Tag Archives: ADF: Austin R. Nimocks

The Christian Institute: Austin R. Nimocks, Senior Legal Counsel for the Alliance Defence Fund, said: “Some organizations claim that same-sex ‘marriage’ won’t open the door to polygamy and group marriage, but that’s what nearly happened in British Columbia. “Had marriage never been attacked there in the first place, it’s questionable whether this particular assault would have ever occurred.”

OneNewsNow.com: ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks tells OneNewsNow that America should pay attention to what is happening across the border. “Some organizations claim that [legalization of] same-sex ‘marriage’ won’t open the door to polygamy and group marriage, but that’s what nearly happened in British Columbia,” he warns.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled that the government of Canada may continue to prohibit polygamy and polyamory–a decision that rejects an approach that could have had far-reaching effects on marriage throughout Canada and other countries.

Christian Post: Voters should not be left without any defense just because their officials refused to defend them,” said Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, in a statement. ADF attorneys are part of the ProtectMarriage.com legal team.
Nimocks contends that if the appeal had not been granted, “state officials will succeed in indirectly invalidating a measure that they had no power to strike down directly.”

Heritage Fundation: Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, explained at the hearing that “children are the product of sexual relationships between men and women” and that “men and women each bring something important and unique to the table of parenting.” Therefore, Nimocks argued, “this government maintains a compelling interest in protecting and preserving the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

The debate was sponsored by the Federalist Society and is here. The video runs just over 80 minutes.

The Independent Florida Alligator [includes photo]: Speakers included Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for a group of Christian attorneys called the Alliance Defense Fund, and professor Danaya C. Wright, of the Levin College of Law, who each took a stance on DOMA . . . “The thrust of this debate is over the Equal Protection Clause,” Nimocks said. “The Equal Protection Clause has never required that different things should be treated the same … and marriage therefore does not violate that.” Nimocks went on to relate the involvement of federal government in marital matters to the issues of bankruptcy, military and immigration. “I think there is a solid history and a right and a reason for federal government to take up the right of marriage,” Nimocks said. [includes photo]

OneNewsNow.com: Austin R. Nimocks, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, says the high court’s decision not to hear the case “affirmed the rights of states as sovereign entities.” “No state makes the law for another state” . . .

ADF Attorney Austin R. Nimocks appeared on Wallbuilders Live in late July to discuss the ADF marriage survey. | MP3 audio 11:58 mins

ThinkProgress: During the Rules Committee debate, Stam acknowledged that he worked with lawyer Austin Nimocks in developing the language of the amendment. Nimocks works for the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay Christian group, and he recently testified before Congress in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Christianity Today: ADF attorney Austin Nimocks said that if proponents of a proposition cannot defend it in court, then the state officials could effectively veto propositions. “Voters should not be left without any defense just because their officials refused to defend them,” Nimocks said. “Ultimately, this hearing concerns whether the people of California who voted for Proposition 8 will be defended at all.” Members of the California Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to the ADF’s argument.

Christian Post: “Voters should not be left without any defense just because their officials refused to defend them,” said Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, in a statement. ADF attorneys are part of the ProtectMarriage.com legal team. “Because the people of California have a right to be defended, the official proponents of Proposition 8 need to be allowed to step in and defend California’s marriage amendment. Otherwise, state officials will succeed in indirectly invalidating a measure that they had no power to strike down directly.

OneNewsNow.com: Meanwhile, Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), is working with attorneys and others who want to defend the voter-approved measure that recognizes marriage only between one man and one woman. “Ultimately, this hearing concerns whether the people of California who voted for Proposition 8 will be defended at all,” Nimocks summarizes.

San Jose Mercury News: “Voters should not be left without any defense just because their officials refused to defend them,” said Austin Nimocks, senior counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.

Press conference that includes ADF attorney will follow hearing at California Supreme Court, which will answer question from 9th Circuit

San Francisco Bay Times: Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund; Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family; and Ed Whelan from the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Rep. Steve King, (R-Iowa) cited a 1947 Supreme Court case that declared, “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” King said sanctioning same-sex marriage could lead to marriages between “fathers and daughters … mothers and sons” and “poly-amorous relationships.”

ADF Attorney Austin R. Nimocks at Public Discourse: he state should uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, because the state’s interest in marriage is fundamentally about public, not private, purposes for marriage. Adapted from testimony delivered before the United States Senate.

