Grok says: <\/p>\n
Big Law\u2014those massive, elite law firms like Skadden, Latham, or Cravath\u2014threw significant weight behind same-sex marriage, especially in the lead-up to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court case that legalized it nationwide. Their support wasn\u2019t just casual; they filed amicus briefs, lobbied, and often took pro bono cases to push the cause. Why? It\u2019s a mix of pragmatism, culture, and client-driven incentives\u2014less about ideology than you might think.
\nFirst, the client base. Big Law serves Fortune 500 companies, tech giants, and Wall Street\u2014sectors that by the early 2000s were racing to brand themselves as progressive. By 2013, over 60% of Fortune 500 firms offered same-sex partner benefits (per HRC\u2019s Corporate Equality Index), and names like Apple, Goldman Sachs, and Google publicly backed marriage equality. When your clients\u2014paying $1,000\/hour for your advice\u2014want a social stance, you align. Firms didn\u2019t just follow the money; they anticipated it. An amicus brief from 379 corporations in Obergefell argued anti-gay laws hurt business\u2014recruitment, morale, profits. Big Law saw the same logic: supporting same-sex marriage signaled they were in sync with corporate America\u2019s cultural shift.
\nSecond, the talent pipeline. These firms recruit from top law schools\u2014Harvard, Yale, Stanford\u2014where student bodies and faculty lean heavily left (e.g., 80%+ of law profs identify as liberal, per a 2018 study). By the 2010s, marriage equality was a litmus test for younger lawyers; opposing it risked alienating the Ivy League associates Big Law needs to churn billable hours. Firms like Sullivan & Cromwell or WilmerHale didn\u2019t just cave to \u201cwoke\u201d pressure\u2014they marketed themselves as inclusive to win the war for prestige hires. Pro bono work on gay rights cases became a flex: good PR, happy associates, no revenue hit.
\nThird, the legal elite\u2019s self-image. Big Law thrives on being seen as forward-thinking, not reactionary. Same-sex marriage fit a narrative of constitutional progress\u2014think Brown v. Board or Roe v. Wade\u2014that flatters lawyers who fancy themselves shapers of history. Filing briefs in Obergefell (over 40 major firms did) wasn\u2019t just virtue signaling; it was a chance to play on the \u201cright side\u201d of a landmark ruling. The argument\u2014equal protection under the 14th Amendment\u2014also meshed with their bread-and-butter: defending corporate rights via constitutional law. It\u2019s less hypocrisy than synergy.
\nWas it unanimous? No. Some partners, especially older ones or in conservative regions (think Texas firms), grumbled privately. But dissent got drowned out by the coastal powerhouses\u2014New York, D.C., California\u2014where Big Law\u2019s cultural tone is set. Plus, the American Bar Association, a Big Law echo chamber, endorsed same-sex marriage in 2010, normalizing the stance.
\nWhy not stay neutral? Risk. By 2012, polls showed majority support for marriage equality (Gallup hit 53%); by 2015, it was 60%. Opposing it\u2014or even sitting it out\u2014could\u2019ve painted firms as dinosaurs, costing them clients and talent to rivals who took the plunge. Neutrality\u2019s safe until it\u2019s not, and Big Law doesn\u2019t gamble when the herd\u2019s already moving.
\nSo, Big Law backed same-sex marriage because it was good business, good branding, and good lawyering\u2014tied to their world of corporate interests, elite networks, and public opinion. Not every partner was a true believer, but the machine didn\u2019t need them to be. It just needed to win.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nDid Big Law allow its attorneys to argue the case for the traditional definition of marriage or did Big Law suppress this?<\/p>\n
Grok says: <\/p>\n
Big Law didn\u2019t explicitly \u201callow\u201d or \u201csuppress\u201d attorneys arguing for the traditional definition of marriage in any formal, top-down sense\u2014firms don\u2019t typically issue edicts on personal stances. But the reality? If you were an attorney pushing that view inside a major firm, you\u2019d have faced a steep uphill battle\u2014culturally, professionally, and practically. Suppression wasn\u2019t a memo from HR; it was baked into the incentives and environment.
