Ed. note: Above the Law has teamed up with Law Shucks, which has done excellent work translating all of the layoff news into user-friendly charts and graphs: the Layoff Tracker.
Huzzah! Unemployment is down this week. OK, we’re not that excited. It’s not easy to get excited about the unemployment rate being "only" 10%. Week in and week out, economists are surprised by the rate – in good weeks they only under- or over- estimate, but all too often, they’ve been getting the entire direction wrong. Supposedly, this week’s good news even caught the administration off guard, causing President Obama’s speechwriters to scramble to breathe some sunshine into a recent speech.
One question his team definitely didn’t prepare him for was whether he’d consider legalizing prostitution, marijuana, and non-violent crimes to kickstart the economy. To the chagrin of some (many?), that’s not on the table. No word on whether he has considered gay marriage can save the economy.
After the jump, we recap what little information we’ve been able to extract from the firms this week.
Unfortunately, the good news for the broader economy isn’t spreading to the legal sector yet.
The US economy lost 11,000 jobs in November, which was well below recent levels, but 2,900 of those were in the legal sector – and you can bet your bottom dollar that the legal sector isn’t employing 26.3% of the total workforce, even though it contributed that percentage of the total layoffs. To add insult to injury, as other sectors’ revised numbers from September and October were improving, still more legal jobs were being reported as lost.
But that doesn’t match up with the major firms’ layoff announcements, which have been dropping rapidly. As we showed in the montly recap for November, that was one of the best months all year, so we continue to believe stealth layoffs abound.
Layoffs were reported at only two firms this week: a stealth round at an AmLaw 100 firm and a round of integration cuts in the Russian operation of CMS.
Even quieter than the stealth rounds, though, is the silent stream of departing partners. LegalWeek reports that the UK Top 20 firms have lost 386 partners this year – 496 if you include people who remained with the firm but not in partnership roles. And contrary to the overall layoff trend, which spiked in the first quarter of this year, 313 of the 386 partner departures have come since May 1.
While announced law-firm layoffs have slowed, the side effects are still being felt. It’s easy to forget that there are service providers downstream of law firms, and the shit keeps rolling down hill. Thomson Reuters is laying off 240 people in its legal businesses, which have been hurt by layoffs and costcutting at law firms. (HT: Slaw)
Orrick has jumped off the lockstep bandwagon, complete with pretty chart explaining the above-market opportunities for which its associates will be eligible. If you take it at face value, it’s good news for experienced associates who will have higher total compensation potential, but that money is coming out of the pocket of the newest attorneys, who will not be bonus eligible until they’ve "advanced to next salary level based on quality of contribution." At Law Shucks, we’re a bit leery of firms’ touting above-market caps. The fact of the matter is, firms have always paid out above-market bonuses to top contributors, no matter what the range on the published memorandum said. So now Orrick is going to use this to cap the real stars? That seems counterproductive and unlikely.
Patton Boggs has generally frozen salaries, but underutilized lawyers (approximately 10%) will be seeing salary cuts. The firm has also stretched the bonus range – a little lower on the low end, a little higher at the top.
Salary cuts have taken the lead as the cost-cutting measure of choice these days, and American Lawyer confirmed it: 40% of the AmLaw 200 have cut salaries and 44% are considering future cuts. 68% of those same respondents expect increased PPP in 2010, too. That would be a pretty significant turnaround, considering Wachovia Legal Specialty Group reported gross revenue down 6.9% and net income down 6.1% in a recent survey of 131 US firms (half of which were AmLaw 100).
No sooner has bonus season gotten into full swing (don’t forget the Law Shucks Bonus Tracker has all the information) than some have already turned their greedy little thoughts to salary thaws. Will salaries get back on track this year? How long until we start hearing the chorus of "NY to 190" again?
That’s not the only good-ish news this week: something we’ve been advocating for months is finally coming true. A handful of firms are going back to the well, doing additional on-campus interviewing for the 2010 summer program. For firms that (sensibly) cut back fall OCI, it’s perfectly reasonable to fill out the class if they believe things really will be picking up seven months from now. That’s consistent with the ABC News report of significant drops in fall OCI. (HT: ABA Journal) Of course, firms have shown that they tend to overreact both ways, so we’ll see how this works out in practice.
