For Liberals, Some Defendants Shouldn't Be Defended

The law firm that was to defend the Defense of Marriage Act has been pressured to withdraw:

News reports this morning indicate that King & Spalding — the firm whose partner, former solicitor general Paul Clement, was slated to defend the Defense of Marriage Act — has decided to withdraw. This follows a campaign of intimidation with threats from law schools and activist groups that retribution would follow if the firm continued to defend the law. This tantrum and its seeming success tell us that many on the left believe they have a veto on the principle that everybody deserves to be represented in court. It also suggests that there are few limits on what gay marriage supporters will do to marginalize those with whom they disagree. It’s worth remembering, as Maggie Gallagher says, that this is what “marriage equality” means. Paul Clement’s principled stand, which Kathryn has noted, is a much-needed grown-up decision and a very powerful rebuke to the intimidators. [Emphasis added.]

They know no principles. They only know what they want, and there is little they won't do to get it. I have a commenter who defended President Obama's decision not to defend this law saying that it would receive better representation this way. I wonder what she'll say about this.

Follow those links, and read what those people are saying. They're saying that 5,000 years of human tradition is nothing but bigotry, that they have the right to force gay "marriage" on us against our will, and that threats and intimidation are an appropriate response to what they call "intolerance." Well, the only "intolerance" going on here is coming from gays, who are simply throwing a temper tantrum about the fact that, since they have rejected the mores of human society, some in society have been less than enthusiastic in response.