Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has taken the initiative and ended all relations between his office and the law firm of King and Spalding. This comes on the heels of King and Spalding’s despicable move to drop their clients after they were subjected to intense pressure from the homosexual lobby, namely the Human Rights Campaign.
In the letter written and addressed to the law firm, Cuccinelli explained why he had decided to end the law firm’s association with the Commonwealth:
“King & Spalding’s willingness to drop a client, the U.S. House of Representatives, in connection with the lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was such an obsequious act of weakness that I feel compelled to end your legal association with Virginia so that there is no chance that one of my legal clients will be put in the embarrassing and difficult situation like the client you walked away from, the House of Representatives,”
Whether or not one agrees with the Defense of Marriage Act, it should be acknowledged that this law firm acted in the most spineless and cowardly of ways. The craven actions that this law firm has taken has cost them much prestige as well as a brilliant lawyer in the form of Paul Clement.
Equally, the losers are the homosexual lobby. The flagship organization that spearheaded the strong arming of King and Spalding was the Human Rights Campaign. They are now getting exposed for the bullies that they are, even by the liberal Washington Post of all people. Supporters of the family on the frontlines of the marriage fight have long seen the angry and bitter tactics that many of these pro-redefinition groups have employed, whether it be through the intimidation of pro-family activists in California, or the persecution of former homosexuals, their tactics especially in the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8, were nothing more than deplorable. The intimidation of King and Spalding has allowed the public to see the kind of tactics that the homosexual lobby has long employed.
I am reminded of a court case that occurred early in the history of the United States. John Adams was faced with the unpopular task of defending the British soldiers implicated in the Boston Massacre. This decision by Adams to represent these men was not something that would have necessarily gained him any political tokens for later use. He did what he had to because he believed that the truth must be known and justice must be served. Sadly, King and Spalding does not have the intestinal fortitude of a John Adams.
This case also involves a question of truth. Is the truth what we say it is, or is the truth eternal and transcendent? Is the family whatever we decide we want it to be, or is it founded within the very laws of nature? These are not questions that should be taken lightly. A government that is powerful enough to answer these questions with an affirmation of anarchy is powerful enough to do almost anything else. The principle at stake here is whether or not we still believe our Declaration of Independence when it says that our rights come from God and not ourselves. This is a critical part of what sets us apart as a nation. If the state is the source of our rights, then the state can take our true rights away with impunity.
Then there is the question of justice. To undermine the family is to undermine civil society. The family is a guardian of liberty and prosperity within a free society, the government should not undermine the well being of the whole society in order to benefit the utopian visions of a small but vocal homosexual lobby. However, as Bastiate points out in The Law; government, meant to be a safeguard of justice, can easily be turned into an instrument of injustice of not properly limited.
It is easy to see why the homosexual lobby is fearful of Paul Clement. The former Solicitor General has already argued cases before the Supreme Court and is well known for his litigation skills. He will be a formidable advocate for the Defense of Marriage Act.
Meanwhile, Ken Cuccinelli has once again sent a message that the rule of law is important to the Commonwealth. He is to be applauded for ending the Commonwealth’s association with such a poisonous law firm.
