NOM Launches "We're There Until You Need Us" Information Campaign Aimed at Law Firm Who Abandoned US House Defense of Marriage Lawsuit


WASHINGTON – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today launched a nationwide web campaign against the law firm of King & Spalding over their decision to abandon representation of the US House of Representatives in the effort to defend the nation’s marriage law, called the Defense of Marriage Act. The ad campaign tags the firm with the slogan, “We’re There Until You Need Us.”

“King & Spalding have shown themselves to be gutless legal advocates in the face of pressure, abandoning their client after signing a $500,000 agreement to provide representation,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM. “They were all too happy to bill taxpayers up to $520 per hour to defend DOMA until gay marriage radicals started to complain. Then they cut and ran, abandoning their client in the process. It’s one of the most unprofessional actions we’ve ever seen.”

King & Spalding have been widely criticized for their decision to abandon their client by both supporters and opponents of gay marriage, as well as legal ethicists, media voices, and even Attorney General Eric Holder and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. Holder and Kagan praised the action of former King & Spalding partner Paul Clement for resigning from the firm and continuing to represent the US House of Representatives at his new firm of Bancroft PLLC.

“NOM’s ‘We’re There Until You Need Us’ campaign highlights the obvious – that this law firm has shirked its client responsibilities simply because their client advocated a cause unpopular in some quarters,” Brown said. “Yet representing clients facing contentious issues is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do. It would appear that King & Spalding believe that murderers and terrorists are entitled to representation, but the nation’s marriage law is not. It’s no wonder that they have come under intense criticism from both the left and the right. They have shown cowardice under pressure, proving they have no principles or integrity.”

The new campaign allows average Americans to express their views directly to King & Spalding’s leadership.

Please visit to learn more.

Here are links to the banner ads in various sizes:

  • 300x250 (square ad featured at top of post)
  • 160x600 (tall vertical ad)
  • 728x90 (wide horizontal ad)
  • 480x70 (smaller horizontal ad)


  1. Mike Brooks
    Posted May 5, 2011 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    I wish the campaign was not so much focussed on the law firm's weakness in the face of political pressure but on the fact that homosexual lobbyists threatened the firm in an effort to sidestep the legal process and deny the People of the United States legal representation to defend against an attack on the institution of marriage. Tag line: Homosexuals Fight Dirty: "Why go to court when you can just threaten your opponent's law firm?"

  2. Ken
    Posted May 5, 2011 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    "Signed by President Clinton! Signed by President Clinton!" You seem to believe that if you repeat this enough times progressives will somehow be convinced that DOMA isn't a discriminatory and unconstitutional piece of garbage.

  3. marriedmamaof5
    Posted May 5, 2011 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    Political lobbyists for homosexual identity politics are going to have a harder time proving they're their adherents are the oppressed, marginalized victims they pretend to be.

  4. Hatrediswrong
    Posted May 5, 2011 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    Hatred cloaked in the law is wrong. Those who defend such laws are wrong, and will find them on the very wrong side of history in the future. Those of you who claim that your religious convictions compel you to hate others are more doomed than you could ever hope me be.

    -David, married to Andrew under California law. 8 years together and not going anywhere whether you like it or not.

  5. Ken
    Posted May 5, 2011 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    marriedmamaof5: You can't be part of a movement that seeks to politically marginalize people based on their sexual orientation then criticize your targets because their sexual orientation influences their political identity.

  6. Barb
    Posted May 5, 2011 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    The critics of K&S don't like the fact that they dropped a case b/c of outside pressure. That is the issue here. Many of those that have now fired K&S have no opinion on DOMA. I'm glad NOM has launched this campaign. People have a right to know.

  7. Sean
    Posted May 5, 2011 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

    "It would appear that King & Spalding believe that murderers and terrorists are entitled to representation, but the nation’s marriage law is not"

    I think most attorneys would agree with that statement, as do most people familiar with American law. Only persons charged with a crime are entitled to a lawyer. A statute is not a person.

  8. Jake
    Posted May 5, 2011 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

    So last week NOM criticized gays for publicly shaming a law firm, and this week they're doing the same exact thing?

