Well said.

Sadly, most people's sentiment on such issues is "the ends justify the means". If a cause is good then anything which furthers the cause is automatically the correct, appropriate thing to do. Discrimination against gays is wrong. Therefore it is the function of every organization to actively combat it at all times.

I have been present at a discussion where a series of politically motivated lectures about environmental issues was declared a "social event" so that it could be funded from money intended for social events. This feels no different.

I wouldn't disagree with the overall idea that professional organizations aren't the place for this kind of advocacy, and the point about whether or not an org that does so can still be a "neutral" organizer is a powerful one.
I think the reason that so many people and parties are speaking out this time around is, frankly, due to both a) the importance of this vote as a bellweather for this issue across the country and b) the apocalyptic nature of the dialogue coming out of some(!) churches and right-wing advocacy groups about Prop 8.
Before you social cons explode, wait a minute and read:
Over the last few weeks, pastors and "pro-family" orgs have issued emails and press releases, web site stories, etc. claiming that "if Prop 8 is defeated, Christians will have lost in this country, and the gays will have won." Another claimed that if Prop 8 passes, pastors who refuse to perform gay marriages will be thrown in jail, and so on. This kind of fear-mongering, besides being outright lies, falsely portrays Prop 8 as a "Christians vs. gays" thing, with the millions of persecuted Christians somehow being defeated by a handful of evil gays (come on, a little snark is allowed).
More and more groups are popping up to oppose Prop 8 to show the "us vs them" thing for the lie that it is, and to show that plenty of non-gays (and even Christians) support both gay rights and marriage equality. The more (and the more random) the groups that do this, the better and wider the sense of "so it's not just teh gays that oppose Prop 8" will be.
That's simply my sense of the matter, but I never would have expected PG&E to not only dump a quarter of a million dollars into opposing 8, but to become a founding member of a board expressly designed to get other businesses to oppose Prop 8. This just isn't a Christian/gay thing anymore, and every random professional org (and massive public utility!) that jumps into the fray helps underscore that point.

The way that the APSA appears to justify its stance is that it regards legal bans on SSM as discriminatory and unwelcoming to its members, whose (at least partially personal) interests the association is designed to serve. Religiously-affiliated colleges and universities presumably get a pass on religious freedom grounds, and the association does not provide major direct financial support to such institutions (it merely allows individuals from such institutions to be members, who will eventually recognize the error of their ways as the result of constructive engagement with more enlightened members).

The norms advocated by Prof. Somin are interesting, but surely they represent law in the sky, as opposed to actual reality. I don't know of any actually existing organizations of university professors that promote "education and academic research in a politically neutral way." Are there any?

Member schools derive all sorts of material benefits from being affiliated with the AALS. So this distinction doesn't cut it.

Law professors have more material benefits to bestow than political scientists.

imagine that a hotel existed whose owner was a known member of a white supremacist group. would they need to be 'neutral' towards that?

Two responses: First, this equates opposition to same sex marriage with the true evil of white supremacy. Is that really where you want to take this discussion? That position doesn't even admit that one might oppose SSM without being opposed to homosexuality. Instead, it assumes such opposition can only be the result of bigotry. While such reasoning might suffice for some state supreme courts, I thought this forum had higher standards. Besides, I can understand the thought that opposition to SSM is "backwards" or "unenlightened", but evil? So evil that we are required to boycott someone who holds that view? If that's your position, the definition of the term has been stretched to the point it no longer has any meaning other than its something you don't like.

Second, Manchester's views were unknown when the AALS signed a contract to hold its conference at the hotel. Is it the position of an organization of legal scholars that such a contract should be non-binding merely because the hotel's owner later took a position that is unpopular with some of the organization's members? That's simply stunning. Most would say, "A deal's a deal. Had we known this, we might have chosen another location." Or some such. Legal scholars seem to feel no obligation to honor their commitments (or to require their organization to honor its commitments). Goes a long way to explaining the high regard the public has for the legal profession.

(That doesn't mean an individual professor deciding whether he's willing to stay in that hotel, or participate in a conference in that hotel, couldn't make a distinction. And as I mentioned in previous thread, if enough professors decided to boycott a conference, the organizers then have a sound reason to change the locale--their goal is to run a successful conference.)

The AALS is an organization. It has rules. It has people who, under the rules, decide things. It has members who can, presumably, change either the rules or the people who decide things. I can't imagine that there is anything the AALS might do about anything that would not result in some members disagreeing, so whoever gets to decide under the current rules decides. If the AALS has previously adopted the Bernstein/Somin Rule, it can be called to account by members for violating it. If it has not, the members who would like to see it adopt the Bernstein/Somin Rule can agitate for change. Is anyone suggesting that the AALS is violating some currently-applicable rule?

Sounds like the same sort of people who dont eat Dominos because the primary shareholder supports various anti-abortion groups.

If the AALS has an official position in favor of gay marriage (which is what a boycott would amount to), it cannot be a credible neutral organizer of panels, conferences, and academic research on gay marriage-related questions. The same goes for taking positions on other political issues.

Would someone please explain this to the ABA? This concept seems to have escaped the ABA's notice -- not specifically concerning same sex unions, but on any number of other topics.

Why does Ilya Somin strenuously object to boycotts of rich activists that have little effect on their wealth, while failing to object to other boycotts and US sanctions regimes that lead to the death of many people? Could it be he fails to sympathize with Asian civilians victimized by boycotts and sanctions, as opposed to American activists? If he does not object to these boycotts, why should anyone care about US activists being selectively boycotted?