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.

Criddle is surely a gay Mormon. Its the gay Catholics and Mormons who feel most passionately about stopping gay marriage. 50 bucks says that we find Criddle in a midget/meth scandal in a few years out.

http://www.orrick.com/lawyers/Bio.asp?ID=1372
Face/Glasses= Totally Gay
Undergrad School= Totally Mormon

103:
"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."

You can't claim that banning gay marriage incentivizes "the optimal child-rearing environment" (assuming, ad arguendo, that heterosexual marriage is the optimal child-rearing environment), until you prove that some significant portion of the current population of married homosexuals with children in California and Massachusetts would've instead been married heterosexuals with children, had gay marriage been unavailable to them. I've yet to see any such data. Have you?

In the absence of any such data, what we *do* know for sure is that a very large portion of the current population of married homosexuals with children in California and Massachusetts would've instead been *unmarried* homosexuals with children, had gay marriage been unavailable. Would you care to explain to us how optimal *that* child-rearing environment (a household of unmarried homosexual parents) figures to be, compared the the alternative (a household of married homosexual parents)?

107:
"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."

I haven't thought much about this subject, myself, but off the top of my head: if two Californians of consenting age who happen to be related to each other wish to join together in marriage, I personally have no particular interest in stopping them (or seeing my state's government stop them).

I don't personally know any couples who happen to fit into the above category, however. But I personally know lots and lots of same-sex couples who wished to join in marriage (prior to the Court's ruling in May), but were barred from doing so by my state's government. I guess I just happened to be more affected by their plight, 'cause I happened to know them personally.

"The same goes for polygamy. Why should you care if more than two people want to get married? How does it hurt you."

Assuming they're of legal consenting age? I don't, and it doesn't. But, as above, I don't happen to personally know any polygamous couples aching for legal marriage, which is probably why their plight is less personally affecting to me than the plight of loving, monogamous same-sex couples heretofore barred from marriage (many of whom I happen to know personally).

"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?"

In states where 16 is considered the legal age of consent, I don't think that such bans are okay. But see the above argument one more time, when I note here that I don't happen to personally know any 16-year-olds aching to marry an 80-year-old, and barred from following the dictates of their hearts thanks to the whims of a tyrannical majority. But fine, I'm on board with your let-16-year-olds-marry-80-year-olds campaign. Do I pass your consistency test?

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Mormons are creepy, brainwashed idiots. They only gave up polygamy as a condition to Utah gaining statehood. Now these former polygamists want to "uphold traditional marriage."

12:51 - Polygamy is a form of "traditional marriage."

It's in the Bible. Check it out sometime.

I love how bigots are so quick to rally behind the banner of civil liberties even as they seek to deny them to others who do not comport with their subjective moral view.

You may believe that Jews have horns, or those with darker skin are inherently inferior to those with lighter skin, or that all Muslims are terrorists. That doesn't mean I have to listen to whatever flawed argument you have in support of your position, or permit you to espouse such views in a manner that harms my enterprise.

What is the problem with the views listed above? They lack any empirical evidence to support their veracity, and represent only the prejudices of the believer. The same is true of gay marriage. There is no empirical evidence showing that permitting gay marriage causes harm to society in terms of the economy, crime, or education.

Why should it matter that a substantial number of people are uncomfortable with the concept of gay marriage? In the not too distant past, a substantial number of US citizens were deeply troubled by the concept of racial equality. Hatred is hatred, no matter how difficult it may be to accept that a belief you genuinely hold as representing true morality is based upon the illogical prejudices of a prior era.

111 = bigot.

Bigot is defined as : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

If you have trouble understanding see 111 for an example.

wow that is really inappropriate for someone at work to publicly criticize a coworker for a private donation they made. What happened to free expression and the liberty to support causes you value?

You think Cameron Wolfe is gay? Hmmm....

45, 46: AMEN

Mormons are slightly less stupid than Scientologists.

83 - So if you are against gay marriage (as a majority of the country is), you are equivalent to nazis and klansman. It seems to me you want people to be tolerant of your viewpoints just so long as you do not have to be tolerant of others'.

What was it William Buckley once said? Liberals are always going around talking about tolerance for other points of view, and then are shocked to discover that there are, in fact, other points of view.

83 - So if you are against gay marriage (as a majority of the country is), you are equivalent to nazis and klansman. It seems to me you want people to be tolerant of your viewpoints just so long as you do not have to be tolerant of others'.

What was it William Buckley once said? Liberals are always going around talking about tolerance for other points of view, and then are shocked to discover that there are, in fact, other points of view.

This is all bullshit. That you don't support gay marriage does not make you intolerant. I got a lot of history on my side. If people want to engage in gay sex, that's cool, more power to them, but they have no right to require society to legitimize gay sex--and allowing same-sex marriages does exactly that. I don't really care about swingers either--but I certainly don't think society is required to give those practices its imprimatur.

122, slavery has a lot of history on its side too. As does racial and gender discrimination. Good times.

I have found this article and the accompanying comments fascinating. I'm surprised at the arguments of those who claim merely to support equal rights for homosexuals.

