Skip to main content

Your Corporate Overlords Have Spoken!

I could drone on for hours about the need for equality for gays and lesbians. I've written extensively on what it's like for us to be second class citizens in our own country. Recent court rulings have highlighted the real harm that is done to LGBT families by discriminatory same-sex marriage bans, and the undue, mean spirited bigotry that is leveled against us in our simple efforts to protect and define our families.

None of that matters. Forget our fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of better fashion. Gay marriage bans are inconvenient for corporations. Oh the horrors!

Alcoa Inc., Inc.
Aspen Skiing Company
Ben & Jerry’s
Bloomberg L.P.
CBS Corporation
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cummins Inc.
Deutsche Bank AG
Eastern Bank Corporation
eBay, Inc.
General Electric Company
Intel Corporation
Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC
Levi Strauss & Company
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
NIKE, Inc.
Oracle America, Inc.
Outerwall Inc.
Pfizer Inc.
Qualcomm Incorporated
Staples, Inc.
State Street Corporation
SunLife Financial (U.S.) Services Company
United Therapeutics Corporation

All of them have joined together to issue this amicus brief in support of marriage equality, urging the Supreme Court to end this disharmony once and for all.
Although same-sex marriages are celebrated and recognized under some state laws, other states’ laws and constitutions prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and withhold marital benefits from existing lawful same-sex marriages. In the latter, amici are required to differentiate among similarly situated employees to our business detriment. Courts have evaluated the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans to varying effect, and amici now operate in a complicated and uncertain landscape of laws and human resources regulations that increase our administrative costs and level of risk. We are forced to implement inconsistent policies in the various jurisdictions in which we operate, and the mandated discrimination underlying these policies violates our stated corporate principles. Our ability to grow and maintain our businesses by attracting and retaining the best talent is hindered. This patchwork of state laws applicable to same-sex marriage impairs thus our business interests and employer-employee relations. Respectfully, we ask the Court to grant the petition for certiorari and consider a uniform principle that all couples share in the right to marry. Denying certiorari would only prolong an uncertain, unproductive, and unjust status quo.
Undue paperwork? Harming their ability to grow? Well that will never do!

Poet Laureate Charles Simic recently made a poignant observation: "It’s strange that reporters continue to ask our elected representatives for their opinions, as if the rich who contributed millions to their campaigns would allow them to have any of their own."

Now that our owners have spoken and come down on the side of equality, is there really any question as to how this all ends? 


  1. Boy are you on the money. The Supreme Court could ignore the appeals of minorities to well-established precedent. But they will not ignore the stated interests of these corporations. It would really become interesting if a separate brief is filed by the Catholic church or Hobby Lobby.

  2. That's already happening 10:43. I guess we'll see who has more clout. But the thing is we aren't going backwards. Public opinion is firmly on the side of equality now.

  3. Cool, but post more women. Not fewer men, just more women.

  4. Hey, not only are corporations persons with expressive rights, they have been allowed to marry in all 50 states forever.

  5. Stop with the gay stuff already. We get it. Not only that, I suspect that, like me, most of my fellow readers are sympathetic to the cause. You're preaching to the choir -- over, and over, and over again.

  6. @9:03

    We will not stop. This is the civil rights issue of our age. Since I've been covering gay rights on this blog the number of hits has almost doubled so I guess your sentiments are not shared by the majority of our readers.

    I'm the gay rights blogger on this site but I'm also the technology blogger on this site. I'd like to introduce you to the SCROLL feature. Every web browser has it! If you see something that doesn't interest you, scroll to the next post.

  7. 9:03 is right on the money!

    A blog for lawyers should stop being so concerned with the pressing civil rights issues of today!

    We're lawyers, we don't care about this stuff!

  8. 9:26, I'm assuming you forgot to use the s/ sarcasm font?

  9. I'd have invoked an actual sarcasm font if allowed, but "/s" felt a little tacked on, frankly.

  10. I got the sarcasm!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Kind of Federal Judge!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:
A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case. The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”
Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 o…

Honoring Richard C. Seavey

I drank a shit-ton of bourbon last night. Enough to float a battleship.

My head hurts. But not as much as my heart.

We lost another lawyer over the weekend. Not someone who will receive facebook accolades and other public claims of friendship and statements that he shaped and changed lives and careers. Just a guy who did the best he could with what he had. Every day. And he did very, very well to be the best person he could be. 
Richard Seavey was a profoundly private person. In his 49 years, he walked through more than his share of trials and tribulations, mostly asking for no help, leaning on no one. 

Richard was a fantastic lawyer. He could try a case. He could "litigate" a case. He could mediate and settle a case. He was nuanced. He bent but never broke. The blustery Miami lawyer never scared him. To the contrary, he found humor in it, studying it like a science project. Richard never got too high or too low. He was good at lawyering, but you got the f…

First Carnival Triumph Lawsuit on File!

It was filed in the SD FL (of course) and is pending before Judge Graham.

Check it out here.

The lawyer on the pleading is Marcus R. Spagnoletti.