Sexual Orientation Task Force

FINDINGS

Respondents' Comments On The Task Force's Charge And Its Sponsorship By the D.C. Bar

A number of the narrative comments received in response to the Lawyer Survey (and one in response to the Employer Survey) expressed hostility both to the subject matter of the Task Force's study, and to the fact that it was undertaken by the D.C. Bar. Thus, some respondents objected to what they thought was the use of their mandatory Bar dues to pay the expenses incurred in the study. In fact, while this would have been an appropriate use of Bar dues, the Board of Governors correctly anticipated that some Bar members would object to this use of their dues, and chose to use the Bar's other revenues as the sole source of funding for this study. 29

More serious, and significant for purposes of this Report, is the tenor of many of the comments received, seemingly manifesting not merely skepticism as to the appropriateness of the subject matter as a fit concern for the organized Bar, but active hostility toward gay men and lesbians, and toward the thought that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation should be considered as in any degree on a par with discrimination on grounds of race, gender, religion, or national origin.

These comments on the whole seem to the Task Force a striking illustration that there remains, even in the relatively enlightened and tolerant legal community of Washington, significant resistance to both the concept and the practice of treating sexual orientation as irrelevant to one's capacity to practice law. The comments speak for themselves:

The existence of this questionnaire and its content are a graphic example of the sorry state to which this country has descended. App. C, Comment 195
This is such a waste of time but I did it anyway. We should be spending time on better issues like family values. Homosexual lifestyle is not one of the values. It defies history's lesson on what is right and what is wrong. App. C, Comment 90

This is much ado about nothing. You shouldn't have wasted bar money on this. I'd rather see the money spent on pro bono services to the community. App. C, Comment 15

I strongly object to the premise of this survey that 1) Gays are entitled to protection under discrimination laws on constitutional principles 2) Gays should receive affirmative action. App. C, Comment 6

This questionnaire appears to have been drafted by someone who has convinced himself that homosexual conduct is just another “lifestyle choice.” The drafter is mistaken. Despite the efforts of homosexuals and their allies to “define deviancy down,” throughout human civilization homosexuality has been, and remains, an abhorrent moral failing. The partners of our firm unanimously hold homosexual conduct to be wrong. We do not employ and would not knowingly employ a homosexual attorney or homosexual support staff member. Sodomy not only is abhorrent, but is a crime in Virginia....To lawyers especially, respect for the law should be more than a platitude. It therefore would be wrong, and a bad example to other lawyers and to the public at large, for a law firm to employ homosexuals or condone homosexual conduct. A firm that does so demeans itself, the legal profession, and the rule of the law. App. C, Comment 166

While I agree with the ABA resolution as worded, i.e., opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which may not be a matter of individual choice, I strongly oppose the practice of homosexual relations as immoral. I believe, accordingly, that discrimination against those who engage in homosexual intercourse is right. App. C, Comment 83

This survey is a useless exercise which will no doubt be used to exacerbate a climate in which homosexuals are attempting to carve out a special status for special legal rights. App. C, Comment 222

I think this survey is not an effective use of the Bar's resources. Discrimination against lawyers based on race or sex is an appropriate subject for Bar scrutiny, but not discrimination on a chosen behavior that is criminal in at least one of the jurisdictions in question. App. C, Comment 139

Seventeen recipients of the Lawyer Survey questionnaire returned the forms without filling them out, except for writing comments such as: “Why are we wasting time on this fairy maggot bullshit?” “This survey is the work of the devil;” “This is offensive;” “This survey is an outrage that should further turn the people against their legal and political institutions;” and “Frankly, I could care less [sic] about bias against gays. I'm tired of special interest groups. Let them fend for themselves like everyone else.” See generally App. C, at 92. One of the Employer Survey questionnaires, also, was returned with the following: “Homosexual Nonsense. What about the bigotry against straight conservative white males?” App. D, Comment 19.

It is also worth noting that, as stated in the consultant's Report on the Lawyer Survey, the response rate to the Lawyer Survey was lower than reported averages for mail surveys. (App. A, at 7-8.) Although some of the disparity may have been due to the length of the survey instrument, and some to the fact that the persons surveyed are busy professionals, the low response rate may also be due in part to the fact that many recipients of the survey simply did not consider the issue of sexual orientation discrimination to be important, or a problem, or deserving of study. Id.