Heritage Foundation, The Foundry via Fox News: First, the panelists noted the government’s profound interest in sustaining the integrity of the institution of marriage because of the unique contribution a married mother and father make to child welfare. As Austin Nimocks, Senior Legal Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, explained . . . As Nimocks pointed out, however, “These advocates are asking the whole of society to ignore the unique and demonstrable differences between men and women in parenthood: no mothers, no fathers, just generic parents. But there are no generic people. We are composed of two complementary, but different, halves of humanity.” [Tom Minnery and Ed Whalen also quoted]

Candace Chellew-Hodge at Religion Dispatches: Those hardships were brushed aside by religious right speakers, including Austin [Nimocks] from the Alliance Defense Fund who made the big government argument, discounting “private” concerns of marriage like happiness, and financial security should one partner die. Instead, Nimmocks trotted out the old “fact that children are the product of the sexual relationships between men and women,” thus big government is needed to regulate this institution as closely as possible. | Contrast – Gary Bauer at Human Events, “Libertarians and Gay Marriage;” George Weigel at EPPC, ‘Gay Marriage,’ Libertarians, and Civil Rights; ADF Alliance Alert: Message to Rush Limbaugh: Civil unions are not compatible with conservatism or a free society; Jennifer Roback Morse at Acton Institute, The Family is a Fiscal Issue

Christian Post: An Alliance Defense Fund/ Public Opinion Strategies poll also found that 62 percent of Americans still believe that marriage should be defined only as a union between one and one woman. “Americans understand marriage,” ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks testified at the hearing. “Since 1968 over 32 jurisdictions have voted on marriage it’s passed by an average of 63 percent. They don’t need a legislature to define it for them.”

Yesterday, the Janet Mefferd Show highlighted the marriage testimony by ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks at the Senate Judiciary hearings. | MP3 audio 2:22 mins

Religion News Service: Not everyone, however, invoked religion to make their point. Austin Nimocks, a lawyer for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, testified in support of DOMA on the grounds that same-sex couples cannot procreate. “As put by the famous philosopher, Bertrand Russell, a self-described atheist: ‘But for children, there would be no need for any institution concerned with sex,”‘ Nimocks said.

Paul Stanley at the Christian Post: Austin Nimocks is senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund and was asked to testify at today’s hearing. “We were able to clearly articulate that marriage is a building block of society and that marriage between one man and one woman has been a cornerstone of society since the beginning of time,” said Nimocks. “Obviously, there were some several people in the room today that have a view of marriage that is less than traditional.”

SouthFloridaGayNews.com: Testifying against the bill will be Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, and Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

OneNewsNow.com (AP): Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin Nimocks, who sees little public support for the repeal of DOMA, told the committee the Defense of Marriage Act is still needed. “To repeal DOMA sends a profound public policy message that marriage between a man and a woman, which we know naturally builds families and gives hope that the next generation will carry that family into the future, …that that ideal is no longer important or necessary,” stated Nimocks. “But we know that kids need secure attachments to their mothers and fathers.

“Americans have unanimously voted that marriage should be one man and one woman,” said Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for Alliance Defense Fund. “That should be a resounding statement to Congress that the American people, the experts on marriage, believe that marriage is one man, one woman, and that should be preserved in federal law,” he told lawmakers.

The statement of ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks is available here in pdf format. A related ADF media advisory is here.

“But humanity remains unchanged – a collection of men and women. And because of the fundamental truth that children are the product of sexual relationships between men and women, and that men and women each bring something important and unique to the table of parenting, this government maintains a compelling interest in protecting and preserving the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

- Austin Nimocks, ADF Senior Legal Counsel, defending DOMA in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee

GantDaily.com: Also on the witness list were Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family and Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund and one of the lawyers for proponents of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Christian Science Monitor: Despite the president’s action, DOMA continues to enjoy significant support in Congress and among many Americans. “Congress rightly recognized that the lifelong, faithful union of a man and a woman is the fundamental building block of thriving societies,” Austin Nimrocks of the Alliance Defense Fund, which supports DOMA, said in a statement. “The union between husband and wife benefits society – especially children – in unique and special ways that cannot be duplicated by any other relationship.” He added: “We should not abandon what Congress wisely did … to appease a very small group of activists.”

ADF Media: Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks will be available for media questions Wednesday immediately after providing testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee against the proposed repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed by 84 percent of Congress and signed into law by then-President Clinton in 1996.

Metro Weekly: In the second panel, Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese and Freedom to Marry president Evan Wolfson will be joined by two marriage equality opponents. David Austin R. Nimocks is the senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been the driving legal force behind most anti-LGBT litigation in recent years . . .

