Foley & Lardner Partner Represents D.C. Gay Marriage Foes

It appears that gay marriage opponents had a bit of help from Big Law yesterday as they tried to prevent Washington’s new law allowing same sex unions from going into effect.

A group led by the Bishop Harry Jackson, of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., simultaneously petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court and filed a federal lawsuit in a failed effort to halt the new law from taking hold this morning. On the filings: Foley & Lardner partner Cleta Mitchell, who according to her firm bio has served as counsel to both the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Jackson and his fellow gay marriage foes have argued that the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics wrongfully denied them a chance to put the gay marriage bill before a public referendum. The D.C. Court of Appeals denied their request for a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the bill from becoming law.

Mitchell was listed alongside lawyers from the Alliance Defense Fund on a petition asking Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. to stay the new law until the full Supreme Court could decide whether to hear their appeal of the local court decision. The same lawyers appeared on a lawsuit filed at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia which argued that the Board of Elections and Ethics had violated D.C. residents’ due process rights, and asked for restraining order staying the law. The suit landed before the District Court’s Judge Richard Roberts.

Both Judges Roberts denied the stays for roughly the same reason: Jackson and co. have already begun seeking a ballot initiative to repeal the gay marriage law, making a stay to allow a referendum unnecessary

Mitchell and Foley & Lardner did not immediately return calls for comment.

Comments

[Jordan Lorence]

I am concerned that this article is trying to villify the attorney from Foley that represented her client zealously. There is an ominous implication that the attorney did something "wrong" and that the leaders of the law firm should punish her for representing her clients in this lawsuit in favor of a referendum on the issue. I sense a growing McCarthyism, to blackball people who disagree with a forceful minority. If same-sex marriage is inevitable, then there is no need to intimidate those who support traditional marriage. The homosexual activists and their allies seem bent on demonizing and punishing those who disagree with them. Look what happened to many of the voters and donors to the Prop 8 campaign in California. A post like this gives a chilling feel that that heavy hand of intimidation is coming to D.C. as well.

[Freddiegaie22]

GOD LOVES GAYS, GOD LOVES GAYS, GOD LOVES GAYS-EQUALLY JUST LIKE HIS STRAIGHT CHILDREN. NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!! IF YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT ARGUE THAT WITH GOD! LOVE YOU ALL STILL AND WISHING YOU ALL THE COMPASSION LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD CAN OFFER..

[Rosenstein]

Anziulewicz- Thank you. Your comment is about the best explanation of the truth of this "issue" I've heard. Concise, and explains the role of the social conservatives accurately without actually attacking them. (Shows respect for the foe, something I'm working on in my real life as I work on "some anger issues.") FREAKIN' RIGHT-WING JERKS SHOULD BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO VOTE. Sorry, I'm better now.

[Anziulewicz]

I know there is all kinds of wailing and gnashing of teeth among the usual social conservatives over this … but let me reassure you: The advent of marriage equality for Gay couples will have absolutely ZERO effect on “traditional marriage.” The first state to allow Gay couples to marry, Massachusetts, still has the lowest divorce rate in the country. In all the states where Gay couples are allowed to legally marry or enter into civil unions, Straight couples continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. To be honest, if you think that YOUR marriage is going to suffer because the Gay couple down the street is allowed to get married also, I think YOU’RE the person who needs counseling.

From a purely Constitutional standpoint, marriage equality for Gay couples has been a long time coming. The only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the sexual orientation of the two people in the relationship. It has nothing to do with religion, since the only thing a church can offer any couple is a ceremony; it is the federal government that bestows the 1,138 legal benefits, according the Government Accounting Office.

It also has nothing to do with raising children, since a couple does not need to be married to have children, nor is the ability or even desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

This is about equal treatment as stipulated by the 14th Amendment. You can quote Scripture until the cows come home, but the fact remains that there is simply no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted. And it's definitely NOT something that should be a popularity contest.