For an organization with “Human Rights” right there in their name, the Human Rights Campaign sure does seem to be somewhat hit-and-miss when it comes to applying those rights. For instance, if a law firm decides to represent something that strikes gay activists as wrong.
On Monday 4/18 it was revealed that K&S and their partner Paul Clement would represent the House in defending DOMA. We immediately issued a release (http://www.hrc.org/15538.htm) and followed up with another the next day once the terms of the contract were revealed (http://www.hrc.org/15544.htm). Later that day we announced the elements of our campaign to show King & Spalding’ hypocrisy for taking on Defense of DOMA while touting their pro-gay policies – including their 95% score on HRC’s Corporate Equality Index (http://www.hrc.org/15546.htm).
On Thursday, the LA Times took note, writing an editorial about our campaign with their position on whether DOMA deserved a defense (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-doma-20110421,0,161023.story). Of course we disagreed because while sometimes lawyers have an obligation to represent unpopular clients (in defending the disenfranchised or individuals charged with crimes or in protecting civil liberties), this was clearly not one of those cases.
Forget whether you like or dislike the DOMA. The point here is that a large law firm was forced to drop a case because of activist pressure. Nah, nothing to worry about here. Nothing at all that could be a monstrously chilling effect on liberty. I mean, as long as you don’t offend the wrong people.