  9. edgwaterprog
    Posted May 5, 2011 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    Jake - When marriage equality advocates do it, it is called "bullying". When NOM does it, it is "advocacy" for marriage. NOM is without shame.

  10. Zak Jones
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 12:55 am | Permalink

    (CNN) -- Brazil's Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that the nation should recognize same-sex unions.

    The court voted 10-0 in favor of recognizing the unions. One justice abstained because he had spoken publicly in favor of same-sex unions when he was attorney general.

    The court ruled that the same rights and rules that apply to "stable unions" of heterosexual couples will apply to same-sex couples, including the right to joint declaration of income tax, pension, inheritance and property sharing.


  11. Gothelittle
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Jake, the gay activists were doing it to try to force the law firm to abandon their responsibilities. NOM is doing it to try to encourage other businesses under threat to not fold under pressure. Same tactic, different reason.

    After all, the arm motion used to steady a falling person is not that different from the arm motion used to thrust a knife. What are we going to critique, the arm motion, or its intent and result?

    Barb has it dead on. Gay activists like to think that every single response to every single thing they do is completely, totally, and intricately linked to their sexual appetites. Most of us couldn't care less about *your* sexual appetites. It's your heavy-handed threats, periodic acts of violence, and "my way or the highway" attitude that's turning people against you. And then you play the "sex card" to try to demonize anyone who doesn't like your tactics.

    Which card are you playing against the gay activists who agree with us that King & Spaulding did the wrong thing?

  12. Andrew
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Good point gothe little.

  13. marriedmamaof5
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    "You can't be part of a movement that seeks to politically marginalize people based on their sexual orientation then criticize your targets because their sexual orientation influences their political identity."

    Who's trying to marginalize? I invite each and every adult citizen of ANY sexual orientation, to enter into marriage, with the opposite-sexed adult of their choice, which option has always been available to them, become responsible procreators, if they so choose, and live by the rule of law, regardless of their sexual orientation; thus is justice blind. I ask no more, and no less. Those who cry "marginalization" based on their sexual orientation are afflicted with a SELF-imposed "victimization." Marriage between a man and woman makes no demands on sexual orientation. And thus it is. Cheers!

  14. Sammy
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Apparently, Gothelittle, you are very much interested in others sex lives, since you are the one that brought it up. This is another tactic used by anti-gays; Gays are all about sex, straights are all about relationships. That is demonization, and you're very good at it.

  15. Mike Brooks
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    Sammy -

    Actually, no, heterosexuals are about sex, as well: the kind of sex that society values, the kind of sex that leads to the creation of children. That's actually a pretty important point about marriage and a key reason as to why it's really an impossibiity for homosexuals to be married.

  16. SueV
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    What everyone is failing to recognize here is the simple facts of the law. Paul Clement took this case, assumably as a respected partner of the law firm, but failed to vet the details.

    John Boehner insisted on a clause in the contract which prohibited all employees of King & Spalding from opposing DOMA, publicly & privately.

    Not only is this potentially unconstituional, as Boehner is an elected rep of our governement attempting to take away 1st amendment rights from the very citizens he is supposed to represent but...due to non-discrimination clauses contained in a multitude of King & Spaldings contracts not only with it's employees but also clients, they would be facing multiple lawsuits as a result.

    They did not drop this case due to pressure from HRC but for the legal entanglements that would have resulted.

    Incidentally, contrary to what I read in NOM's blogs & correspondence in general, the gay community does NOT hold HRC in high regard. They are considered an elite, ineffective organization that is more concerned with black tie dinners than getting actual work done for the cause.

    HRC is crowing about it's so called accomplishment in an attempt to fire up it's base and collect donations. Much the same as NOM does. IMO, HRC could learn a few tricks from Brian & Maggie.

    So, are we still going to propegate the myth that King & Spalding caved to pressure or acknowledge the far more dull but telling facts of their decision?

  17. Sammy
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Mike - Maybe for Catholics, the Episcopals disagree. However, neither opinion has any weight in civil marriage.

