threesies!

I'd love to be a gay associate working for a partner that wouldn't want me to have the right to marry.

The first letter is ridiculous. The partner was supporting something he or she believes in - the firm can eat it.

I completely agree with the second e-mail (sent at midnight). Every time you make a political contribution, you have to identify your employer. But your contribution is still a personal one. I don't agree with the partner's personal decision to put 5k toward Proposition 8. However, for a firm to suggest that his personal political contributions somehow are a meaningful reflection on the firm is ludicrous. And, what's more, the firm has no place suggesting how people should contribute politically. Asking for a donation to legal aid societies is a far as a firm should go.

What do other people do? Do you leave off your employer when making a contribution?

scary that militant people like that first emailer exist. but not surprising either that it's a lawyer or that most people hate lawyers.

you know it took the second guy the entire two hours to craft that email so as not to come off in support of either position...shifty mf'er.

Most large firms have email policies against using firm email to solicit or express political opinions. What are the chances Orrick would actually enforce this policy against a partner? About .54% - but if an associate did this they'd be toast.

Congratulations first emailer:

Your idiotic email damages the reputation of Orrick as an open-minded law firm supportive of free speech and citizens' rights to vote as they choose. This can adversely impact the firm in many ways, including hurting our ability to attract recruits who don't happen to agree with YOU on every single topic; turning off clients, existing and potential, that support free society; and making anyone who disagrees with YOU feel like second class citizens.

Way to go - jackass!

Of course the partner's contribution of $5,000 to Yes on Prop 8 is a reflection of the firm. This is not simply a piece of legislation regarding his views on some emotionless issue. Whether you are for or against, the recognition that you are supporting something that will have a profound effect on the lives of coworkers, associates and customers cannot be ignored.

There is no infringement on free speech here. Certainly the partner is free, as the second email indicated, to contribute how he chooses. But it is a reflection of who the firm chooses to have as partners any way you dice it. Lawyers have the burden of being neutral on such practices so as to not contribute to the idea they cannot be fair judges of the law. If I was a gay client, I would never feel entirely confident this partner had my best interests at heart simply because he is willing to contribute $5,000 to ensure that I am treated as a second class citizen.

Everything you do as an employee of a private corporation/firm is a reflection of that firm and has the potential to harm business.

the Yes on 8 contribution was made by partner Dean Criddle: http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/08/prop-8-title-co.html

It sure is ironic that by claiming to promote diversity, the first emailer disclosed that he is an anti-free-speech bigot himself. "Diversity" that doesn't allow for difference of opinions is not diversity. Kudos to the responding partner.

The first e-mail is idiotic. If contributing to a particular proposition, local or national campaign meant that your employer was impliedly also endorsing the cause, there would be no private donations to anything. No law firm or corporation (and, by default) all of its employees are solidly behind a single candidate, proposition or party.

I find it interesting that the first e-mail took liberties with disparaging someone who would vote for Prop 8, but then turns around and advocates for donations to defeat Prop 8, as if the person writing the email is the universal compass on what is morally and ethically correct. It's tantamount to being in an argument with someone and saying that if they don't see the world the way you do, they are stupid. I used that argument all the time when I was 6 years old.

Marriage is betwen Man and WOman. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

No mo' marriages for mo's.

Marriage is betwen Man and WOman. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

No mo' marriages for mo's.

Marriage is betwen Man and WOman. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

No mo' marriages for mo's.

What provision of the Constitution protects employees from pressure from their employer to support a political cause, again?

The only "constitutional value" at work here is apparently that constitutional value that specifically protects anti-gay speech (see, e.g., the Boy Scouts case, the Solomon Amendment case, etc.).

For some reason, taking a political position that would specifically push gays into a second-class position is just a matter of opinion, the sort of thing a firm shouldn't take a firm stand on. Would you feel the same way if the partner had donated to a political cause that sought to re-establish segregation? Do you think it would have been unacceptable for a partner to say, "I don't think we want our firm to be identified as a racist firm, so let's try to work against that perception"? Somehow, I doubt it.

