Los Angeles Times Reasonable, Fits Thrown

I have to give credit where it is due. The Los Angeles Times editorial board has publicly distinguished itself from certain other marriage neutering advocacy organizations with "Defense of Marriage Act: Attack the Law, Not the Lawyer". Certain homofascists have tried to prevent DOMA from getting a defense by threatening law firms. This editorial is inducing fits by readers who believe in forcing the neutering of marriage by any means necessary.

The Human Rights Campaign has been a powerful force for the rights of gays and lesbians, but the organization has stumbled in objecting to the hiring of a former solicitor general to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The tradition of lawyers defending unpopular or controversial clients is an honorable one.

As the board writes:

If DOMA is struck down, the fact that it was defended effectively will make the victory for its opponents more credible.

This is true.

In criticizing Clement's law firm for agreeing to defend DOMA, the Human Rights Campaign contrasted that decision with the firm's admirable record in promoting equality for gay and lesbian employees.

There is a difference from what someone does as an employer and what they might do regarding legislation. For example, an employer may provide full health care benefits to all of her employees with nothing directly out of their pocket, and still lobby against the federal government paying for the health care of all residents. An employer can choose to cover one partner (or two, or three) for each employee, regardless of sex, but be against using the force of government to make other employers to the same. Also, I believe in full rights for individuals and their freedom of association, regardless of sexual orientation. If a mans want to "marry" another man, I would never try to stop them from asking a minister to perform a ceremony for them, from living together, so on and so forth.

In the comments left after the editorial, marriage neutering advocates try to argue that homosexual people are discriminated against and are powerless (and thus any law that homosexuality advocates don't like is automatically unconstitutional), and that an overwhelming majority of people are against DOMA and view homosexual people positively. How these claims can all fit together, I don't know. But then I am one of those people who don't think certain other things fit together, either.