Above the Law is a repeat finalist in the ABA Blawg 100 (which it won going away last year) but if you want to vote for the little guy, consider a vote for Law Shucks – we’re up against ATL and a whole host of other big blogs, and the only new entrant in the News category. If we win, we promise we’ll come up with some sort of Venn diagram for the magazine profile.
I am afraid these unemployment figures continue to be cooked “well-done” by Commissar Obama’s politburo. Unemployment is reaching 18-20% with a .5% decrease for the seasonal/part-time job demand during the holidays. Temps are being used more frequently as a cost effective alternative to hiring full-time staff with benefits. If you are an employer, I sympathize with you. Commissar Obama is imposing too many employement related taxes. It is hard to have a payroll. I understand. Unfortunately your elected Commissar does not. If the Commissar’s Obamacare bill passes, it will be the final nail in this nation’s coffin.
As a Mormon I support the ending of lockstep. Members of my Church pride themselves on working hard and allowing the cream to rise to the top. I’m confident that Members will do well in non-lockstep firms.
I will be voting for Law Shucks. TY for your hard work.
Milbank is continuing to cut people silently in an effort to make room for the swarms of new associates joining us in January. Great move, Mel!
re the video and from a strictly reading comprehension view, the writers don’t understand the interplay between the old and new testament. The laws and rules they point out from the old testament were essentially, should I say, superseded (?) by Jesus. A main point to his story is that people didn’t have to live a legalistic life, so eating pork and shellfish (to quote one example from the vid) is fine. In other words, Christians aren’t picking and choosing verses.
Even if that were the case, it took a lot more people than the Jesus peeps to quell Prop 8 so I’m not understanding the fascination here.
First!
5,
Liberals have to demonize religious people because BLACKS, who overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage, are the favorite liberal victim group.
Layoffs are gay.
It’s PUSSY FART time; PE let it RIP!
If religion is the only reason people disapprove of legalizing gay marriage, is it also the only reason people disapprove of legalizing polygamy?
Be sure to note the Asia Chronicles guy finally outed as posting questions to himself – seems he forgot to log out.
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/12/asia_chronicles_odds_and_ends.php?show=comments#comment-1338462
PE – They aren’t cooking the books, they are simply using a “trick” to “hide the increase” in unemployment.
Scientists use these tricks all the time, it’ no big deal.
10, polygamy degrades women. Plus, it’s just gross. Gay people just want to be left alone.
Please moderate 14. That is totally offensive.
gay marriage will stimulate the economy. i for one, stand to make millions marketing my custom anal beads and benoit balls to be showered upon the groom and groom as they exit down the steps of city hall.
WHERE IS DUCK?
QUACK!
stealth layoffs are happening at Latham & Watkins
14 – your niggardly comments are appalling.
- Lauren Hilleman
Wrong 18. Latham is hiring.
I don’t think layoffs are over. Year end financials will be a disaster at many firms.
Wish I felt differently
Stealth layoffs are happening at PH NY (making room for the first years).
22
Barry strikes again.
20
WRONG. they’re recruiting for a few spots but stealth layoffs continue.
by feb 09 latham had laid off about 400 associates. they’ve done very limited hiring in a few understaffed areas but are stealthing the hell out of people in other groups.
24/18- when will people ever figure out that not everyone is cut out for BigLaw? that getting rid of underperformers is done in just about every profession? that just because people get let go it doesn’t mean it’s a “stealth layoff”- even if you think you are a great associate or your friend bill is a great associate, you might be wrong.
Latham will have its 4th best year EVER, is just about to do a double salary bump and will give market bonuses or more too- if anyone’s getting asked to slowly exit, it’s merit based. Sorry if that’s hard to believe, Latham haters, but it’s true.
26,
you’re saying latham identified half its first years (over 30 people in a class of 60) as underperformers several months after they started after being given little to no work?
if latham is going to have its fourth best year ever, it sounds like its shitty treatment of the baby lawyers was completely unnecessary. and hence, the tumble through the vault rankings.
and the “double salary bump,” if true, just brings everyone to where they would be had Latham not frozen salaries. not impressed.
26,
I agree with what you said. Plus, I think such merit based layoffs are being pushed more than usual to accommodate incoming people.
i would not work for latham or ph
It’s really impressive that Latham will do so well in ‘09 despite providing associates with what has probably been the most generous severance package in all of Biglaw. And let’s not forget, there have been layoffs EVERYWHERE in Biglaw.
