Chasing DOMA

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. The bill had two principal sections:

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
...

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

and

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

...
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Now, DOMA is being challenged in the courts and, the Justice Department has indicated that it is unwilling to defend the act. In the absence of the Administration's advocacy, the House of Representatives decided to intervene and provide a defense of DOMA. Attorney and former Solictor General Paul Clement of Atlanta-based King & Spalding, accepted responsibility. Lobbying of the law firm by Human Rights Campaign led K&S to withdraw from representation of the House. Paul Clement resigned from K&S moving to another firm, continues to represent the House in the DOMA Defense. A review of these developments from a pro-DOMA perspective can be found here; the HRC position is here.

The lobbying by HRC is ultimately ironic if not intrinsically contradictory and, ultimately, destructive of marriage, whether traditional or not-so-traditional.

By demanding that H&S drop defense of DOMA, HRC forced the firm into breaking a contract, whether ethical or legal. Why is the marriage contract so important to HRC if other contracts must be broken in order for the marriage to be expanded to include same-sex partners? Doesn't this very strategy of HRC undermine the value of the bond that HRC wants adopted for their constituency. And, what value do contracts have to H&S?

A strange, destructive loop we have here.