Many of the arguments break down as follows:

* the partner who contributed $5,000 is an idiot/bigot because he is Mormon (posts

I love the complaints by those who say they could not work for someone who supports the Yes on 8 campaign (or vice versa). After spending years in liberal institutions, you may be shocked that there are people who think differently than you -- so let me welcome you to the real world. If you cannot stand working at a place where there is a diversity of thought, then working at a big law firm probably is not the place for you. Yes -- you will find plenty of people who agree that the desire to have sex with the same gender is as unchangeable of a characteristic as being born from African-American parents. After all, that is what our lefty law professors taught us (nevermind the fact that sexual partners are a preference and you can't change who your parents are). But, be forewarned that there are others who -- based on religious beliefs (gasp! -- smart people still believe in God?!) -- believe that marriage should just be between a man and a woman. And, there are plenty of people who don't care about religion or morality -- but always on the lookout for a hookup on friday night. Guess what -- you are going to need to learn to work with all types. You may think that it is PC to write off those with religious beliefs as being "moronic" but that does not reflect well on your fancy education.

To those who champion the civil rights cause of homosexuals everywhere -- you may want to lay off the following arguments:

* The partner who contributed to $5K could not have made his donation based on an intellectually honest belief -- he must be a closet homosexual/loather (posts 58, 62, 85, 109). Nice "argument": don't treat homosexuals differently . . . or we'll call you one! (Of course we oppose you labeling someone homosexual or trying to "out" someone, and would consider you bigotted if you did.)

* the partner who contributed $5,000 is an idiot/bigot because he is Mormon (posts 20, 109, 111, 119). Again, nice. Equal rights for all . . . unless you're Mormon.

* if you oppose same-sex marriage, you hate homosexuals (posts 55, 113). This is just not true. There are other policy reasons why one might oppose it (see, e.g., posts 97, 98, 99, 103).

* homosexuality = race or gender. (posts 78, 94, 113, 123). Again, although I agree that any hatred is dispicable, the fact is sexual orientation is fundamentally different from race or gender, because unlike those traits, it is invisible unless the trait holder reveals it. I personally have no room for any kind of discrimination in my life, but when I compare skin color or gender with sexual orientation, I am forced to conclude that there is a qualitative difference there (again, not an excuse for discrimination). Although I'm not arguing that sexual orientation is not something you are born with (but others might reasonably argue that since even the smartest scientists don't fully understand it), the point is that, like irritable bowel syndrome, though you may have been born with it (or at least the propensity), it's something you can choose how and when to reveal it, or IF you will reveal it at all to others. On the contrary, issues of race and gender are impossible to suppress the same way.

* There are no valid arguments against same-sex marriage (posts 28, 55). Or (when presented with a decent argument), your argument just isn't good enough (posts 55, 78, 86, 94, 105, 106). The slippery slope argument could be a valid one for people in a democracy who can come to a consensus that there is a compelling interest to draw the line somewhere (see post 110 -- I applaud your intellectual honesty -- to see my point, extend the reasoning to NAMBLA, whose members feel similarly discriminated against).

* Arguments that something is offensive to you, or a majority of society are irrelevant (posts 55, 86, 94, 102). This is a strange argument in a representative democracy to be ruled by the voice of the people. A fundamental part of living in a democracy is advocating your views, and then abiding by the decisions of the majority (even if continuing to advocate for change).

* Your arguments are flawed because a court has rejected them (post 102). Right . . . good point, courts are always right.

I personally have nothing against same-sex marriage. I would be happy to see my gay uncle marry his lover (really). They are in love and committed, and I really wouldn't be bothered by it and would support it. If I'm honest, however, I have to acknowledge that there are arguments on the other side of the issue.

Here's another possible argument that I haven't heard put forward here. What about the simple biological imperative that men and women are built to fit together in a way that they are able to reproduce and propagate the species. Certainly as a society, we could decide that is strong evidence that we should endorse such pairings as a policy for the good of our species.

If we believe natural selection, and that only those traits that make it more liklely for us to reproduce are to be passed on generation after generation, then we must believe that the trait of homosexual attraction will eventually die off (assuming it has a genetic component) as same-sex couples continue to pair together and are unable to reproduce. It will be just like the trait of blue eyes will eventually disappear as our genes mix and we lose the ability to pass on that recessive trait.

Anyway, that's another possibility. In any case, I do think the slippery slope argument has at least some merit, unless we are willing as a society to accept all possible pairings of consenting individuals. Likewise, the "icky" factor -- or more properly societal norms -- is a perfectly acceptable argument in a democracy if a consensus is reached by society. (BTW spare me the civil rights arguments -- those reforms came about in our democratic society, even though it took some time.)

Finally, the supernatural/religious explanation is difficult to discount completely. The fact that there is so much in the world and universe that we are unable to explain, coupled with the fact that the majority of Americans believe in some form of supreme being that has infused the universe with some type of order make it hard to dismiss.

The amount of homophobia on ATL is mindboggling. What the hell do you care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom?

The off-counsel guy's letter was pretty lame, but anyone who believes that it has anything to do the with the First Amendment should repeat ConLaw. Being called out for doing some dumbass move like donating to a campaign and filling in your employer doesn't impinge on your freedom of speech at all, especially since there are no government actors involved.