\nMost Big Law firms took a public, unified stance favoring same-sex marriage by the time Obergefell rolled around in 2015. Dozens\u2014like Kirkland & Ellis, Morrison & Foerster, and Baker McKenzie\u2014signed amicus briefs supporting legalization, often framed as pro bono efforts reflecting \u201cfirm values.\u201d These weren\u2019t rogue associates; they were partner-led, signaling institutional buy-in. If you were an attorney wanting to argue the opposite\u2014that marriage should stay one-man-one-woman\u2014you\u2019d be swimming against that tide. Firms don\u2019t have gag orders, but they do have reputations to protect. Openly bucking the corporate line could\u2019ve marked you as a liability\u2014bad for client relations, bad for team cohesion.
\nCould you have done it anyway? Technically, yes\u2014pro bono work often gives lawyers leeway to pick causes, and firms like to tout \u201cindependent thinking.\u201d But in practice, good luck getting support. Pro bono committees, stacked with partners, greenlight projects aligning with firm priorities\u2014same-sex marriage fit; defending traditional marriage didn\u2019t. Take King & Spalding in 2011: they briefly signed on to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for House Republicans, then dropped it after backlash from clients and gay rights groups. Partner Paul Clement jumped to Bancroft PLLC to keep the case, but the episode showed Big Law\u2019s skittishness\u2014public pressure trumped neutrality. An attorney pushing the traditional view internally would\u2019ve risked similar blowback: no ban, just a cold shoulder.
\nWhat about outside the firm? Attorneys could\u2019ve argued it on their own time\u2014op-eds, personal cases\u2014since free speech isn\u2019t dead. But Big Law\u2019s culture doesn\u2019t reward boat-rockers. Associates gunning for partner don\u2019t win points by clashing with the firm\u2019s progressive sheen, especially when clients (e.g., 379 companies in Obergefell\u2019s pro-equality brief) and talent (Gen Z lawyers) expect inclusivity. A 2015 Above the Law post (anecdotal, not data) noted partners at top firms quietly griping about the \u201cdiversity mafia,\u201d yet none spoke up publicly\u2014self-censorship, not a muzzle. X posts from attorneys around 2020 (vague trends, not quotes) hint at similar vibes: toe the line or stay silent.
\nEvidence of outright suppression is thin\u2014no public firings mirror James Damore\u2019s over this. But the absence of Big Law firms defending traditional marriage in Obergefell\u2014while over 40 backed the other side\u2014speaks volumes. The closest you get is boutique firms or solo practitioners (e.g., Clement post-King & Spalding), not Big Law heavyweights. Why? Risk aversion. The legal elite saw where the wind blew\u2014public opinion (60% pro-gay marriage by 2015, per Gallup), corporate clients, and the Supreme Court\u2019s liberal bloc. Arguing the traditional case wasn\u2019t banned; it was just a career dead end.
\nSo, Big Law didn\u2019t \u201callow\u201d or \u201cforbid\u201d in a legal sense\u2014it just made one side a golden ticket and the other radioactive. Attorneys could\u2019ve tried, but the machine\u2019s weight\u2014clients, culture, profits\u2014ensured they\u2019d be sidelined, not silenced. That\u2019s how it rolls.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nFrom the perspective of my hero system, Orthodox Judaism, the Obergefell ruling was such an abomination it calls into question if Jews are even allowed by Jewish law to live in such an officially degenerate society. So I am glad to see Trump turn the screws on Big Law, given its role in turning America into a moral sewer.<\/p>\n
Grok: <\/p>\n
From an Orthodox Jewish perspective, rooted in your hero system, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) can indeed feel like a seismic rupture\u2014legalizing same-sex marriage clashes hard with traditional Halakha (Jewish law), which defines marriage as a sacred union between man and woman, tied to commandments like pru u\u2019rvu (be fruitful and multiply). Leviticus 18:22\u2014\u201cYou shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination\u201d\u2014sets a clear line for many Orthodox poskim (decisors). The ruling didn\u2019t just shift policy; it enshrined a value system that, to some, signals societal decay, challenging the moral framework you hold dear. Your question\u2014can Jews even live in such a place?\u2014echoes real debates in Orthodox circles about exile, diaspora, and navigating a world at odds with Torah.
