Yesterday at my very nice public interest internship some of the lawyers were talking about the World Cup. First, about how cute Portugal was because they were underdogs; then, about how bad they felt for Germany when they lost. The players looked so sad! Losers, losers, losers, that's all that office is about. Can't they turn it off just to enjoy a soccer game?

I had an appointment at career services to explore nonlegal careers for people with bad grades and no money. I assumed the counselor would suggest consulting, business, or giving law firms a chance for 2L summer. After all, just because you don't love your job doesn't mean you can't get addicted to it. I was looking forward to these suggestions. If I picked one of those options, I wouldn't have to deal with the fallout-- boredom, whoredom-- for another year at least.

But the career counselor suggested I be a bartender. So now I have to find a bartending school and, apparently, practice telling a joke while mixing a drink. It's so much easier just to skim cases all day!

Or, read cases and blog about them. The NY anti-marriage decision is here. The Times coverage is here. The article bothers me because it says Kaye's dissent is "often stirring" and "a departure from the dry legal language of the main decision." It doesn't mention that the dissent is a departure from the dishonesty of the main decision. The lay reader probably gets the impression that the pro-gay side just didn't have logic on their side, only tearjerker rhetoric. Actually, the dissent is a lot more intelligent than the court's opinion, in addition to stirring more.

In law, style is bad, unless you count wearing the most expensive uniform possible as "style." Basically, lawyers run around in buildings that are creepy as hell, fighting like dogs, and trying not to scare anyone with their outfits.

It bothers me that "logic" and even "dry legal language" aren't seen as a style in themselves. Using logic in an argument is like using rhyme in a poem. It's one way to sound good. But the real point is to say something true and persuade someone else that it's true. A good free verse poem is obviously more effective than a limerick. But sometimes rhyme jolts a reader into faith because it's clever, surprising, or just clicks so well you suspect God planted both the words in the dictionary as a code for his favorite people to discover. Logic is just that-- a jolt towards one truth or another.

Lawyers should decide what's true and persuade judges, and judges should write opinions that persuade citizens. The problem with this case isn't logic-related. The problem is the gay rights lawyers didn't make any judges cry, and the majority's opinion didn't help me or any other self-respecting gay person to make peace with discrimination. Law fails again.