I expected better of you guys. At least on the legal aspect, if not the homophobia aspect.

Just a quick note from someone who knows the partner who made the contribution, the original emailer and the second emailer. Aside from being an amazing lawyer, Dean Criddle is among the nicest, most humane lawyers an associate could ever hope to work with. Nobody who has ever worked with Dean will tell you differently.

I know the practice on this site is to take shots at people, their firm, etc., but Dean is the exact opposite of what the commenters on this board seem to hate. He is a partner who cares about what he does, cares about the associates he works with, and who isn't consumed by ego.

While I disagree strongly with Dean's religious and political views, note that he did nothing to bring this issue into the public light other than (as required) list the name of his employer when making his donation. Dean does not advocate for, or even share, his political/religious beliefs at work.

Perhaps some of you find it morally repulsive to work for or with someone who does not share your political and religious views. For me, I'll take the co-worker who is friendly, intelligent, great to work with, who cares about my development at the firm, and whose beliefs outside the office I find repugnant, over the liberal douchebag who is mean, condescending and who cares more about making it to the Hamptons for a long weekend with his fourth wife than my future.

cam wolfe is a hero and probably the only reason a number of great lawyers (and great clients) will even consider orrick in the future.

dean "closet 'mo" criddle should be laid off if this firm respects itself. i expect the firm to lose some business if this doesn't happen.

I actually don't think the argument that banning gay marriage isn't necessarily unconstitutional is that insane (I don't agree with that stance, but I don't think it's that ridiculous). However, I think questioning the constitutionality of a ban is an entirely different proposition than actively advocating for a ban and donating several dollars to its enactment. Something tells me this partner isn't anti-gay marriage b/c of subtle constitutional questions.

That being said, is anybody disturbed by firms on the "wrong" side of a dispute, i.e. Hughes Hubbard in the Boy Scout case? I'd be a lot more concerned by a firm's devotion of resources to a stance I found repugnant than by some partner in the tax department's donation.

Everyone is asking for an explanation of how gay marriage harms me individually, but I think it is more of a harm to society as a whole. I believe in the Bible. I believe that God blesses the righteous and punishes the sinner. I don't necessarily believe that God is a spiteful God that punishes people for punishment sake or for retribution, but to bring them back into the fold. God's punishment is not always targeted at distinct individuals so society as a whole suffers. This is particularly true when society as a whole makes bad decisions. When someone is humbled by circumstances, they tend to turn to God. Sometimes the forcing of humility upon nations is brought to pass by calamities great and small. I would like for the United States and the world to avoid such calamities to the extent possible. I believe that homosexual activity is sin. I believe that legitimizing the sin by allowing gay marriage can and will bring the condemnation of God upon our society. I don't want that to happen.

I understand why you don't hold this view, but don't discount my religious viewpoint. It is something that I have developed over a lifetime of studying, praying, and living in the world we both live in.

I am educated, religious, and believe in respecting others. I believe that others should respect me, my opinions, and my constitutional rights. I don't believe that gay marriage is a constitutional right. I don't think it is akin to interracial marriage or other legitimate forms of marriage.

The of counsel's e-mail looks like some pretty good fodder for a hostile workplace lawsuit. Expect him to be pushed into retirement very soon.

Clay Aiken is sooooooo not going to work at Orrick.

To 110: Kudos to you! Keep fighting the good fight. I believe that people will back on this issue with the same disgust that people now look back on the 60s. "Really, blacks couldn't eat at the lunch counter?"

Either you want diversity or you don't. Cameron clearly doesn't want a diverse Orrick. He isn't happy that anybody would have a different world view than he has.

Why can't a "tolerant" progressive like Cameron respect the deeply held conservative religious views of a Mormon or a Catholic or a Baptist, etc.?

The of counsel was right. Whatever you individually think about gay marriage, the generation of law school grads you're spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to recruit right now overwhelmingly support equal rights. Tons of us live "outside" traditional marriage (lots of heterosexual domestic partners these days waiting to get married) and don't want a firm that has partners who adhere to man-woman "get married before sex!" only. Sorry.

ATL makes me pretty sad about the people I'll be working with, but I keep hoping that most of the people on threads like these are undergrads who snarkily type "TTT" while waiting for their rejections from the T14.

Public information about partners reflects upon the firm. And the vast majority of people at my school are less likely to choose a firm with partners who oppose gay rights. How hard would it have been for the guy's wife to donate the $5k so that the firm's name wasn't involved? I mean, come on.

136 is yet another INtolerant progressive. Show some respect eh!

No one (literally NO ONE) is concerned about hetero premarital sex. And IN THIS ECONOMY no associate is going to turn down this no name firm for another no name firm.

That said, only a true retardliKKKan would be against gay marriage.

Vote Obama and lets end the Bush recession!

138: Not true. I'm a fairly moderate conservative and I care a whole lot about hetero premarital sex. I devote over 20 hours a week (usually Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights) to the issue. And, I don't just mean blogging on the internet or sitting around with my like minded friends getting indignant. I'm out there in the trenches, trying to make it happen.