Just went down on a girl yesterday and she had the STINKIEST pussy ever! Goddamn, I never want to eat pussy again…
27
obviously they did a bad job on the nothing they were assigned
27,
Latham didn’t fire all the first years, only some of them. You think they were just picked at random?
30
Name a V20 other than latham that has laid off HALF A FIRST YEAR CLASS only four months after they started after giving them little to no work?
the severance was in exchange for their careers. not worth it.
anyway, all the v20 have treated associates better than latham which is a good indicator that latham will fall farther next year.
33
when there was little to no work, what criteria would they use?
34: I don’t know what planet you are on. Name a single V20 that has provided a better severance package than Latham’s. Most were much stingier.
36
market was 4 months. bet you those first years would have traded the extra 2 months for the much better chance they would have had at surviving at most other firms.
the 1st year layoff ended the biglaw careers for the vast majority of the first years.
37,
Name three V20 firms that have NOT done layoffs in the past year. Latham shouldn’t be punished for this; it should be praised for providing a far better severance package than that received by associates at other Biglaw firms. I’m sure most terminated associates would have traded their severance for continued employment. That tells us nothing.
38
Name a v20 having it’s fourth best year ever that massacred half a first year class only four months after they started after giving them little to no work?
you don’t want to admit that you’re wrong, but it doesn’t matter. latham took an unprecedented fall in the vault rankings last year for its shady treatment of associates and the same thing will happen this year.
recruiting has already suffered and will continue to suffer. worse associates will equal worse work product. latham will probably stabilize somewhere in the middle of the pack. fine, but they’re days as a prestigious firm are over.
36: I have little sympathy for you. You are essentially just saying Latham should have terminated other people instead, perhaps people you favor less. You presume to know that those other people were more deserving of being fired.
In effect, you are okay with sticking it to someone else. Way to throw your coworkers under the bus.
27- those first-year layoffs were well-publicized and admitted to- not “stealth layoffs” like 26 was referring to.
i’m going to stealth layoff # 41 for performance reasons
Just by virtue of having four months in practice, the first years were probably some of the least competent lawyers in the entire firm. How were the layoffs then not based on their competence (or lack thereof)?
43
by your logic no one would ever get past their fourth month and we’d have no second years, third years, fourth years, etc.
let’s be clear, latham is having their 4th best year in history, according to you, and you think it’s just fine for them to waste the biglaw careers of people who’ve had no chance to prove themselves. well kiddies, you want ruthlessness, go to latham.
43
by your logic no one would ever get past their fourth month and we’d have no second years, third years, fourth years, etc.
let’s be clear, latham is having their 4th best year in history, according to you, and you think it’s just fine for them to waste the biglaw careers of people who’ve had no chance to prove themselves. well kiddies, you want ruthlessness, go to latham.
There have been stealth lay offs at Katten NYC in the past few weeks.
Katten usually comes through with an announcement to the media. This time they have been cutting people for “performance related issues.”
43
by your logic no one would ever get past their fourth month and we’d have no second years, third years, fourth years, etc.
let’s be clear, latham is having their 4th best year in history, according to you, and you think it’s just fine for them to waste the biglaw careers of people who’ve had no chance to prove themselves. well kiddies, you want ruthlessness, go to latham.
Did anyone else just visualize a cheesy announcer saying “It’s time to play… Name That V20 Firm!”
44/45/47 – When cuts must be made, fair criteria are competence and service time with the organization. It seems Latham tried to adhere to those principles.
#46 Yeah Katten has been shedding associates on the quiet.
Latham is just this period’s Shearman & Sterling. Why are we still talking about a has-been firm?
7- There is no place for the truth on this blog.
Word on the street is that Schiff Hardin is preparing to close its doors soon. The stealth layoffs (1 person this week, 2 next week, and hope nobody notices) have outstripped most of the firms who got their layoffs done quickly and cleanly. The CFO (chief f*** off) has decided to raise (selectively, like everything in this black hole firm) billing hour requirements for timekeepers by 200-300 hours.