  18. Mike Brooks
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Sammy -

    No, it's not a point for discussion; they can call it whatever they want, but if it's not an implicitly procreative union, it can't be a marriage; it's some other kind of union between sexes that is always non-procreative. You can call a dog a cat all you want, but it's still a dog.

  19. TC Matthews
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    I don't blame you for abandoning HRC Sue. I wish more of your friends would do the same.

  20. Sammy
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Mike - It is a marriage in the Episcopal church. Your calling it something else doesn't change the fact that same sex couples can participate in the sacrament of marriage in that church and if that ceremony is performed in any of the states that recognize such it is fully legal as well. Are you arguing that a church doesn't have the right to define the marriages they are willing to perform?

  21. TC Matthews
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Just because a belief agrees with some religious tenet does not mean it is automatically good. There are conflicting religious thoughts all over the place in society. Gay activists also have dogmatic beliefs which they hold to as dearly as any religion. Religious belief does not disqualify you or automatically qualify you in public policy. The thing that matters is what is best for everyone, not just for you.

  22. Sammy
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    TC - We are part of everyone. Exclusion is not an American ideal. NOM's arguments are religious in nature. Why are those arguments given more weight than those of another religion? Is it because they are arguments of a predominant faith? Should only predominant arguments prevail in all matters of civil law?

  23. TC Matthews
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Sammy, everyone is a part of everyone. I don't care what your dogmatic beliefs. What kids need is a mom and a dad. It's common sense, it's in line with what most people believe certainly, but marriage is also the most stable unit of society, as historically proven time and again. Social science shows that kids without a dad suffer. Kids without a mom suffer. There is no data supporting your version of truth other than self reported self serving soft science so called studies. It's just not convincing. You can't spout something you have no proof for as undeniable with that kind of data. The American people are not bigots, they're simply not convinced you know what you're talking about.

  24. Sammy
    Posted May 6, 2011 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    Is there new legislation that requires that any couple who seeks marriage must have kids? And should we harm those children who are raised in same sex households by withholding marriage from their parents? I agree, marriage is the most stable unit for society. That is why it is important to both same sex and opposite sex couples. This point seems to be lost on you and NOM.

  25. Gothelittle
    Posted May 7, 2011 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    Sammy, marriage between heterosexuals creates a stable unit of society. No amount of 'marriage ceremony', legal or illegal, lends that stability or health benefit to homosexual couples.

    Here's an analogy. If you find a "Nutritious" label placed on a package of fresh asparagus, you can't make a package of Fudge Stripe cookies nutritious just be demanding that the same label be placed upon it.

    There are a host of chemical and hormonal components to a dedicated sexual relationship between a man and a woman that joins them in marriage, in nature, even absent any religious ceremony or legal tradition. Homosexuals just plain don't *have* that.

    And though heterosexual marriage provides the best environment for raising children, it also benefits the adults participating even if no children are ever created.

  26. Mike Brooks
    Posted May 7, 2011 at 10:34 am | Permalink


    I'm saying that the institution of marriage precedes religious doctrine, precedes religious laws. Men and women have been getting together and taking responsibiilty for their offspring for ages. The name "marriage" came after the institution was already in place; so if any entity claims that an implicitly non-procreative couple is considered "married," they're just assigning a name to something that it is not.

    These are politically correct designations to make people feel better, not unlike calling "step parents" the unqualified term, "parents." They're not really parents because "parents" refers to the people who contributed the genetic makeup to the offspring - something that, like marriage, predates history - but it makes people feel better when we give them the name that goes with that very special relationship.

  27. Zak Jones
    Posted May 7, 2011 at 3:49 pm | Permalink


    Wow, are you confused. There is no relationship between the LIVES of PEOPLE and food. Labels are just that, a tag placed by people so other people will understand the contents of a package.
    The label "MARRIED" implies that a couple is bonded each to the other, to love, protect and support, till death. The label "MARRIED" does not require the couple to procreate, although it does afford protection to any progeny produced during the marriage.
    The label "MARRIED" also affords protections to the married couple, such as common property, common tax commitments common debt commitments and the ability to make life or death decisions for each other in the event one cannot. There is also a common knowledge of "taken" expressed when one declares he is married, so others know not to try to "pick up" a married person. In other words, the label "MARRIED" also means "off the market" when it comes to dating and availability for romantic encounters.