If I were gay and had the option of Orrick versus a similar law firm without a contributor to "Yes," I would not choose Orrick. And if it were really close, I would make this same call even though I'm not gay. Cam Wolfe's email was poorly worded, but he has a point about the firm's rep with recruits.

Anyone who chooses a firm on the basis of the political leanings of a single partner in his private life deserves what they get. As an Orrick recruit, I'm much more reassured by the follow-up email that I chose the right firm. A workplace that tolerates intolerance bothers me more than an individual who does so. Moreover, bowing to absolutes would seem to eliminate all (or nearly all) large law firms.

At least one partner at their firm understood that "Diversity" is more than just a liberal viewpoint. If you only care about promoting the liberal view disguised as "Diversity" you risk losing 50% of the legal talent out there.

141 - Orrick is not the only good firm out there. The issue is not that the guy expressed his personal view to the tune of $5k. The issue is that his presence at the firm could make LGBT people uncomfortable. Thus, I'm not saying that he doesn't have the right to express his views. I'm saying that his views might make some LGBT people uncomfortable, and given a choice between Orrick and another good firm, a reasonable LGBT person might look elsewhere.

So yes, they do deserve what they get - a firm where, at least, there is a community norm of LGBT-friendliness. I echo the commenter who said that it was irresponsible for him to contribute a whopping $5k under his own name. Contribute if you want, but why attach the firm's name to such a controversial position?

I support gay marriage, and wouldn't want to work for someone who actively opposed it. But the first emailer was basically pressuring Orrick to get rid of this guy because he made a political contribution--not because he went on national television with "Orrick Partner" tattoed across his forehead while expressing rabid homophobia.

In all likelehood, we never would have known that this particular person had taken this particular position unless the 1st emailer had exposed it. I don't have a problem with him choosing to expose the guy as an individual, but I DO have a problem with him exposing him to his firm, in an effort to get the firm to sever ties with him. That's nothing more than extortion.

140, 143:

If what you are saying is true then Orrick is caught between a rock and a hard place. If Orrick takes punitive action against a Mormon partner for supporting Prop 8 it will lose LDS recruits at a higher rate than it will lose gay recruits over this incident.

145--Not just Mormons, but wouldn't anyone who doesn't espouse every liberal talking point as true social doctrine worry that they'd never really be welcome there?

LOL@conservatives trying to adopt "talking point" as a critique. You guys are cute.

So let me get this straight, we should chastize anyone who makes an outside-the-workplace gesture to support the ballot initiative, for fear that it might hurt recruiting, but we don't have to worry about how suppression of freedom of expression and the firm being pro-gay-marriage (a vastly minority position in this country) might also hurt recruiting.

Liberalism - we support diversity in recruiting as long as we recruit a liberal who believes in the same things as us. Dark skin colors a plus, but differences of opinion are verboten.

Dark skin colors a plus
__________________________________________

Really? I just went to Orrick's site, and saw hardly anyone with dark skin. In what way is "dark skin color" a plus? If you want to work in the cafeteria?

149, this may come as a shock to you, but "diversity" means the recruitment of underrepresented minorities, who usually have darker skin color than so-called "white" people.

hahaha I knew the dude was a mormon as I was reading this. Flipping hilarious.

149, this may come as a shock to you, but "diversity" means the recruitment of underrepresented minorities, who usually have darker skin color than so-called "white" people.
__________________________________________

I guess it does come as a shock to me, since it seems to mean actually HIRING only "so-called 'white" people'" Thanks for clarifying that, 150!

Great vacuum cleaners!

152, why don't you say that Orrick only hires white people in an email to the firm's diversity chair, Lorraine McGowen.

http://orrick.com/Lawyers/Bio.asp?ID=24628

I'm sure she will appreciate your insightful discovery.
You're welcome.

Hey guys, do not foget Cam Wolfe is formerly a partner, and a past Chair of the Tax Group. Of counsel just means he will retire soon.

Hey guys, do not foget Cam Wolfe is formerly a partner, and a past Chair of the Tax Group. Of counsel just means he will retire soon.

Hey guys, do not foget Cam Wolfe is formerly a partner, and a past Chair of the Tax Group. Of counsel just means he will retire soon.

20, 82, 109, 111, 119, 151:

Be advised the Mormon Mafia is hot on your trail. That is all.

143 (and others): Your argument that conservatives who make contributions to the "Yes on 8!" campaign should be terminated because they might make GLBTQRSVUT employees and r ecruits "uncomfortable" makes absolutely no sense. By that same token, associates and partners should also stop supporting Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the ACLU because such activism offends religious conservatives and pro-lifers.

155, 156, 157:

How can we forget? You keep cramming it down our throats.

At worst, this partner's contribution will show recruits that Orrick is not an ideological indoctrination camp. I am so sick of recruitment materials that champion a firm's rabid left-wing pro bono advocacy. I usually take that as a signal that I (a conservative) would not be welcome or comfortable in that office. What kind of moronic douche bags are making these brochures? The majority of people in my generation are against abortion and gay marriage, yet many firms wear their advocacy in this area as a badge of honor. They must have no idea that we sit around and laugh at this shit in Federalist Society meetings.