Tim Dalrymple at WORLD Magazine (Jul 30, 11): When sexual liberty and religious liberty are pitted against one another, says the Alliance Defense Fund’s Austin R. Nimocks, the elevation of one always diminishes the other. The religious liberties and conscience rights of individual professionals and business owners, Nimocks says, are in particular peril. Since they do not fall beneath the “religious umbrella” the law creates, wedding planners or florists or clothiers who decline to offer their services to same-sex couples may face lawsuits or other forms of government pressure. Marriage counselors and adoption attorneys, if they are not employees of a religious group, also could be accused of illegal discrimination if they do not serve gay couples. Even those beneath the “religious umbrella” may be less protected than they would like to believe. In spite of the conscience provision, there are “huge gaping holes” in the language of the law, says Nimocks.

Tucson Citizen from USA Today: The National Organization for Marriage — now revving up a campaign to drive New York Republicans who voted for gay marriage out of office — and the Alliance Defense Fund say religious protections in marriage-legalization bills are inadequate to protect individuals and damaging to religious institutions, particularly faith-based non-profit organizations. Alliance attorney Austin Nimocks cites an example: The Catholic Archdiocese of Boston ceased offering adoption services because it would not allow gays to adopt children.

PennLive.com: The New York effort, widely acknowledged as groundbreaking and shrewd, was made possible by appealing to a select group of wealthy Wall Street Republicans with gay relatives, friends and business partners, or who are gay themselves . . . “There are at least 10 active cases in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act,” said Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel, at the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based national legal alliance advocating conservative views.

ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks at Human Events (6/28): However, the problem for men like Olson and Boies is that while they’re using Loving as a would-be trump card, the Justice Department doesn’t seem to agree. After all, in explaining why it would no longer defend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Justice Department hasn’t even hinted that Loving may be instructive.

USA Today (6/29): Baptist Press spells out the fears of the faithful in an interview with Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin R. Nimocks who says the religious protection written in the N.Y. law is inadequate . . .

Baptist Press: The issue of religious liberty has been at the forefront of conservative concerns about “gay marriage.” After it was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004, Catholic Charities chose to get out of adoptions instead of being forced to place children in same-sex homes. While the language might prevent that from happening in New York, Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin R. Nimocks says, it would not protect a husband-and-wife photography team from state action if they declined to take pictures at a same-sex “wedding.” It also would do nothing to prevent the teaching of “gay marriage” in New York schools. Alliance Defense Fund is a legal organization that fights for religious liberty. Following is a partial transcript of an interview with Nimocks . . .

AZ Republic (6/25): Attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale-based alliance of attorneys representing conservative Christian issues, said it was disappointing that legislators did not represent their constituents on the issue. “It’s not a circumstance where the expertise of legislators is required,” said Austin Nimocks, ADF senior legal counsel. “People know marriage. They live it and understand it, and they don’t need legislators to dictate to them the definition of marriage.”

OneNewsNow.com (6/25): ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks says the law flies in the face of Wisconsin voters. “Marriage provides a strong foundation for a thriving society,” says Nimocks. “That’s why they approved a constitutional amendment that specifically protects marriage from all imitators. Politicians and activist groups should not be allowed to get around that — and we will appeal this decision because this domestic partnership scheme is precisely the type of marriage imitation that the voters intended to prevent.”

Charisma: “The people of Wisconsin recognize that marriage provides a strong foundation for a thriving society. That’s why they approved a constitutional amendment that specifically protects marriage from all imitators. Politicians and activist groups should not be allowed to get around that,” says ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. “We will appeal this decision because this domestic partnership scheme is precisely the type of marriage imitation that the voters intended to prevent.”

Catholic News Agency (CNA): n a June 13 press conference, Alliance Defense Fund senior legal counsel Austin R. Nimocks said that Walker failed to disclose he had been in a committed same-sex relationship for over 10 years. Nimocks claimed that Walker and his partner had a “direct interest” in the case. “Judge Walker’s course of conduct in this case heightens the appearance of partiality. Indeed, on two separate occasions, for example, his orders in this case have already been reversed, including a dramatic intervention by the United States Supreme Court to stop his effort to televise the trial,” Nimocks said.

‘Gay’ judge’s Prop 8 ruling upheld: “When judges ruled on cases in which they possess a direct and substantial personal interest, there can be no justice. And when judges fail to disclose all relevant facts concerning their potential personal interest in the outcome of a case and permit the appearance of partiality, the entirety of our judicial process is undermined,” said Austin R. Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund.

