Is John Boehner Perjuring Himself (Over and Over Again) In DOMA Case?

1. GAYS HAVE NOT HISTORICALLY FACED DISCRIMINATION: Ignoring the fact that there have been laws against homosexuality for about as long as people have been publicly out, Clement argues that anti-​gay discrimination is a “unique and relatively short-​lived product of the twentieth century.” Worse yet, Clement argues that because things are getting better, any arguable history of discrimination is irrelevant.

2. SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS A CHOICE: Clement’s argument against the immutability of sexual orientation is shallow and duplicitous. He points out that people “choose” to identify as gay, confusing selecting one’s orientation with identifying with it. He suggests that if sexual orientation were immutable, it could be determined at birth. And most deceptively, he implies that because scientists have not agreed upon a clear cause for sexual orientation,they do not have consensus that it is not a conscious choice — they do. He even attempts to tell Ms. Windsor that she is wrong about her own sexual orientation.

3. GAYS HAVE PLENTY OF POLITICAL POWER: Despite the fact that gays and lesbians constitute only a small percentage of the population and have been discriminated against by majority votes for decades, Clement tries to make the case that gays are not “politically powerless,” one of the qualifications for heightened scrutiny. By selectively highlighting successes and positive polling around LGBT equality, he paints a false picture of how rosy life is for gays and lesbians, snidely using the Department of Justice’s stance against DOMA to make his point.

4. SAME-​SEX COUPLES MAKE BAD PARENTS: One of Congress’s rationales for passing DOMA was the idea of “responsible procreation,” the idea that opposite-​sex couples were better suited to raising children and thus marriage was a privilege reserved for them. In order to defend this idea, Clement must challenge scientific consensus on the existing research that shows same-​sex parents to be equally as effective, and so he does.

5. THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE MUST BE PROTECTED: Implicit in all arguments against marriage equality is the fear-​mongering claim that somehow allowing same-​sex couples to marry will destroy the “institution” of marriage. Indeed, Clement has made it clear he will argue that marriage must be “defended” from “redefinition.” He also implies that the benefits that same-​sex marriages would be afforded would be an undue financial burden for the government.