    Gay people want and deserve the ability to cover themselves under that label. NOM and other groups who oppose this give various reasons as to why gay people should NOT be included, but the reason they give most is that it will diminish the validity of their own marriage. I often ask the question, how will MY marriage to another man effect your marriage? I have never received an honest coherent answer to that question. Even Maggie herself cannot give a straight forward answer to that question. She can talk for an hour about the question, but can never give an answer to it.
    Christians like to believe THEY are the authority on all things religious, but I would like to remind you that Christianity is not the only religion in the world today, and is in fact very NEW to the world as far as religions go.

    Let's see what the Bible says about the marriage covenant before the time of Christianity.

    "In Malachi 2:14 we see that marriage is a covenant. In the Jewish custom, people signed a written agreement at the time of the marriage to seal the covenant. The marriage ceremony, therefore, is meant to be a public demonstration of a couple's commitment to a covenant relationship. It's not the "ceremony" that's important in a marriage, it's the couple's covenant commitment before their community.

    It's interesting to carefully consider the traditional Jewish wedding ceremony and the "Ketubah" or marriage contract, which is read in the original Aramaic language. The husband accepts certain marital responsibilities, such as the provision of food, shelter and clothing for his wife, and promises to care for her emotional needs as well. This contract is so important that the marriage ceremony is not complete until it is signed by the groom and presented to the bride. This demonstrates that both husband and wife see marriage as more than just a physical and emotional union, but also as a moral and legal commitment. The Ketubah is also signed by two witnesses, and considered a legally binding agreement. It is forbidden for Jewish couples to live together without this document."

  28. Posted May 8, 2011 at 4:47 am | Permalink

    I think this is so right on! And the comments from the pro-SSM folks make it obvious they STILL have no clue what's going on. I mean come on - even ELENA KAGAN agrees with us on this one! I hope K&S goes out of business because they have absolutely no integrity. And I hope this sends a message to other law firms and businesses and even individuals - have a little courage and don't let the homosexualistas bully you.

  29. marriedmamaof5
    Posted May 9, 2011 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    "TC - We are part of everyone. Exclusion is not an American ideal. NOM's arguments are religious in nature. Why are those arguments given more weight than those of another religion? Is it because they are arguments of a predominant faith? Should only predominant arguments prevail in all matters of civil law?"

    Which religion? All major world religions, including non-Christian ones have as one of their basic beliefs that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.

    There are plenty of excellent secular reasons for preserving marriage as between a man and a woman.

  30. marriedmamaof5
    Posted May 9, 2011 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    "should we harm those children who are raised in same sex households by withholding marriage from their parents?"

    By parents, you mean the child's biological mother and father, correct? After all, children living in a SSM household are being DENIED one of their biological parents. Therefore, you are correct that we need to encourage the actual parent in that household to marry the other biological parent of that child or those children, such that both parents are committed to their mutual support and to the children they together create. SSM harms children by denying them the full-time parenting of one of their biological parents. Somehow that point seems to be lost on proponents of SSM.

  31. marriedmamaof5
    Posted May 9, 2011 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    "Exclusion is not an American ideal."

    When it comes to marriage, if a person who identifies him/herself as gay chooses not to enter into marriage because he/she can't marry their same-sex partner, then that is their choice, to exclude themselves. But, they are more than welcome to be fully included in marriage by marrying the opposite-sexed partner of their choice. Sammy will be relieved to know there is no requirement for heterosexuality on a marriage license application. There simply is no exclusion based on sexual orientation, other than that which is self-imposed. Other couples are excluded from marriage; for example, brothers and sisters or other near kin are excluded from receiving a marriage license. Apparently, some exclusion IS a part of the American ideal.

  32. marriedmamaof5
    Posted May 9, 2011 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Also, not all same-sex couples are granted marriage licenses; for example, two sisters cannot receive a license. Is that because of their sexual orientation? Or their kinship, or both?

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.