Look, a firm can take a political position. It can even seek to hire people who share that political position, at least insofar as now law forbids them from doing so. Taking the "political position" that gays shouldn't be treated as second-class citizens strikes me as exactly the sort of thing firms can and should do.

I wouldn't cross Orrick as a firm off my list, but I wouldn't work for that partner or hire that partner.

i bet people at Orrick are real good at making their "O" face. you know, "Oooo" "Ooooo".

Its hard to be surprised that a mormon who went to BYU and then UChicago and then works on Tax law in utility financing would be a rabid social conservative

plus judging a firm on its tax partners, unless obviously you want to do tax, seems like a pretty terrible idea

As a Republican, I don't care less about gay marriage but I wouldn't feel comfortable working at Orrick's San Fran office given that partner's general intolerance of those with different viewpoints.

The first email was not from a partner. The guy is of counsel. Word.

Since we know the office and name of the partner that donated, it seems only fair for us to know what partner hates free speech.

If only so that others can know not to work for him or (more likely) a future interviewee can know that he should avoid political discussions at all costs since this mystery partner doesn't believe in diversity with people that he disagrees with.

What exactly is ATL's new policy about names? It seems that all names are now redacted from everything?

I am all in favor of keeping people's names out of things when it is rumor / second-hand / random stories / emails to small groups / whatever. But I think when you are stupid enough to send a firm wide email you lose the right to anonymity.

How does this affect the common perception that Houston is simply Dallas's feces receptacle?

Diversity includes diversity of opinion. I was supporting gay marriage long before it was popular because I have always felt it is right. But, I found the first emailer scary and oppressive and would not want him at my firm. The second emailer showed guts and common sense. The point is not to have full agreement, but to have a firm where the partners respect their partners, differences and all. Orrick is apparently not that place and the first emailer has essentially proved exactly what he sought to refute.

Anyone check this Dean Criddle guys bio? Anyone notice that he "majored" in Economics at UChicago Law? lawl.

Give me a break, all you free speech people. The partner wasn't sending out an order to minions not to donate. It's like process-concern-trolls who hide their anti-gay-marriage opinion by suggesting it's the "people" who should decide. Right. I agree with #10--it's not some minor irrelevant zoning initiative that's at stake here.

And I don't buy that there are actually rational arguments against gay marriage; the canard that "for every valid position there is an equally valid opposite position" is nonsense. The only anti-gay-marriage opinions are religious at best and bigoted at worst, universally mean-spirited. You don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married. Easy. A yes vote on prop 8 is not morally equivalent to a no vote.

Islamm=TTTexas

name redaction...

Fail

28 - When did it become wrong to be "universally mean-spirited?" Rational argument or not, there are some things which are just downright disgusting. In my book, two men phallating each other fits this to a T. If you want to go out and fornicate with a tree, be my guest. Just don't acted surprised when someone calls you out on it.

Who'd want to work for a facist douche?

Equal rights mean equal rights. Lawyers that don't understand that shouldn't be lawyers.

31: www.meatspin.com

http://www.orrick.com/lawyers/Bio.asp?ID=536
The partner who sent the email was Cameron Wolffe!

CAMERON WOLFFE hates gays!

First email was not very shrewdly worded, and shouldn't have been sent. Second email was a lot smarter, and made a lot of sense. But practically, you have to admit that it will affect people's perception of a firm to know that they have one, or many, partners who would contribute money to prevent gay marriage.

Here's some advice to everyone. Don't respond to previous posts. ("17--you're stupid and here's why...").

The previous poster isn't reviewing later comments, looking for smart retorts. S/he's done and left the thread. And noone else is going to compare the comments to see what your witty remark was about.

The only person who is interested in the snarky comment that you took 15 minutes to come up with is you. To everyone else, you're taking up space.