\nHalakhically, living in a \u201cdegenerate society\u201d isn\u2019t a new dilemma. Jews have thrived under pagan Rome, medieval Christendom, and secular states without packing up en masse. The principle of dina d\u2019malkhuta dina (\u201cthe law of the land is the law\u201d)\u2014from the Talmud (Bava Kamma 113a)\u2014obligates compliance with civil law, so long as it doesn\u2019t directly violate Torah commandments. Obergefell doesn\u2019t force Jews to gay-marry; it\u2019s a societal shift, not a personal mandate. Still, some rabbis, like Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, late 20th century), warned against living where immorality dominates if it risks spiritual corruption\u2014think kids, community, exposure. Post-Obergefell, voices like Rabbi Aharon Feldman mused (in a 2015 essay) about America\u2019s moral slide, though stopping short of calling for aliyah (emigration to Israel). The tension\u2019s real: stay and insulate, or bail if the sewer overflows?
\nBig Law\u2019s role in this\u2014pushing same-sex marriage via amicus briefs and cultural clout\u2014makes it a villain in your lens. Firms like Skadden or Latham didn\u2019t just back Obergefell for kicks; they rode corporate America\u2019s progressive wave, as I noted earlier, amplifying a ruling you see as toxic. Trump \u201cturning the screws\u201d on them fits your narrative of payback. Since 2017, his admin and allies have targeted Big Law tangentially\u2014antitrust suits against Google (their client), tax reforms hitting firm profits (2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut deductions), and judicial picks like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who lean originalist and might curb future liberal wins. Post-2024, if Trump\u2019s back, expect more: maybe pressuring firms via federal contracts (many rely on government work) or amplifying culture-war cases to drain their pro bono budgets. X posts from 2025 (vague trends) hint at MAGA cheering this\u2014Big Law as \u201cwoke enablers\u201d getting a taste of their own medicine.
\nDoes it fix the \u201cmoral sewer\u201d? Not really. Obergefell\u2019s locked in\u2014overturning it\u2019s a long shot, even with a 6-3 conservative Court (stare decisis weighs heavy). Trump can squeeze Big Law\u2019s bottom line or scare them into quieter activism, but the cultural shift they helped midwife is entrenched\u201470% of Americans back gay marriage now (Pew, 2023). For Orthodox Jews, it\u2019s less about reversing America than shielding your own: yeshivas, shuls, kosher enclaves. Trump\u2019s screws might feel good, but Halakha\u2019s focus is survival, not vengeance. You glad to see it? Sure. Will it undo the abomination? That\u2019s a taller order.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhat are the chances the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) in the next ten years?<\/p>\n
Grok says: <\/p>\n
Predicting whether the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) in the next decade\u2014by March 20, 2035\u2014means weighing legal doctrine, political shifts, and cultural trends. As of now, March 20, 2025, the odds are low but not zero\u2014call it a 10-20% chance, with big caveats. Here\u2019s why.
\nLegal Barriers: Stare Decisis and Precedent
\nThe Court loves its own rulings like a parent loves a kid\u2014stare decisis (let the decision stand) isn\u2019t ironclad, but it\u2019s a heavy anchor. Obergefell legalized same-sex marriage via the 14th Amendment\u2019s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, a 5-4 call penned by Justice Kennedy. Overturning it requires a case that chips at its core\u2014say, a state banning gay marriage again\u2014and a Court willing to ditch precedent. Roe v. Wade got axed in 2022 (Dobbs) after 49 years, but abortion\u2019s a hotter potato than gay marriage. Obergefell\u2019s only a decade old, and its reliance on equality (not privacy) makes it stickier\u2014less of a \u201cjudicial overreach\u201d vibe for conservatives to pounce on. Justices like Roberts, who dissented but prizes stability, would hesitate; he\u2019s grumbled about precedent erosion (e.g., June Medical, 2020).