159, aren't you aware that it's now never ok to make liberals or sensitive token minorities the least bit uncomfortable, but it's always ok to insult or ostracize conservatives, pro-lifers, whites and other majority groups (and also Mormons, who are a minority, so I'm not sure how that works).

Sheesh, I'll forward you the memo.

162: my bad.

136, that's a bunch of crap. i'm as liberal as they come, and i am 100% in support of SS marriage, but i work just fine with some very conservative partners. with some partners, that makes for interesting, friendly conversations. with others, we talk about other things. the point is, none of that affects my work or relationship with them one bit.

if you think a difference of political opinions will affect your work or relationship w/ partners, you need to either grow up or actually graduate law school.

"You may believe that Jews have horns, or those with darker skin are inherently inferior to those with lighter skin, or that all Muslims are terrorists. That doesn't mean I have to listen to whatever flawed argument you have in support of your position, or permit you to espouse such views in a manner that harms my enterprise."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

But it does mean you have to let him or her vote, which means from time to time they win regarding which relationships our government treats as legally distinct.

That's right, racists, bigots, pedophiles, felons, Republicans, televangelists, used car salesmen, Jehovah's Witnesses, corporate executives, slave-drivers, truck-drivers and cab-drivers all get the same right to vote as you do. Well, all except felons I guess. But the point remains.

All the people you hate get to vote. But you'll never be able to find enough bullets to kill all of them so you might as well just find a way to get along.

Dear 52 -

I know you are likely done checking this post, but your comment made me laugh out loud. Thank you sir (or madam as the case may be)!

Cameron Wolfe tossed my salad a few years ago at Capital Grille during a recruiting lunch. The gap in his teeth feels really nice on the lining of my asshole. It was doubly nice that he was stroking my nuts at the same time. Delicious!

136, that's a bunch of crap. i'm as liberal as they come, and i am 100% in support of SS marriage, but i work just fine with some very conservative partners. with some partners, that makes for interesting, friendly conversations. with others, we talk about other things. the point is, none of that affects my work or relationship with them one bit.

if you think a difference of political opinions will affect your work or relationship w/ partners, you need to either grow up or actually graduate law school.

135 summed it up perfectly. Ditto.

135, Why can't deeply religious people practice their own religion and leave the rest of us alone?

167--Disgusting. Grow up.

152, why don't you say that Orrick only hires white people in an email to the firm's diversity chair, Lorraine McGowen.

http://orrick.com/Lawyers/Bio.asp?ID=24628

I'm sure she will appreciate your insightful discovery.
You're welcome.
__________________________________________

Why? She knows who they hire, and she knows that those hires are 90% "so-called" white--which means that being "dark-skinned" is clearly not an advantage in an effort to be hired by Orrick, no matter how many "diversity committees" they have. Get it? Got it? Good.

I guess I'm a creepy, brain-washed idiot. I'm glad the intelligent commentary at ATL has put me in my place before I enter this brave, legal world.

I respect both these person's right to think whatever they'd like. If Criddle wants to fight SSM, then it's his right. If the other dude wants to make an ass out of himself by sending out an e-mail and highlighting the very event (the donation) he feared would bring disrepute to the firm (a little counterproductive, eh?), then fine.

One thing is clear, though: there are several biggots who post anonymous commentary on ATL.

"It can be debated whether he should have foreseen that this action could damage Orrick. What can't be debated is that we should try to counteract the damage that has occurred."

Let me tell you what-- the first emailer isn't just saying, "Hey, everybody, Mr. Right Wing Partner made a donation to Yes on 8, but he's in the minority around here, let's show SF that the bulk of Orrickians are in favor of strong gay rights by donating heavily to the other side." No, no folks-- read his words above. The first emailer is saying that Mr. Right Wing Partner damaged the firm's business reputation by making a political contribution and maybe he should be punished by the firm (that's what he's saying with the "it can be debated whether this could have been foreseen" comment). And, it's a scary country if people are punished for contributing to mainstream political causes, which, regardless of where you stand on gay marriage, opposition to court-imposed gay marriage is super-mainstream (I'd bet Obama would even be against it).

And, for those of you out there who would compare opposition to gay marriage to some other horrible political view that no one would tolerate, say an affiliation with the Neo Nazi Party, think about that comparison long and hard before you repeat it. Gays can be treated with respect and dignity, and even be afforded all of the same legal rights accompanying marriage, and still not have the legal right to marry as a man and woman currently do. If that position is akin to being a skinhead, KKK member, or brown shirt, then truly, those terms are meaningless.

151 - "Flipping hilarious."
___________________________

I have known some Mormons in my time, sir, (most of whom I liked and respected) and you just might be one.

175,

That is exactly what I thought when I read that.

126: Good post. Long, but you make some good points.

Unlike almost everyone else who has posted on this thread (I am assuming, could be wrong), I actually have the job of making marriage equality happen for same-sex couples. I spend almost every single day working on it, including working to defeat Prop 8. So, for any ATL readers who would like to see Prop 8 go down and LGBT people in California treated equally, I have a request:

Stop being so fucking insulting to the people who disagree with you. It makes my job a lot harder. It may be easy for you, because you don't care about changing anyone's mind. But I do care, because I actually want us to win.

Thank you.