Cheers.

The only people who would oppose eliminating the capital gains tax are at best thieves, at worst communists set on destroying the American way of life.

I reserve the right to declare other issues beyond debate in the future, in which case I will enlist the help of the state in coercing people at work and home to prevent them from expressing such views. Consider yourself warned.

28 and 10 are just like the first e-mail. They are so sure they are right on this issue, they cannot believe that anyone could disagree with them for any valid reason (it must be bigotry or spite or something evil). That is the very definition of being close-minded. I don't agree with the yes on 8 people but support their right to have their views and understand that those view (even if wrong-headed) are not inherently based on evil or bigotry (though, of course, in some case they may be).
The first e-mail is clear attempt to enforce a certain politically correct conformity on the firm. Usually this done more subtley in big law (dear demised Heller had it down to a fine art in its SF office) but it is all to common in San Francisco law firms.

In my book a comment like #31 is always disgusting but two men engaged in "felatio" (not a ph) could be hot.

In my book a comment like #31 is always disgusting but two men engaged in "felatio" (not a ph) could be hot.

When I talk to someone who is against gay marriage, I simply call them a homophobe. Then whatever I say is right, and whatever the homophobe says is wrong. It may be logically flawed, but it works every single time.

What is it about Texas that makes god so angry?

Just a closed-minded d-bag. Not that rare or remarkable, especially among (a) long term Biglaw types (b) in San Francisco.

Isn't it interesting that those who proclaim the need for "diversity" and "tolerance" are sometimes the very first to lash out at others for differences of opinions, beliefs, and political viewpoints.

Isn't it interesting that those who proclaim the need for "diversity" and "tolerance" are sometimes the very first to lash out at others for differences of opinions, beliefs, and political viewpoints.

28, by your logic, don't like prayer in schools than don't pray... Don't like the millitary recruiting on campus, don't interview with them... Don't like the boy scouts, don't join them... Don't like tax cuts, voluntarily pay more to the government...

But I am guessing that your logic and libertarian streak only applies to gay marriage.

44 - not really. I think the diversity and tolerance stuff is a 1990s relic. The left today is defined by a desire to use force to achieve their ends - it is actually preferable to persuasion. It is nothing new for groups representing society's losers. Promise revenge, get support among the dregs.

39 & 40: ASL?

Yes for Prop 8 can count on additional donations from me as long as there are close minded individuals like Mr. Wolfe around.

Yes for Prop 8
Yes for Diversity

42 -- Its full of Texans and apparently rivers of sewage and condoms.

Cam Wolfe is Of Counsel you moron.

In defense of Cam Wolfe, he is developmentally disabled, at least judging from his bio picture. Also, he is a double Berkeley - he really has no choice but to be a raving lunatic.

http://www.orrick.com/lawyers/Bio.asp?ID=536

To be clear, I wholeheartedly support gay marriage. I'm just anti-douchebag.

I wonder how emailer 1 found out about the donation. My guess is he was trolling donation lists to see who he could put the screws to, probably co-workers at Orrick in particular. Shows you how his mind works.

I support gays when they make the decision to tackle a bus.

31--What on earth does it harm you if two guys are fucking? (Of course, among the anti-gay-marriage people it's all about the sex, rather than love and commitment--whereas straight marriage is all about love and commitment and puppies.) I have never heard a rational and defensible argument as to why gay marriage harms straight marriage (or a single citation to anything in Belgium/Canada/Netherlands/Spain/Massachusetts/SA/Norway that would suggest the same). Gay marriage isn't being forced on you and if you find two guys going at it icky (though I suspect you wouldn't have a problem with two girls), well, grow a pair.

The only non-religious and non-it's-icky arguments are tradition (thanks, millennia of traditions of oppressing women, and slavery), or "it demeans normal marriage," which is silly. The "it's all about the children" argument espoused by the Washington Supreme Court was nicely shot down by California's.