This is after everyone has been told not even to think about a raise or bonus. And everyone is being told to use up all vacation time. Obviously the strategy of a terminally ill firm. CFO wants to add on to his million-dollar mansion?
just cut out anything that might possibly help morale. HR manager is planning a trip to Venice? No problem. Just lay off a few more people and it’s all set. An equity partner who hasn’t put in a legitimate billable hour in 10 years wants to buy a new mansion? Just a few “merit” layffs of assosiates. Paralegal manager wants an even bigger house? Just tell a paralegal that “You only billed 1600 hours (the national standard) instead of the 1900 needed to support my bloated lifestyle.” CFO Vastspace and the 2 hacks he brought over from the old firm – Petty and Dim – are supposed to thrive on the unemployment of people who have actually worked for a living. It’s too bad it took 140 years to build this once-fine firm, and only a few years of the 3 Scrooges to undo it. I just hope this piece of s*** CFO gets measured for an orange jumpsuit and a dildo before he has a chance to retire with a 7-8 figure bonus. And Safer needs to relearn the skills that once made him a top Federal prosecutor, and make the a**holes account for themselves. A lot of us once thought Safer cared about working human beings. Well, show it. Be a mensch.
Word on the street is that Schiff Hardin is preparing to close its doors soon. The stealth layoffs (1 person this week, 2 next week, and hope nobody notices) have outstripped most of the firms who got their layoffs done quickly and cleanly. The CFO (chief f*** off) has decided to raise (selectively, like everything in this black hole firm) billing hour requirements for timekeepers by 200-300 hours.
This is after everyone has been told not even to think about a raise or bonus. And everyone is being told to use up all vacation time. Obviously the strategy of a terminally ill firm. CFO wants to add on to his million-dollar mansion?
just cut out anything that might possibly help morale. HR manager is planning a trip to Venice? No problem. Just lay off a few more people and it’s all set. An equity partner who hasn’t put in a legitimate billable hour in 10 years wants to buy a new mansion? Just a few “merit” layffs of assosiates. Paralegal manager wants an even bigger house? Just tell a paralegal that “You only billed 1600 hours (the national standard) instead of the 1900 needed to support my bloated lifestyle.” CFO Vastspace and the 2 hacks he brought over from the old firm – Petty and Dim – are supposed to thrive on the unemployment of people who have actually worked for a living. It’s too bad it took 140 years to build this once-fine firm, and only a few years of the 3 Scrooges to undo it. I just hope this piece of s*** CFO gets measured for an orange jumpsuit and a dildo before he has a chance to retire with a 7-8 figure bonus. And Safer needs to relearn the skills that once made him a top Federal prosecutor, and make the a**holes account for themselves. A lot of us once thought Safer cared about working human beings. Well, show it. Be a mensch.
Tim Tebow ia a religious nut. FU Tebow “John 3:16″
phatwhitebooty.com
I guess Jesus likes alabama better than florida, tim.
I lied and cheated my way to the top. And if you think the press is ever going to get anything of substance out of me regarding the inner workings of the B.O. administration – you are sorely mistaken. We make Nixon’s administration look like transparent angels.
Until you wise up – I will just sit here and evade with my fuck you smile.
Thank you -
R. Gibbs
9 – you are a disgrace to the number 9.
The luck ones got laid off.
The grinders will have to keep fart catching until they get theie inevitable plank walk.
Opps . I splet wrong. I meant “their” no “theie”.
“polygamy degrades women.”
Really? How? I’m assuming that polygamy, were it legal, would include both polygyny and polyandry. And like all marriages, it requires consenting adults.
Are you saying women aren’t autonomous enough to be treated like adults? I mean, they aren’t, but that’s the cute fiction people like you live by.
Friend of mine got pushed out the door by Katten in New York. Had 2 good reviews. Then this year was suddenly not doing a good job. Hours were down, but that was the same for everyone.
polygamy is illegal, sodomy is not. That’s the difference that paved the way for gay marriage.
The ship is UNSINKABLE.
- King of the World Secure
64,
So if a state managed to pass a law criminalizing gay marriage, then that would OK?
There is nothing illegal about a married person having multiple extra-marital live in partners, so your distinction of sodomy being legal isn’t convincing. If there is a constitutional right to be married to whoever you want, then anti polygamy statutes should also be repealed.
46, is Katten closing its NYC office?
Winston & Strawn is stealthing some more associates. Thought that there re-deferment would allow them put off layoffs, but they have continued anyway.
Agree w 62.
14’s argument is completely illogical. I suspect polygamists “just want to be left alone”, too—after having the state certify their marriages. As for it degrading women–oh hell. Women can choose it for themselves, right? It’s all about choice, right? and who or what is the State to fetter someone’s choice?
Polygamy is really a pro-choice argument.