The "incentives" argument has many significant flaws:

First, it assumes without proof that heterosexual couples are the ideal child rearing environment. To the contrary, studies show that children raised in homosexual househoulds are as well adjusted and healthy as children of heterosexual couples. The cw about 2 parent households (which somehow gets extended to "2 parent hetersexual households") is based on faulty data that shows, at best, correlation but nowhere close to causation. That children from two parent households are better adjusted than children of single parent households doesn't indicate causation. There are too many variables that were not controlled for to make this conclusion valid.

But assuming we take that 2 parent heterosexual couples are the ideal child rearers and that the state has an interest in incentivizing this scenario, how exactly does limiting marriage to any non-related heterosexual couple achieve that incentive? For the exclusionary impact to form the basis of the incentive, you would have to show that inclusion somehow lessens the status of marriage. This is the real underpinning of the argument, only if homosexual marriage devalues heterosexual marriage does the incentive argument even make sense.

The real problem here is that the exclusion is not the incentive producing act. The incentives to marriage are 1) social force 2) money and 3) benefits. People primarily get married because it is built into society that marriage is the appropriate expression of committment. This explains why people who have no intention of having children get married and why people who don't need the tax benefits get married. The final two are pretty self-explanatory.

As for the slippery slope arguments:

First, all of these were raised during Loving v. Virginia and shockingly, allowing interracial marriage has not opened the flood gates to the destruction of the institution of marriage.

Bestiality - Animals don't have the same legal status as humans. There is no rational argument that shows that allowing a woman and a woman to marry must lead to allowing a woman and a horse to marry.

Polygamy - This is a legal benefits issue. Many of the benefits associated with marriage are exlusive (inheritence preference). They cannot be given to two people simultaneously. So the interest in preventing polygamy is more often than not, judicial efficiency. SSM does not change the basic understanding that marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. The law sees it as an exclusive contract. That isn't changed by substituting hetero for homo.

Incest - Honestly, this is more troublesome. The argument against incenst (genetics) while overstated are still valid.

In the end, I don't understand how anyone can justify legislation that does not more than entrench social mores. If what I am doing does not harm society or individuals, what right does the government have to outlaw it? (And I'm sorry, but true our not "God will strike us down" is not a valid legislative concern).

178,

I'm a Mormon who is ambivalent about Prop. 8, but I've got to say...YOU DA MAN (or WOMAN...whichever applies).

Cool heads will prevail.

152/172, perhaps you could explain how Orrick is "HIRING only "so-called 'white" people'"", and I quote the word "only," with the fact that their diversity chair is a black female partner.
That woosh sound is your unintentionally hilarious irony passing over your head.

179: Nice post.

One potential problem though: legislation in a democracy is constantly reflecting social mores.

As for the idea that what I'm doing does not harm society or individuals, the same argument could be made about many of the laws on our books -- ask any libertarian (whether from the right or left) that just simply wants the government to leave us the hell alone.

182 - Thanks, I am a libertarian.

Yes, the books are full of social legislation. The question is a normative one, though. Should the legislature have the power to outlaw an activity that harms noone, including the actor, if the only basis for the ban is social mores? Is that in keeping with the Natoin's supposed dedication to liberty?

179

There simply is no equal protection argument. Every man or woman in this country, who is at or above the age of consent, mentaly competent, and unmarried, can marry. Gay, straigt or questioning.

Now, you may not be able to marry who you want, but that is not unique to homosexuals. I may want to marry my best-friend's wife because she is hot as hell, but the law won't let me until she gets some legal is divorced. Similarly, a gay dud may want to marry his boyfirend, but the law won't let him until he has a sex change.

As the Frat Stud would say, it is no big deal.

184

Yeah, SCOTUS already bitch-slapped that argument into oblivion. Give Loving a once over.

185 -- uh, no Loving didn't say that. It said you can't make that distinction based on race. Not a word in there about gay marrage. Or about marrying someone who is already married, or incest, etc.

Loving is not a case about marrage as much as it is about race-based classifications.

You keep reading those cases to get them to say what you want them to say.

All this talk about gay marriage not hurting anyone is craziness. Of course it hurts people--primarily the children of same-sex couples. My prediction is that research will bear this out years down the road after we've had a chance to see the longitudinal effects of gay marriage over the long term.

But this is also about protecting the "institution" of marriage. To allow same-sex couples to marry fundamentally changes what it means to be married such that it "hurts" all those now belonging to that institution.

Take the "marriage is a piece of paper" argument, for instance. A law degree from Harvard is a piece of paper too. What if Harvard suddenly started awarding online degrees? My guess is that thousands of Harvard alumni would be pretty upset, to put it mildly. But why? Such a change wouldn't change or harm the quality of the alums' education or experience at Harvard, right? It wouldn't take away from their current skills as attorneys, would it? But it would fundamentally change what it means to have a Harvard law degree. It would do damage to an "institution" that, like marriage, is memorialized with nothing but a piece of paper.

All this talk about gay marriage not hurting anyone is craziness. Of course it hurts people--primarily the children of same-sex couples. My prediction is that research will bear this out years down the road after we've had a chance to see the longitudinal effects of gay marriage over the long term.