There are some issues that there simply aren't two sides for. Pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi are not both equally legitimate.

But, of course, something you could never say about women/african-americans/jews/etc is always okay when it's about teh gaiz.

28

As a card-carrying Republican (I literally carry a card), I for the life of me do not understand why two dudes can't marry each other if they like.

What skin is it off my back?

54: living proof of the Bradley effect. I'm sure you'd never say that to a respectable person or one with authority over you (i.e. a partner in your office). But, of course, internet+anonymity+comments=douchebag.

28

OK, is my gaydar malfunctioning, or is Criddle gay?
http://www.orrick.com/lawyers/Bio.asp?ID=1372

I love when people try to frame this debate as gays not having the equal right to marry. That is ridiculous. Of course gays and lesbians have the right to get married. It just so happens that they dont like the current definition of what the institution of marriage is.

This is not about equal protection or fundamental rights or any other Constitutional issue. This issue is about the definition of "marriage." This is a purely legislative issue that ought to be decided in State Legislatures...or better yet, by religious institutions, just as it always has been.

im sorry 36, i didnt read your post.

im sorry 36, i didnt read your post.

"OK, is my gaydar malfunctioning, or is Criddle gay?"

Gayer than Superman. He must be a loather.

since when is violating the constitution a differnce of opinions?

I think there's a reason someone admitted to the bar in 1964 is only "of counsel" and not a partner. Does anyone think that any biglaw firm has 100% of its partners on any issue? Wolfe's email was just a hidden way to try and get more money to the No on 8 campaign. Fine if that's your goal, just don't be an idiot about it.

59--what nonsense. What part of Loving v. Virgina don't you get? Oh, blacks and whites have the right to marry, just not to each other. Of course, I'm sure you don't agree with that decision either.

28

If marriage is a religous institution only, then atheists should not be allowed to get married. If marriage in our country is a Christian institution, then non-Christians shouldn't be allowed to get married. In most countries and cultures, marriage has nothing to do with relgiion. Religion is the most ridiculous argument against gay marriage.

I wonder if this is enough for Wolfe to get pushed into retirement. He is old as hell and not a partner... Works in the same group as the partner he offended...

If marriage is a religous institution only, then atheists should not be allowed to get married. If marriage in our country is a Christian institution, then non-Christians shouldn't be allowed to get married. In most countries and cultures, marriage has nothing to do with relgiion. Religion is the most ridiculous argument against gay marriage.

If marriage is a religous institution only, then atheists should not be allowed to get married. If marriage in our country is a Christian institution, then non-Christians shouldn't be allowed to get married. In most countries and cultures, marriage has nothing to do with relgiion. Religion is the most ridiculous argument against gay marriage.

And please, all you "it's icky" people, could you maybe explain why it is that the sky will fall in California but didn't in MA/SA/Netherlands/Belgium/Canada/Spain/Norway? The family hasn't fallen apart, the more straights aren't getting divorced (I've never understood the theory of causation there), more straights aren't getting gay married (an unfortunate failure in the implementation of our agenda, alas), puppies aren't getting kicked and baby Jesus isn't crying.

70=28 btw

Marriage is a stupid antiquated tradition. The government should not extend special rights to two individuals for forming a contract.

I vote NO on all marriage rights. Abolish special treatment for people too weak to make it without a formalized contract to govern their relationship.

DOWN WITH ALL MARRIAGE!

72,

I'm impressed that you were able to type that with one hand.

what happened to the policy that we don't reveal names on this site?
Has Elie gotten rid of it?

what happened to the policy that we don't reveal names on this site?
Has Elie gotten rid of it?

70, you are free to marry anyone you want. You just don't have the right to force everyone else in society to recognize your marriage against their will. Just look like the FLDS folks who are entered into polygamous marriages that are not recognized by the state. You could marry a rock or a guitar for all anyone cares.

