The thrust of her argument seemed to be that regardless of their personal feelings, the lawyers had some obligation to defend the act, or that someone should have an obligation to defend the act regardless of their personal feelings.
The column is textbook fuzzy thinking. We do have a tradition (enforced by sanctions through licensing agencies) in this country of requiring lawyers to defend all persons who need representation. The reason for this tradition is because we see it as an important democratic value to protect people from the unbridled power of the state.
It stands the reason for the rule on its head and is an offense to freedom and democracy to suggest anyone has an obligation to defend a law enacted by government that they do not believe is wise or valid.
If Ms. Saunders, or anyone else, thinks DOMA is worth protecting they are free to seek representation willing to represent their views. If they cherish "freedom" they should realize they have no grounds to criticize those who chose not to defend the law.
In a way the title of her column inadvertently encapsulates the irony of modern politics. Democrats are proud of being intolerant of intolerance while the mainstream of the Republican party has moved into the odd position of being proud of being tolerant of intolerance, but are intolerant of almost anything that smacks of actual tolerance.
