Several weeks ago, the White House announced that they would no longer be defending the Defense of Marriage Act. This was followed by an announcement from the House of Representatives that they would pay for the legal defense of DOMA, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman for all federal purposes, and allows the states to refuse to recognize a “marriage” that is created in a state that recognizes homosexual marriage.
Recently, the House hired the law firm of King and Spalding to provide the legal defense for the statute. It was subsequently announced that former Solicitor General Paul Clement, a partner in King and Spalding, would represent the statute in litigation. However, Paul Clement has now resigned his position at King and Spalding after they withdrew from the case over “vetting” reasons. In reality, it is no secret, that King and Spalding was pressured into dropping the case by the homosexual lobby. Paul Clement has now joined Bancroft PLLC, and will continue to represent DOMA in court.
Apparently, the homosexual lobby is so confident in their legal reasoning that they feel the need to force the opposition’s defense out of the equation. Obviously, the radical homosexual activists are not confident enough to let DOMA’s defenders make a legal case at all. This is not surprising, as the primary arguments by those who seek to create a new form of “marriage” is weak. The homosexual lobby has long tried to insist that they are the only reasonable people in the room, regardless of how unreasonable their position really is. To have a strong legal defense for the Defense of Marriage Act would undermine their claims that the pro-family movement is backwards and unintelligent.
While many are loathe talking about this issue, it is important to the future of the country. Conservatives must understand that the family is the most basic form of government, and is essential to limiting the power of the state. It is not an exaggeration to say that without the family, there can be no limited government.
Likewise, the family undergirds the free market. One need only look at the devastation that the breakdown of the family has wrought in many of America’s inner cities to know that the family is a bulwark against poverty. The father and mother each play unique roles in training children how to operate in a free society and within the market.
This natural dynamic of the family has never sat well with progressives or the homosexual lobby, both of whom hold to utopian ideals of a society with no family. Because marriage is the central element of the family, progressives have long targeted the institution. This has been done in many ways including penalties and punitive tax policies, as well as through attempts to redefine the nature of the institution itself by the granting of “rights” that do not exist. All of this is done to bring about a progressive utopia that is a nightmare for conservatives; where the family is not relevant to society.
In the attempt to bring about their utopia, the homosexual lobby has attempted to subvert justice and silence their opponents. I am not aware of Paul Clement’s personal views on marriage; however, he is to be commended for his commitment to the rule of law.