When you force the majority to do something it does not want to do, namely recognize gay marriages as equal with straight marriages, you're engaging in the tyranny by the minority.

I support a gays right to tackle a bus as long as by tackle you mean swallow and by bus you mean my meat saber of justice.

76: And I'm sure if we put all sorts of other civil rights to a vote (interracial marriage, desegregation, women/blacks voting, etc), they'd not pass either.

But how on earth does it harm you if two men or two women get married? What actual impact on your life does it have? No one ever explains that, other than you think it's gross.

And don't give me the slippery slope argument because it's just not true. Marriage is still between two people. It's intellectually facile to say that gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs.

Again, I'd love someone to actually set out specific facts saying how it harms anyone.

28

So, those of you who laud the second e-mail would not see the potential ripple effect on minority hires if, say, an Orrick partner made a donation to a David Duke campaign?

Nobody is denying the right of anyone to make a personal political contribution. But it's a fallacy to pretend that those contributions don't reveal something about the people that practice at the firm.

It does not harm me if my neighbor "marries" his dog to his cat either. Nor does it harm anyone if a little girl marries her Barbie doll to her Ken doll. But the majority through democratic society has decided that only one form of marriage is deserving of special recognition by that democratic society.

Just because it harms nobody does not mean that the minority opinion gets to impose its mandate on the majority. The country is a democracy for a reason.

P.S. your constant analogies to the black civil rights movement is hilarious. Try asking some regular black people on whether they support gay marriage and whether they think black civil rights is analogous to gay civil rights.

So, those of you who laud the second e-mail would not see the potential ripple effect on prospective hires if, say, an Orrick partner made a donation to Jeremiah Wright's church?

Nobody is denying the right of anyone to make a personal political contribution. But it's a fallacy to pretend that those contributions don't reveal something about the people that practice at the firm.

Don't blame the partner. If he didn't support the proposition, then he would be subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the mormon church. Look at what happened to this mormon that went against the proposition.

http://new.khastv.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=14614&storytopic=4

This is from the second email: "None of us should be held up to criticism at work for making contributions as private individuals to causes that we support..."

Riiight. So, I'm sure that partner would stand right up and defend any Orrick employee's right to contribute to the Nazi Party, the KKK, the Manson family, and NAMBLA and then keep right on working for good ole Orrick??

The First Amendment does not mean you get to do whatever you want and face no consequences.

The first email didn't question anyone's right to make a donation to the Yes on 8 campaign -- it just recognized that such donations will have an impact on the firm's reputation and so encouraged people to speak out and make donations on the other side.

That is, the first email was in favor of MORE speech, not less. It is the second email that is seeking to limit speech by saying that no one should be criticized for their public donations or political statements, even though that is an absurd position.

You douchebags.

Don't blame the gays for GULC. The GULC has been around a lot longer than any sword swallowing fecal fighter.

Criddle absolutely loves the cock. It's unfortunate how hypocritical these intolerant retards are.

80--whatever. Civil rights aren't subject to the will of the minority. Or, they shouldn't be.

And only people who don't have a real argument to make use the slippery slope one; you're conceding you don't like it 'cos it's icky, rather than for any real reason (or, perhaps, because the majority finds it icky.)

28

83, maybe you missed the part where "Yes on 8" is a group that supports a ballot initiative, which is not an illegal activity last time I checked (that is, until Cameron Wolfe and his ilk are in charge).

But go ahead and equate supporting the democratic process with "the Nazi Party, the KKK, the Manson family, and NAMBLA", as if there is no line between giving to those groups and what the partner did. I'm sure your tactful lack of exaggeration will get millions of centrist Americans off the fence and onto your side.

28/86, do you support forcing the government to recognize marriages between dogs and cats? How on earth are you harmed if Fido marries Taffy? What actual impact on your life does it have?

36 - your comic genius is right up there with HofstraMagna.