\nCurrent Court: 6-3, But Not a Monolith
\nToday\u2019s 6-3 conservative lean\u2014Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett\u2014looks promising for traditionalists. Thomas and Alito openly loathe Obergefell (their 2020 statement in Davis v. Ermold called it a \u201cproblem\u201d for religious liberty). Gorsuch, a textualist, might balk at its vibes-based reasoning. But Kavanaugh and Barrett? Squishier. Kavanaugh\u2019s dodged gay-rights signals, and Barrett\u2019s 2020 confirmation hedged on personal Catholic views versus law\u2014she\u2019s no activist. Roberts, the swing-ish chief, hates rocking boats; he\u2019d likely push incremental erosion (e.g., religious opt-outs) over a full reversal. Flipping Obergefell needs five votes\u2014three are probable, two are dicey without a seismic shift.
\nPolitical and Cultural Headwinds
\nPublic support\u2019s a beast\u201470% of Americans back same-sex marriage (Pew, 2023), up from 55% in 2015. Even Republicans are softening; a 2022 Gallup poll showed 55% of them okay with it. States won\u2019t rush to ban it\u2014red ones like Texas or Alabama might try, but blue and purple ones (where most people live) won\u2019t. No ban, no case. Plus, corporate America\u2019s all-in\u2014379 firms backed Obergefell; that\u2019s not flipping by 2035. A Trump 2024 win (assume it, given your leanings) could stack the Court with more hardline justices if Thomas (82 now) or Alito (74) retire, but replacements would still need Senate votes. A 50-50 Senate in 2025 could block radicals if Dems hold firm.
\nThe Pipeline: Cases and Timing
\nNo direct challenge is teed up now. Post-Dobbs, conservatives eyed Obergefell\u2014Thomas begged for a shot in 2022\u2014but nothing\u2019s hit the docket. Religious liberty cases (e.g., 303 Creative, 2023, on wedding websites) nibble at its edges, not its heart. A state would need to defy it outright, get sued, and climb the appeals ladder\u20143-5 years minimum. By 2030, a 6-3 Court might hear it, but cultural entrenchment (90% of Gen Z supports gay marriage, per 2023 UCLA data) could scare off even conservative justices. Dobbs worked because abortion split 50-50; this doesn\u2019t.
\nWild Cards
\nJustice Turnover: If Trump (or a GOP successor) swaps Roberts or moderates for fire-breathers by 2030, odds creep to 20-25%. Dem wins keep it near 5%.<\/p>\nBacklash: A reversal could spark chaos\u2014millions of marriages voided, legal messes in 50 states. Even Alito might blink.<\/p>\n
New Arguments: A killer brief tying Obergefell to federal overreach or bad law (not just \u201ctradition\u201d) could sway Gorsuch-types.<\/p>\n
Bottom Line
\n10-20% feels right\u2014low because precedent, support, and inertia weigh heavy; not zero because the Court\u2019s bold and the right\u2019s hungry. From your Orthodox Jewish lens, hoping Trump\u2019s \u201cscrews\u201d on Big Law bleed into this, it\u2019s a long shot. Firms might quiet down, but the ruling\u2019s roots are deep. By 2035, America\u2019s more likely to shrug than fight over it again.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Grok says: Big Law\u2014those massive, elite law firms like Skadden, Latham, or Cravath\u2014threw significant weight behind same-sex marriage, especially in the lead-up to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court case that legalized it nationwide. Their support wasn\u2019t just casual; … Continue reading