But this is also about protecting the "institution" of marriage. To allow same-sex couples to marry fundamentally changes what it means to be married such that it "hurts" all those now belonging to that institution.

Take the "marriage is a piece of paper" argument, for instance. A law degree from Harvard is a piece of paper too. What if Harvard suddenly started awarding online degrees? My guess is that thousands of Harvard alumni would be pretty upset, to put it mildly. But why? Such a change wouldn't change or harm the quality of the alums' education or experience at Harvard, right? It wouldn't take away from their current skills as attorneys, would it? But it would fundamentally change what it means to have a Harvard law degree. It would do damage to an "institution" that, like marriage, is memorialized with nothing but a piece of paper.

I apologize for the double post, I hate when people do that.

186

Hmmm, 184 said that the EPC wasn't implicated b/c everyone could get married, just not necessarily to the person they wanted.

That was EXACTLY Virginia's argument in Loving. There was no EP question because both people could get married, just not to each other. SCOTUS said, and I quote here: "Nice try, dumbass."

It is true that the Virginia law differentiated based on race and specifically did not extend beyond that.

Loving doesn't require SSM, not because of the argument posited in 184, but rather because gays don't trigger heightened EPC review b/c they are not an insular minority.

A significant number of constitutional scholars, and Justice Scalia, believe that Lawrence + Loving = a constitutional right to gay marriage.

186

Hmmm, 184 said that the EPC wasn't implicated b/c everyone could get married, just not necessarily to the person they wanted.

That was EXACTLY Virginia's argument in Loving. There was no EP question because both people could get married, just not to each other. SCOTUS said, and I quote here: "Nice try, dumbass."

It is true that the Virginia law differentiated based on race and specifically did not extend beyond that.

Loving doesn't require SSM, not because of the argument posited in 184, but rather because gays don't trigger heightened EPC review b/c they are not an insular minority.

A significant number of constitutional scholars, and Justice Scalia, believe that Lawrence + Loving = a constitutional right to gay marriage.

I went to Harvard.

191, since you seem to believe that Loving is such an analogy to gay marriage, perhaps you could explain to me why more blacks oppose gay marriage than whites?

See, e.g., http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/7-11/news/national/12917.cfm

Shouldn't the number of blacks who support gay marriage be about equal to the number of blacks who support Loving, which I'm guessing is around 100%?

191 - Wait, what?

To extend the logic of a SCOTUS case into a different fact pattern now requires the approval of the victorious party in the original case? Huh? That's such a inane argument that all I could do is blink at my screen for the first 10 minutes after reading it.

To answer the question, NO. What blacks think about gay marriage has NOTHING to do with whether the logic of Loving extends to gay marriage. Nor does the opinion of blacks on gays have anything to do with the appropriateness of using the civil rights movement as an analogy.

187 (and 188) - Another key point to your Harvard analogy:

The fact that Harvard alums would be upset and rail against the new changed threshold for a Harvard degree would, importantly, not imply any hatred, discrimination, or bias against the group of people seeking the online degrees.

139 is my hero.

"But this is also about protecting the "institution" of marriage. To allow same-sex couples to marry fundamentally changes what it means to be married such that it "hurts" all those now belonging to that institution."

Ohhh, I get it now. You derive value from marriage being an exclusive institution, and allowing gays and lesbians into the club makes it not so special for you anymore.

In the words of Livia Soprana, Poor You.

"But this is also about protecting the "institution" of marriage. To allow same-sex couples to marry fundamentally changes what it means to be married such that it "hurts" all those now belonging to that institution."

Ohhh, I get it now. You derive value from marriage being an exclusive institution, and allowing gays and lesbians into the club makes it not so special for you anymore.

In the words of Livia Soprano, Poor You.

LGBT = TTT

145 - who said anything about the firm taking punitive action??? Lawyers...

My only point is that LGBT recruits would be justifiably turned off by this, and that's the one thing Cam got right.

159 - did I say he should be terminated? Way to erect a strawman!

The diversity chair is almost always one of the token minorities. The existence of a black diversity chair doesn't make the firm diverse. It's possible that she sucks at her job.

It's interesting to me that Wolfe played right into the bullying tactic of the "No on 8" proponents, and that with a few thoughtful exceptions, the comments by the other attorneys were silly, irrelevant, poorly reasoned, and often childish.

Mr Doyle is the only attorney who came close to calling the pro-gay marriage advocates on their cheap tactic of trying to discredit people who choose to exercise their right to take a position on ballot measure. What a frightening thing when we have to base our decision on how we donate or vote on what the opposition may do to retaliate. It seems to me that we are dealing with a bunch of thugs.

If this is that state of the legal profession, and it certainly seems to be the cowardly position of Mr. Wolfe, that we lay down and die for bullies and thugs rather than take a stand in support of a person's right and obligation to vote his conscience, then we are in trouble. I am far more concerned with the sleazy tactics of the "No on 8" campaign, and the cowardly response of people like Wolfe than I am about whether Mr. Criddle chose to follow his own reasoning on the issue.

It's interesting to me that Wolfe played right into the bullying tactic of the "No on 8" proponents, and that with a few thoughtful exceptions, the comments by the other attorneys were silly, irrelevant, poorly reasoned, and often childish.