WorldNetDaily: “When judges ruled on cases in which they possess a direct and substantial personal interest, there can be no justice. And when judges fail to disclose all relevant facts concerning their potential personal interest in the outcome of a case and permit the appearance of partiality, the entirety of our judicial process is undermined,” said Austin R. Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund today.

Washington Times: Attorneys for both sides held press conferences after the three-hour trial. Austin Nimocks, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, cited the Supreme Court’s ruling that “no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.” “Judge Walker’s decision must be vacated and reconsidered by a neutral judge who has no direct and substantial personal interest in the outcome and whose impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned, as required by federal law,” said Mr. Nimocks in a statement.

Christian Post: “In this case, Judge Walker’s actions have violated timeless rules for judges. His decision not to recuse himself from this case is in conflict with what federal law demands of a judge who has an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks.

California Catholic Daily – Speaking for the sisters?: Supporters of Prop. 8, of course, disagree with Powers’ analysis. “The American people have a right to a fair judicial process and deserve a court system that upholds it with the utmost integrity,” said Austin R. Nimocks, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is defending the voter-approved initiative. “In this case, Judge Walker’s actions have violated timeless rules for judges. His decision not to recuse himself from this case is in conflict with what federal law demands of a judge who has an ‘interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.’”

Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks will hold a press conference Monday, following a hearing that concerns motions filed by the legal team defending California’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The primary motion asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to vacate then-District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that threw out the amendment.

ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks on the radio. | The Hugh Hewitt Show, MP3 audio 5:53 mins | The Janet Mefferd Show, MP3 audio 15:09 mins

OneNewsNow.com: This is a biological fact and not a state of mind,” notes Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Austin R. Nimocks. “So the court was right to uphold marriage by not buying into the delusion that people can actually change their sex.”

Charisma: “A person’s sex is a biological fact, not a state of mind, and altering one’s outer appearance doesn’t change that,” says Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund—which helped fund the case “The court was right to uphold marriage by affirming the reality that a person’s sex cannot be changed.”

LifeSiteNews.com: “A person’s sex is a biological fact, not a state of mind, and altering one’s outer appearance doesn’t change that,” said Austin R. Nimocks, Senior Legal Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, who provided funding for the case. “The court was right to uphold marriage by affirming the reality that a person’s sex cannot be changed.”

One News Now: Austin Nimmocks, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, adds that lawsuits may be needed to protect conscience rights if the Senate deletes the House amendments from the annual defense bill.

Advocate.com: Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said at a Thursday press conference in Washington, D.C. that he has “no doubt that legal action will be required,” should the Senate not include the same antigay language.

Ed O’Keefe at theWashington Post: But Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said his conservative legal organization would sue to ensure that federal law — instead of the Pentagon personnel policy — protects chaplains. “If the Senate does not follow the House and protect chaplains and service members, we have no doubt that legal action will be required,” Nimocks said at a news conference Thursday on Capitol Hill.

Washington Post: But Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said his conservative legal organization would sue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that federal law — instead of the Pentagon personnel policy — represents the group’s position. “If the Senate does not follow the House and protect chaplains and service members, we have no doubt that legal action will be required,” Nimocks said Thursday at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

New American: On the judicial side, St. Paul attorney Jane Bowman insisted that existing laws—and the state Supreme Court ruling upholding them—make the proposed amendment “redundant and unnecessary,” to which attorney Austin Nimocks of the pro-marriage Alliance Defense Fund pointed out that there was no guarantee that future courts would not use their power to overturn such laws. “The next Minnesota court challenged with this demand may not demonstrate the same level of judicial restraint,” Nimocks said, adding, “The Constitution is the people’s document, and they are entitled to change it.” . . . [other allies and opponents quoted]

Pioneer Press: St. Paul attorney Jane Bowman argued the proposed amendment is “redundant and unnecessary” because two state laws and a Supreme Court decision prohibit same-sex marriages. But Austin Nimocks, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian advocacy group, said there’s no guarantee those laws would be upheld in the future. “The next Minnesota court challenged with this demand may not demonstrate the same level of judicial restraint,” he said. “The constitution is the people’s document, and they are entitled to change it,” Nimocks added.

ADF attorney Austin R. Nimocks at the Speak Up Movement Church Blog: Once again, those who demand that same-sex “marriage” be the law of the land have taken their bigotry and narrow-mindedness to new heights. No longer, in their eyes, can we have a free and fair debate about this topic, and never has the intolerance of this ideology been more evident than last week. When the U.S. House of Representatives hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act in federal court, the viciousness of the attacks upon both General Clement and his law firm were unprecedented.