If you want to be an interesting person; take an interest in other people. Ask about where they are from; what they hope to do in the future; and what they think about various things; if someone asks you a question and you respond but you don’t ask a question back they may think that you are not interested in them and will be less likely to approach you in the future….
-Being a Better Lawyer
69, continued.
Let me clarify: “pro choicers” don’t, for the most part, actually advocate polygamy. But if they had intellectual integrity, they would admit that their argument inferentially supports the legalization of polygamous marriages.
If a person wishes to enter into a marriage with more than one person, and be entitled to the burdens and responsibilities of marriage with respect to those other people, who or what is the State selectively to deny them that status?
Remember, friends: 30 years ago, gay marriage was a throwaway line. It’s no throwaway line anymore. In 2009, gay marriage advocates argue that “no one is advocating polygamy”. Well, for now they’re not. And maybe the present gay marriage advocates will not be the ones to argue for polygamous marriages in 30 years, but so what? The legal foundation will have been laid.
It is very easy to this lawyer to see how removing from civil marriage any possible tie to procreation will lead, with the forceful advocacy of a generation of civil rights enthusiasts yet unborn, to polygamous marriages. Not now, but in 30 years. Or less.
71, is it really a bad thing, though?
-62
Many lawyers have trouble making conversation, this leads to awkward silences, lost opportunities, and lost confidence. The ability to make conversation is very important and with practice it can help improve your professional social, and even your dating life. There are three main elements to great conversation. 1) Listening-listen to what the other person is saying. 2)Ask/Answer Questions- If they ask a question, give an elaborate answer (more than one word) so they can ask you more questions OR if you are shy repeat the question back to them. 3) Empathize – match experiences with a person, this really helps facilitate conversation. If they tell you about their favorite foods; you tell them about yours. If they tell you about a situation you respond with a story about a similar situation. If you practice the aforementioned skills every day with every conversation you have you will have renewed confidence find many more doors opened to you either with clients, wealthy friends, or even that special someone. For further help Google “conversation skills”.
-Being a Better Lawyer
6 – fail
51
Latham is not a has been firm!!!
*storms out of the room crying*
-Bob Dell
Why is there no mention of Skadden closing their Truth or Consequences, NM office?
Given that I have $250,000 in student loan debt and no job prospects, I’m not overly worried about highly paid tools being laid off.
But do us all a favor; tell us which firm you got laid off and we’ll apply for jobs there.
TIA.
We need to bomb the free market back to the stone age!
-DOJ Secure
We need to bomb the DOJ schtick back to the stone age!
-WH secure
4 associates were recently stealthed at PH NY (2 mos. of severance). So much for Barry’s little speech about no more layoffs.
So it sounds like insurance bad faith is the real reason behind all this. Check it out.
http://martinstanleylaw.com/insurance-bad.php
80 – It was 5 associates. 3 from corporate and 2 from re.
What happened at Katten NYC? How many let go??
confirmed–milbank is laying associates off to make room for like 100 newbies coming in january. we were all in shock when they told us that they weren’t planning on cutting any of them.
80/82: PH NY is making room for the first years. There will be more associate and staff lay-offs coming. Barry is a lying piece of shit.
Don’t worry 85. It cost his partners 60K to settle Barrygate. He will get what he deserves.
why are these TTT firms getting rid of current employees to make room for newbies who don’t even know how to send an email?
Pillsbury conducting stealth layofff rumors. True?
87 Cause that’s what biglaw shitholes do.
86 substitute a 9 for the 6 and you have the right number.
- one of those partners.
HEY LAT! Why aren’t you covering the (ALLEGED) Ginsburg/Sotomayor battle royale at the Supreme Court last week. Even Breyer was reported to be scared to get involved. I mean, it was minor, but it’s the kind of thing you would love.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435959738&Inside_the_High_Court_Sotomayor_Collides_With_Ginsburg_During_Questioning
Why do Black people name their kids Flozell and D’Brickishaw?
Anyone willing to post the inside scoop on Katten NYC?
And why is Katten NYC being written about, but not the other offices?
MY ship be sinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
-Bill Billichek
any news on MWE?
Anti-Free Marriage Bigots:
There is a constitutional right to marry, but it’s only to ONE person. That person can be to whoever you want, but it can only be one. Polygamy is not protected under the constitution because its exploitative and cult-like, and generally involves either incest or sex with minors.
Lay offs in Katten Corporate NYC.
97, Any more details? What about other groups?