88--give me a break. That argument is so stupid and sophmoric there's not even a point in responding to it.

Orrick is a shithole TTT firm full of left-wing zealots like the author of the first e-mail. What an embarassment to the firm. I love that anyone who supports traditional marriage is made out to be an intolerant hatemonger who should be countered by all others in the firm. What a small-minded douche bag.

Fuck Orrick. I'm taking my Latham offer.

Orrick Schmorrick. Enough talk of crappy-ass secondary market GULC repositories.

When is Cravath raising to $190K?

Uhh... Cameron W. Wolfe, Jr. is listed as "counsel" on Orrick's website. Counsel =/= partner. He's a flamer tax bitch from Berkeley. No surprise there.

What kind of name is Orrick anyway? It elicits thoughts of cheap vacuums and hardcore ass pounding...

91: Anyone who supports traditional marriage can do so while also supporting gay marriage. No rights are being taken away. It's just letting someone else come to the table.

Again, I've yet to hear a single factually-based argument against gay marriage. Lots of "let the people decide" (which isn't what we do about civil rights) and lots of "it's tradition" (which is silly since we've jettisoned lots of other ones, such as the divine right of kings, restricted suffrage, interracial marriage, &c), and other than that, it's all "it makes Baby Jesus cry" and "it's icky."

28

The world is going to hell when Partners/ of Counsels make law professor comments like this!

I don't buy that there are any rational arguments against incest. It's icky? No more icky than gay sex, or sex between fat people. Incest at least opens up the possibility for lesbian twins, the least icky thing ever. Genetic problems? We don't ban sex with people who have genetic diseases. Gays and blacks are more likely to have AIDS and thus more likely to spread it during sex, but we don't ban gay sex or black sex.

If you don't support the right for siblings to get married and screw like redneck rabbits, you're a bigot.

The simple and obvious question that seemingly everyone (and especially hysterical lefties) ignores is this: what is the state interest that civil marriage - not religious marriage, or private, non-state sponsored ceremonial faux "marraige," or whatever, but *state*-sponsored, public marriage - seeks to advance?

The answer is that the state couldn't care less about two people's "right" to declare their state-sanctioned love to the masses. No one cares about two people's right to be all lovey-dovey with each other. Indeed, those tend to be private rights anyway - just like the right of two consenting dudes to pound each other's cornholes all night long in the privacy of their well-appointed, impeccably decorated apartments.

If there is any state interest sought to be advanced by civil marriage, it has to do with raising kids. The idea is that kids benefit most, emotionally and otherwise, if they are raised by both a mother and a father. Society then benefits in the form of better-adjusted adults, etc. Thus, the argument goes, civil marriage seeks to incentivize - if not specifically encourage - the stable nurturing of its children by offering various benefits, financial and otherwise, to man/woman couples who choose to marry under civil law. Granted, not everyone who marries will choose to have children - and indeed, some are physically incapable of doing so - but the system of civil marriage seeks only to provide an incentive, without policing each marriage case-by-case. And many infertile couples will choose to adopt, while some couples who thought they didn't want kids will change their minds.

I'm not saying I agree with this theory. But I think that's the secular rationale behind it. And keep in mind, amidst all this equal protection talk, that the SCOTUS has yet to hold that suspect class status applies to sexual orientation. Thus, the low threshold of rational basis scrutiny generally should apply to laws that appear to infringe the rights of homosexuals. In the case of marriage, I don't think it's crazy to conclude that restricting the definition of marriage to a man and a woman is rationally related to promoting the legitimate public interest of providing children with the ideal parental environment of having both mother and father.

All that said, I love gays, and at the end of the day, am indifferent on the marriage question. My head says the laws should be upheld as determined by elected representatives on this issue, but I don't like seeing gay people get their feelings hurt as badly as they do when this issue turns against them.