Centre Daily (PR Newswire): Family Research Council (FRC) praised the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for ruling in Adar v. Smith that a Louisiana registrar’s insistence that only one father’s name could go on a birth certificate for a child adopted by a homosexual couple did not violate the child’s right to equal protection under law, while not denying legal recognition of the New York adoption by both men . . . FRC submitted an amicus brief in the case, along with the Louisiana Family Forum, in support of the defendant, registrar Darlene Smith. Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin Nimocks authored the brief for FRC . . .

Appellate court rules that La. cannot be forced to issue a birth certificate to two NY men who adopted child born in La.

Courier-Post Online (includes video): Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin Nimocks warned that any civil unions bill would likely produce litigation, as such laws have elsewhere in the nation. He also warned that while the bill protects clergy from being forced to conduct civil-union ceremonies, it does not extend such protections to business owners and parachurch organizations.

Delmarva Now: Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin Nimocks warned that any civil unions bill would likely produce litigation, as such laws have elsewhere in the nation. He also warned that while the bill protects clergy from being forced to conduct civil-union ceremonies, it does not extend such protections to business owners and parachurch organizations.

MainJustice.com: Nimocks, who is senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian nonprofit organization, focused his disapproval of the DOJ on its announcement last month that it would no longer defend the 1996 law that restricts the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. He said the decision on the Defense of Marriage Act raises questions about the role politics may have played. “When you look at the whole ball of wax and the legal analysis, it seems very clear that the decision here is not one based necessarily on the rule of law but is a more politically or ideologically driven decision, which puts the rule of law at risk,” Nimocks said.

Delmarva Now: Majority Democrats on a state Senate committee agreed Wednesday to release a bill offering legal recognition to same-sex couples in Delaware . . . But Austin Nimocks, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative religious rights organization, said supporters are pursuing the legislation with the ultimate goal of legalizing same-sex marriage. “Nothing in Delaware prevents people living as they want or having intimate relationships with whom they want,” Nimocks said.

MainJustice.com: The panel is loaded with DOJ critics . . . Other panelists are Debra Burlingame, Co-Founder of Keep America Safe, and Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.

Valerie Richardson writes at the Washington Times: “Unlike same-sex marriage, which has no historical roots and is a new frontier — you can’t say the same thing about polygamy,” said Austin Nimocks, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes same-sex marriage. “There’s a cultural underpinning and support for plural marriage, so one could say the case is actually stronger for plural marriage.”

Lez Get Real: Austin Nimocks, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, talked about the disproven canard that children fare best with a mother and a father saying “Each is necessary — culturally and biologically — for the optimal development of a human being.”

Florida Baptist Witness: “Baptist Press asked Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund—a Christian legal group—to explain the importance of the Justice Department’s decision. Following is a transcript . . . ”

Christian Institute: Austin R Nimocks, Senior Legal Counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, said: “The American people have a right to expect their laws to be defended by the very people whose job it is to do so: their government officials.

National Catholic Register: Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a coalition of Christian attorneys, said he was disappointed to see “public officials cast aside their duties and responsibilities in favor of playing politics.” “The executive branch of the government is supposed to defend the laws, not undermine them,” Nimocks said. “This decision clearly does the latter, and the American people are the ones who suffer as a result.”

Christian Post: Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin Nimocks said the administration is “playing politics with marriage” and has left DOMA virtually defenseless. “With the Department of Justice now refusing to defend any and all lawsuits against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the federal definition of marriage has been placed in great legal peril,” he declared. [more quotes]

World Magazine: When Congress enacts laws on behalf of the American people, the American people have the right to expect them to be defended when they’re challenged,” said Senior Legal Counsel Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund. “How the attorney general’s constitutional duty to protect and defend the laws of the United States becomes optional is a great mystery.”

Christian Post: Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin Nimocks said the administration is “playing politics with marriage” and has left DOMA virtually defenseless. “With the Department of Justice now refusing to defend any and all lawsuits against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the federal definition of marriage has been placed in great legal peril,” he declared.

World Net Daily: Austin Nimocks, a senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the move raises a lot of questions. “One of the reasons we have a Constitution is to prevent opinions from getting in the way of duties. The American people have a right to expect their laws will be defended by the people whose responsibility it is to do so,” he told WND. “One’s constitutional duty should not be optional.” [many more quotations and references to ADF and many other pro-family groups and lawyers] . . .