Extremist Minds Dominating Legal Associations. (Journal view of Lawyers of Homosexual Advocacy)

One of the most insightful—and disturbing—windows on the view
of the legal profession (at least some very influential members of it)
on marriage, comes through in an examination of the recently approved
Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution (“Principles”) put together
by the American Law Institute (“ALI”).332 The historic contributions of
the ALI towards legal changes have not necessarily been salutary.333
But aspects of the recent Principles are particularly troubling.
One disturbing part of the Principles is chapter 6, which recommends
the creation of certain rights to be made available to unmarried
couples on the dissolution of their relationship. This chapter defines
“domestic partners” as “two persons of the same or opposite sex, not
married to one another, who for a significant period of time share a primary
residence and a life together as a couple.”334 Later, the Principles
use the following description: “In general, domestic partners are two persons
of the same or opposite sex, not married to one another, who for a
significant period of time share a primary residence and a life together as
a couple.”335

Perhaps most startling in this proposal is the fact that a couple
can establish a domestic partnership with a partner even if they are
married to someone else!336 The Principles would provide to domestic
partners many of the rights associated with marriage, including concepts
analogous to marital property, property division, and alimony.337

Further, the Principles create new statuses of “de facto” parents and
“parents by estoppel” who are adults close to the child that will be given
status equal to the biological parent of the child.338 Obviously, unmarried
partners of a child’s biological parent, such as same-sex partners, are the
most likely beneficiaries of such a policy. Indeed, the Principles specifically
provide that the fact that the couple is a same-sex couple should not

332. See AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION:
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Tentative Draft No. 4 § 6.01 (Apr. 10, 2000).
333. Indeed, the ALI itself notes (presumably with some pride) that Playboy magazine ranked
the ALI 34th in its list of “men and women who changed the face of sex, for good or bad, during the
Playboy Pays Tribute to ALI, THE ALI REPORTER (Fall 1999). The entry, according
to the ALI Reporter read: “The American Law Institute: The unsung heroes of the sexual
revolution. In 1960 this group of legal scholars drafted a model penal code that decriminalized sexual
activity between consenting adults (from sodomy to fornication).” Id.
334. AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION:
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Tentative Draft No. 4 § 6.01(1).
335. Id. at §6.03(1).
336. See id. at § 6.01(5).
337. See id. at §§ 6.04–6.06.
338. See id. at § 2.03.
DUNCANFIN.DOC 12/19/01 3:22 PM 137]

VIEWS ON MARRIAGE AND “SEXUAL ORIENTATION” 181
be taken into consideration in making decisions related to parental rights.339

It is, of course, difficult to gauge the effect of all of these developments.
It seems fair to assume that the aggressive embrace of policies favoring
legal protections of homosexual persons as part of a specific class
will make those who are critical of such an approach, including those favoring
traditional marriage, hesitant to openly voice their objections. Anecdotal
evidence indicates that those who speak openly in opposition to same-sex marriage face
opprobrium from the public and sometimes disfavor within the legal community.340 In the legal education establishment
where the aims of “gay rights” proponents seem to be most firmly entrenched, the potential effect
is obvious–lawyers will be trained in the view that there is no legal or moral justification for traditional marriage
laws and policies. This could easily lead to the establishment of something
like a “lawyer class” in regards to this issue even if the general
public holds to the opposite perspective.341 James Madison’s discussion of factions in Federalist 10 may be relevant
here.342 Madison describes a faction as “a number of citizens,
whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are
united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest,
adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate

339. See id. at 211 & 216.
340. See Wardle, supra note 305, at 630
(describing “outbursts of anger and explosions of hostility from persons who disagree with my positions I
have taken on this and similar issues (for example, same-sex marriage)”);
Gilbert Meilaender, Bringing One’s Life to a Point, FIRST THINGS, November 1994,
Sept. 29, 2000, at 19 (describing attacks on a law professor defending marriage);
Kristy K. Bruns, DOMA Debate Flames, OMAHA WORLD-HERALD, Oct. 5, 2000, at 12 (describing attacks on a law professor defending marriage);
Marianne Moody Jennings, Same-Sex Marriage Critic Punished by Intolerance, ARIZ. REPUBLIC,
July 28, 1996, at H3 (describing vandalism and threats after article
criticizing same-sex marriage published in newspaper); Lynn D. Wardle,
When Dissent is Stifled The Same-Sex Marriage and Right-to-Treatment Debates, NARTH BULL., August 2000, at 26
(describing verbal attacks and ostracism in legal academic settings because of position against same-sex marriage and homosexual adoption).
341. A poll commissioned for the World Congress on the Family and performed by Wirthlin
Worldwide indicated that 83% of Americans agreed with the statement:
“The definition of marriage World Congress Global Survey Findings (Nov. 3, 1999);
see also The Howard Center, World Congress of Families II (visited Jan. 31, 2001) .
342. I am indebted to Dean Robert Destro for his intriguing suggestion that Federalist 10 may be applicable here.
This subject is worthy of a more exhaustive discussion than I am, of necessity, able to provide in this article.
DUNCANFIN.DOC 12/19/01 3:22 PM

While Madison despaired of ridding government
entirely of factions, he felt that the normal structure of republican
government was the best way to ameliorate the damage that could be
done by factions.
344 In the situation described in this article, though, there are two potential challenges to the normal process of submerging factional interests.
First is the challenge when a faction takes on a governmental or quasigovernmental role, such as where professional legal associations are allowed
to promulgate rules, approve government appointments, etc. The
second occurs where normal checks inherent in government structure are
undermined because one branch of government, unduly influenced by a
faction, exercises limitless discretion in decision making (as I would argue
that courts have done in the same-sex marriage litigation).345 Arguably,
both problems are evidenced in the circumstances this article describes,
leading to a corruption of the political process that could threaten marriage and democracy.
This is, of course, not a foregone conclusion, but the possibility
should be taken seriously, and this developing orthodoxy should be challenged in the name of tolerance and diversity.

The may be old, but it is very very very telling about the infultration of homosexuals and leftist on the
issue of homosexual rights in the legal profession.

This is an exceprt of the last chapter.
I appologize for my limited formatting.

The article itself is 46 pages long.
It is worth it for anyone who is activly fighting
these homosexual groups in the courts or legislature.

Voluntary groups like the ABA should have no part
in evaluating judges. The ABA's opinion should be
inadmissible in any evaluation of potential justs.
(remember folks not all lawyers are members of this special interest group.)

Perhaps it is time to evaluate exactly how law schools are acredited,

the influence of special interests like ABA
in the social arena, and true freedom of thought
in law schools.

footnote: Candidate Edwards is a lawyer.
Asking him questions on his stand on these legal organizations is fair game.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.