How about this: gay marriage devalues the institution of marriage, rendering it basically meaningless ("a piece of paper"). Once people are convinced that marriage is meaningless--since the government will solemnize any "marital" bond, be it between two men, two women, a man and multiple women, a woman and multiple men, etc.--nobody gets married.

This has been empirically demonstrated in Sweden and the Netherlands. Marriage rates among heterosexuals has plummeted since gay marriage was legalized. Meanwhile, fewer than 2% of all homosexual couples in those countries have bothered to get married.

In terms of public policy, the country has an interest in maintaining the strength of marriage because if the institution is devalued, fewer couples will get married and more children will be born to single parents. The average dissolution rate among "cohabitating" "life partners" is over 300%, meaning the average "life partner" will have at least three different "life partners.” The social ills that stem from single parenthood are innumerable, but to give a sampling: children in single parent homes are significant less likely to graduate from high school, attend college, get married, and are at significantly higher risk of juvenile delinquency, sexual abuse, gang involvement, and sundry other problems.

Legalizing gay marriage would also "normalize" the homosexual lifestyle, which is what this is really about. As in Massachusetts, Sweden, and the Netherlands, fewer than 2% of gay couples in the country have any intention of getting married. To put this into perspective, if we realistically assume that 2-3% of the population identifies itself as homosexual, less than .05% of the country would even consider same sex marriage. The real effect is to make the homosexual lifestyle seem normal at the detriment to those who engage in said lifestyle. Homosexuality is a dangerous. The suicide and STD contraction rates among homosexuals are exponentially higher than the rates among their heterosexuals counterparts.

There is no constitutional right to gay marriage. Marriage is a social institution that protects the family, ensures familial continuity better than any other institution, and statistically provides a higher rate of success for children. Devaluing this institution will have very real consequences for the country. Homosexual couples can take advantage of the benefits of marriage without having to have their relationship solemnized by the state. It makes no sense to risk the detrimental effects of gay marriage when alternative options are available.

If you actually care to read more about the arguments against gay marriage (though I doubt anyone claiming to have never heard a fact-based argument against gay marriage pays any attention to the intellectual arguments on the matter), check out “The Future of Marriage” by David Blankenhorn, “The Marriage Problem” by James Q. Wilson, and “Life Without Father” by David Popenoe. These are all books authorized by self-proclaimed Ivy-league progressives in the academy.

How about this: gay marriage devalues the institution of marriage, rendering it basically meaningless ("a piece of paper"). Once people are convinced that marriage is meaningless--since the government will solemnize any "marital" bond, be it between two men, two women, a man and multiple women, a woman and multiple men, etc.--nobody gets married.

This has been empirically demonstrated in Sweden and the Netherlands. Marriage rates among heterosexuals has plummeted since gay marriage was legalized. Meanwhile, fewer than 2% of all homosexual couples in those countries have bothered to get married.

In terms of public policy, the country has an interest in maintaining the strength of marriage because if the institution is devalued, fewer couples will get married and more children will be born to single parents. The average dissolution rate among "cohabitating" "life partners" is over 300%, meaning the average "life partner" will have at least three different "life partners.” The social ills that stem from single parenthood are innumerable, but to give a sampling: children in single parent homes are significant less likely to graduate from high school, attend college, get married, and are at significantly higher risk of juvenile delinquency, sexual abuse, gang involvement, and sundry other problems.

Legalizing gay marriage would also "normalize" the homosexual lifestyle, which is what this is really about. As in Massachusetts, Sweden, and the Netherlands, fewer than 2% of gay couples in the country have any intention of getting married. To put this into perspective, if we realistically assume that 2-3% of the population identifies itself as homosexual, less than .05% of the country would even consider same sex marriage. The real effect is to make the homosexual lifestyle seem normal at the detriment to those who engage in said lifestyle. Homosexuality is a dangerous. The suicide and STD contraction rates among homosexuals are exponentially higher than the rates among their heterosexuals counterparts.