Mr Doyle is the only attorney who came close to calling the pro-gay marriage advocates on their cheap tactic of trying to discredit people who choose to exercise their right to take a position on ballot measure. What a frightening thing when we have to base our decision on how we donate or vote on what the opposition may do to retaliate. It seems to me that we are dealing with a bunch of thugs.

If this is that state of the legal profession, and it certainly seems to be the cowardly position of Mr. Wolfe, that we lay down and die for bullies and thugs rather than take a stand in support of a person's right and obligation to vote his conscience, then we are in trouble. I am far more concerned with the sleazy tactics of the "No on 8" campaign, and the cowardly response of people like Wolfe than I am about whether Mr. Criddle chose to follow his own reasoning on the issue.

181 Posted by guest | Permalink
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 3:11 PM

152/172, perhaps you could explain how Orrick is "HIRING only "so-called 'white" people'"", and I quote the word "only," with the fact that their diversity chair is a black female partner.
That woosh sound is your unintentionally hilarious irony passing over your head.
__________________________________________

No, that woosh sound would be the stale air that inhabits the empty space in your skull where most people have a brain--because the fact is that IF 90% OF THE FIRM'S ATTORNEYS ARE WHITE, THEN IT CLEARLY DOES NOT HELP ONE TO BE "DARK-SKINNED" (the ORIGINAL assertion made on this board) IN ORDER TO GET A JOB AT ORRICK, EVEN IF THEY HAVE A BLACK DIVERSITY CHAIR.

You can keep posting, and posting, and posting, and anyone with internet access will STILL be able to click on orrick.com and see who they do (and DON'T) hire. The end.

I think Mr. Wolfe may be a bully, but he's clearly not a coward--for counsel at a large law firm to call out a partner on any action to the entire firm is not the act of a coward. You don't have to misrepresent people because you disagree with their actions.

I think if Mr. Criddle is not a coward, his only response should be :

"I made a contribution to a political initiative that I believe in. I did it in my own name, not Orrick's, and it was my own action, not Orrick's.

My position on this issue has nothing to to with this firm; if people disagree with my opinion on Prop. 8, they are free to express that disagreement to me, as an individual, just as I made my contribution as an individual. "

205, so once again you think that "90%" has the same meaning as "only" (i.e., 100%)?
A firm that you explicitly said only hires white people is now equivalent to a firm that hires 90% white people?

Did you get a C in first grade math class in your hippie commune creche back in 1995?
How droll.

Somehow I work at Orrick and I just noticed this whole blowup here on ATL. Must have been a U.S. west coast thing exclusively.

Orrick is fun to be at because everybody gets to be who they are; getting pressured to conform to any political view, or being told to restrict my own activities, would be terrible. We don't do that here, and the of counsel was out of line.

Signed,

OHS junior

Gotta love 138's logic!!!!

That said, only a true retardliKKKan would be against gay marriage.

Vote Obama and lets end the Bush recession!"

Obama and Biden are against gay marriage!! Haha.

The left-wing radicals need to come up with a logical argument for gay marriage. I have yet to hear a good argument for why society should recognize gay marriage.

Comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is TTT. Obama, the product of an interracial relationship, is against gay marriage. What does that tell you?

You gotta love the "tolerant" left who basically say that if you disagree with me, you are a homophobic, intolerant, bigot.

Well, as mentioned above, Obama is against gay marriage. Does that make him a bigot? Or is there a possibility that protecting the sanctity of marriage is actually a mainstream societal value, regardless of what the radical left would have you believe?

Kudos to the second emailer. The first emailer is just another shining example of the "tolerant" left.

Those who choose a homosexual lifestyle should not be surprised when mainstream America does not choose to condone their actions.

The gay activists are the bigots.

Liberal Law Schools and Liberal Biglaw lawyers are the most intolerant people I have ever known as the first email displays nicely. I attended Cornell law school and was absolutely shocked at the backlash for having original or sometimes conservative viewpoints from faculty, administration and students.

The people arguing that Prop 8 should be an exception to the "let everyone have their viewpoint" rule on the basis that there is no valid argument against racism or sexism follow the following logic:

I believe A which I think looks like B. B is universally bad and people who oppose B are universally bad, so people who oppose A are universally bad.

The problem with the above is that you can fill ANYTHING into A and racism or hatred into B and you are off to the races.

Can we please open up forums and have meaningful conversations over whether incest, gay marriage, polygamy, abortion, private expressions of racism, and other issues are universally bad (I think some of those things are but I respect the fact that many disagree) rather than just calling them and everyone who disagrees with them universally bad? That is what intolerance is at its core! Can we be respectful about hearing each other and make our best case?

The partner who sent the first email is acting under the same inclinations as religious people who are uncomfortable with someone in their neighborhood who might be athiest and (although to a much less extreme degree) like the folks in Jackson County MO who killed, raped and drove off the Mormons on the basis that they were different or could potentially have political or economic influence if left to their own devices.

Hate is the universal evil. Love the universal good.

Gay Marriage, tough question.

I don't know about your commitment to Diversity, but you make a heck of a vacuum cleaner!