Well the lawyer who took the case will continue to represent the House, just not the law firm, who was bullied out of representing the House by gay rights activists. He resigned from the firm.
Gay rights activists have a First Amendment freedom of speech. I would strongly discourage trying to censor them in the interests of your own political views, that's not consistent with democracy. Spaulding and King as a law firm has the right to decide its own affairs without you deciding for them what they have an obligation to do or not to do--that's how it works in North Korea, not the U.S. Clearly an ideologically-motivated partner went off the reservation and made a decision that was bad for the firm and wasn't thought out. The firm didn't have an obligation to consider your desire, as neither a member of the firm, a client, or John Boehner, to see your opponents crushed under their bootheel.
Did you notice that the contract to represent Boehner in this losing case included a gag order banning all members of this law firm from advocating against DOMA, even in their private time, as private individuals? Do you think it is "gay activist bullying" to oppose that provision and think it was an overreach on the part of your side to impose on a large law firm?
And I have a First Amendment right to call people who pressure law firms to drop clients what they are - thugs who deserve to have the same thing happen to them when they have a legal problem. The right to be represented by counsel is also an important one. Attacking lawyers for taking on a case is very weak and extremely disgusting.
And I also have a First Amendment right to call King & Spaulding what they are - cowards. The court shouldn't have let them withdraw from representation.
I would believe that any firm would have an ethical obligation not to make public comments that cut against a case they have agreed to take, but what do I know? My arguments are always "doomed" because I'm not "progressive".