulo Ron Paul ?), who are usually too enthusiastic for
having less Govt, always fall back on regulation when it serves their
idealogy. Meh.

I don't think this is a case of Money, either. If that were the case the GOP
would never have taken the stand they do now.

That said I can see why firms would be wary of taking a contrarian stance in
the current climate.

------
spiritplumber
By the same token, I could say: "The case for gay marriage: Divorce lawyers
can use the extra business."