There is no constitutional right to gay marriage. Marriage is a social institution that protects the family, ensures familial continuity better than any other institution, and statistically provides a higher rate of success for children. Devaluing this institution will have very real consequences for the country. Homosexual couples can take advantage of the benefits of marriage without having to have their relationship solemnized by the state. It makes no sense to risk the detrimental effects of gay marriage when alternative options are available.

If you actually care to read more about the arguments against gay marriage (though I doubt anyone claiming to have never heard a fact-based argument against gay marriage pays any attention to the intellectual arguments on the matter), check out “The Future of Marriage” by David Blankenhorn, “The Marriage Problem” by James Q. Wilson, and “Life Without Father” by David Popenoe. These are all books authored by self-proclaimed Ivy-league progressives in the academy.

This is an interesting debate and all, but I fail to see how it is connected to the summer associate program at WILDMAN HARROLD.

I knew a total wildman named Harrold in high school. He was wild all the time, but it was no big deal.

97 and 98 and 99--each and every one of those arguments was smacked down by the Republican Cal Supremes. Except for the bullshit stat that hetro marriage has plummeted in countries where there's gay marriage. And even if it were true, those are quite different countries than the US. What about Mass. and Canada? No big existential crisis there about straight marriage. And finally, if it's about children, then do you support banning marriage between old people and between infertile people? Because if that's the only reason for banning gay marriage? (notwithstanding, of course, that there are plenty of gay parents who are far better than straight parents).

And citing some random academic study is like studying congressional intent--looking at a crowd and picking out your friends.

And finally, I've heard supposedly fact based arguments. I've just never heard one that was tenable. It's always "icky" or "Jesus."

102: You didn't finish reading. It's about *incentivizing* the optimal child-rearing environment, not screening each marriage case by case and allowing only those that are likely and/or capable of producing kids. In conlaw parlance, it needn't be narrowly tailored, only rationally related. I suppose it would be easy to prohibit geezer-on-geezer marriage under this rationale, but perhaps one could argue that permitting hetero marriage in all its possible forms (including between childless octogenarians, e.g.) provides a means of reinforcing the stability sought to be advanced by hetero-only marriage. That's the best I can do - hey, I never said I believed in this whole hog. Just trying to offer a non-religious point of view that isn't completely absurd, imo.

Another non-religious argument in favor of hetero marriage derives its wisdom from the Ways of the Universe: particularly, the fact that in nature, only a man and woman can create a child through natural means (i.e., no petrie dishes or syringes, etc.). There's something to be said for that, I think. I just don't know exactly what, yet.

"Smacked down," 102? More like ignored to make way for their own agenda.

Marriage is meaningless.

It serves no Civil Value.

The "Raising children" argument is empty. There is no data to support the Myth that, controlling for all other factors, growing up in a "traditional" family somehow makes better people.

Yeah, blah blah. Here's the stupid conservative argument: Prohibiting a state from enacting a statutory scheme banning gay marriage means that a state then logically also has to recognize marriage between siblings, polygamy, man-horse marriage, dog-child marriage, etc.

If anyone thinks that a compelling equal protection argument exists for why a state may not prohibit man-horse marriage or polygamy, let's hear it. Otherwise, stop using this dumb-ass slippery slope shit that makes no sense. It demeans and belittles gay couples. Social conservatives suck.

106, how does this argument not make sense? Please inform me why gay marriage is different than incest. The genetic issues are grossly exaggerated, but we ban incest anyways. I'm yet to hear a convincing argument that distinguishes these two things. The same goes for polygamy. Why should you care if more than two people want to get married? How does it hurt you. What about 16 year olds who want to marry 80 year olds. Nobody can say with a straight face that a 16 year does not know enough to consent to this. But some states ban it. Why is it ok? Some are so convinced that the they are right about gay marriage, yet they ignore glaring flaws in their logic.

Please, let's get back to how bad Orrick sucks.