An Attack on Legal Representation
I hadn’t heard of this (or don’t remember having heard of it) before reading Maggie Gallagher’s recent summary of the battle over same-sex marriage:
When word spread at Harvard Law School last month that one of the most successful recruiters of its graduates, Ropes & Gray, was helping Catholic Charities explore ways to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children, gay and lesbian students wanted to stop the law firm it its tracks. …
Two weeks ago, Ropes said it would no longer do legal work to assist the bishops in their efforts to stop gay adoptions, and last week Catholic Charities said it would end its adoption program because it could not reconcile church doctrine, which holds that gay adoptions are “gravely immoral,” with state antidiscrimination laws.
Unless I’m missing something, it would be more accurate to say that Catholic Charities wanted help avoiding same-sex adoptions, for its own operations, not preventing other groups from allowing them. That’s not a small distinction.
Readers may find some relief in the fact that, according to the first link (from which I drew the blockquote), the young future lawyers had some qualms about bullying a lawfirm from serving a client, but as with much else, the gay agenda trumps.
This is an unfortunate consequence of this battle. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with gays being allowed to adopt, it has not been declared unconstitutional to deny gays to adopt. Can you imagine the media outcry if a student organization pressured a law firm to not represent planned parenthood or the HRC?
There certainly should be some concern with bullying a law firm from selecting its cases and clients. I understand that this is the way in which culture battles are fought – by going to the hand that feeds, boycotts, pressure from advertisers, etc.
What I don’t like is the ignoring of the big picture. Catholic Charities does many many great things. Because of their stance on gay adoption, people have decided they should be stopped providing an important service. Sort of like shutting down an entire pharmacy because they provide contraceptives or the Scouts because of their stance on gay leaders. Yes, we live in the country where dissent is allowed and that should be celebrated. What is unfortunate is that the choice of dissent has become associated with power and money. And we all know that power and money trumps all earthly things.
“What I don’t like is the ignoring of the big picture. Catholic Charities does many many great things. Because of their stance on gay adoption, people have decided they should be stopped providing an important service. Sort of like shutting down an entire pharmacy because they provide contraceptives or the Scouts because of their stance on gay leaders. Yes, we live in the country where dissent is allowed and that should be celebrated. What is unfortunate is that the choice of dissent has become associated with power and money. And we all know that power and money trumps all earthly things.”
I agree with you Msteven. But it is a point you can’t possibly get much agreement on with members of this blog. For them, free market forces are their god. All other concerns pale in comparison. In all other areas, free market forces should reign. No community, no group of citizens, no group organized under the banner of social concerns should prevail against the invisible hand of capitalism.
What an utterly bizarre accusation to make, David. Part of my complaint against expanding government is the power that it usurps from religious, cultural, and community institutions.
Honestly, I’m not sure where to proceed from that statement, given your clear and profound misunderstanding of the political philosophy and ideology against which you’re arguing.
Justin, let msteven respond. I was not calling you out. I hope you had a good family weekend.
David,
I think I’m going to disappoint you but my response pretty much echoes Justin’s. I happen to believe in capitalism, not totally unrestricted capitalism, but an economic system based on competition on a level playing field. I read this blog and do not agree with your assessment the bloggers believe a free market trumps all other concerns. I also agree with Justin that expanding government power does usurp from other people/institutions in their effort to both provide services and remain financially stable.