97 – I call BS. I work in Katten’s NYC office in the corporate group and while things have been slow (less than 150hrs/month), we’ve seen a major uptick in the recent months (approx 200 hrs/month).
100 MOTHERFUCKAS!!!!
not funny
We need to bomb the WH back to the stone age!
-SEC Secure
Yay for 96. Yes, right now, some people (straight people) have a right to marry one person of their choosing whom they love and are physically attracted to. Gay people are denied that right. In this country, no one has the right to marry more than one person, so polygamists are on equal footing with everyone else. There’s a difference between quantity (number of spouses) and type (gender/genitalia of spouse). The Supreme Court has already ruled that discrimination based on immutable characteristics of your spouse is not okay. It’s not okay to say everyone has the same right to marry someone of their same race. it’s never ruled that anyone has a right to marry more than one spouse.
Plus we’re talking about civil marriage- marriage the only purpose of which is to define your relationship and determine whether you get the rights and benefits conferred by the state on spouses. If polygamy were allowed, there’s no natural check on marriage fraud as there is when you can marry only one person at a time. Entire towns could have each adult married to every other adult, making everyone eligible for any marriage benefits, and negating the purpose of having any distinction between married and unmarried in the first place.
I’m a proponent of equal rights and full legalization of gay marriages, if we are going to have civil marriage at all. whether we should is questionable given both the high divorce rate and the wisdom of giving special privileges to couples who choose to become a pair versus people who have a different kind of relationship. For example, certain rights are given to your spouse, even if you live in different homes and cant stand each other. Even if you are unmarried, you cannot get the same rights (health insurance, etc) for your sister who has been living with you since she recovered from cancer and who cannot afford another place to live yet, or your widowed mother, etc etc. Given the diversity of family structures in this day and age, you would think the law would want to support the later as much as the dinks. To me the better answer would be to leave marriage up to religion and have some other way of accessing benefits (inheritance, health insurance, etc) by choosing one person to be your “adult beneficiary” or whatever, continuing to make child-specific tax benefits available to those with children, and just get over it. But until we do that, denying a person (and their children) rights based on who they love and are capable of loving is wrong.
96: you, dear sir/madam, are a pantload. Having been labeled by you a “bigot”, I am pleased to pronounce you the result of an involuntary evacuation of the bowels.
103: you’re way too earnest, and unable to grasp the limits of your own argument. Merely asserting that there is a fundamental distinction between genitalia and number, as you so elegantly put it, does not make it so. You offer no proof, no authority, no nothing, other than your desire to have it be so.
For example, your argument that polygamy leads inevitably to marriage fraud is preposterous on its face. So restrict polygamists to one marriage at a time.
Again, you are earnest and heartfelt, but your arguments are unavailing. It’s as though the gay marriage advocates wish to engineer a wholesale change in the millenia-old definition of marriage, that (until very recently) spanned all societies at all times (to the extent we can determine), but then pull the ladder up after themselves. “So much change–yes–but no more!”
We have no assurance whatsoever that the next generation of activists will be satisfied with your decision to pull up the ladder. In fact, to the contrary, we have every reason to expect that the result will be otherwise.
96: gotta love you folks.
Do you have any conception of what, up to the 70s’, being homosexual was thought to “generally involve”? Hint: it included pedophilia. In fact, only as recently as 1973 was homosexuality removed from the DSM as a separate psychological disorder.
The gay response, rightly, was “don’t penalize me for my being gay. If I’m gay and I abuse children, then prosecute me for the offense of abusing children”.
You have no proof whatsoever that polygamy “generally involves” pedophilia and incest and if you did, then the answer would be to prosecute those polygamists who engage in that activity, not the practice of polygamy itself among consenting adults.
Does any of this ring familiar to you? Do you understand why the legalization of gay marriage is part of a continuum, the contours of which this country has not even begun to delimit? And why, when and if this country does so “delimit” those contours, that act will itself be subject to profound legal attack based on equal protection grounds?
In the last analysis, who are you to say that more than two people cannot join in a bond of intimacy, love and shared responsibility?
104 said: For example, your argument that polygamy leads inevitably to marriage fraud is preposterous on its face. So restrict polygamists to one marriage at a time.
Um… wouldn’t restricting polygamists to one marriage make them not polygamists for the purposes of this discussion? (they would not be obtaining the benefits of civil marriage for more than one spouse). talk about preposterous…