Boehner And Clement Offer Tired Rhetoric To Defend DOMA


While the rest of our government found a meh solution to the debt-ceiling crisis, the defenders of the Defense of Marriage Act—house speaker John Boehner and Bi-Partisan Legal Advisory Group lawyer Paul Clement—combined their question-dodging and gay-bashing skills to answer the legal questions put before them by a federal judge. Their response came in the form of an incredibly crappy brief filled with tired, homophobic reasoning. When you read it, you’ll wanna fill your briefs with crap as well.

Think Progress boiled down BLAG’s arguments into five point. We’ve amended each one to gauge their level of idiocy:

1. GAYS HAVE NOT HISTORICALLY FACED DISCRIMINATION: Never mind the 30-page brief filed by the Department of Justice outlining the many instances of institutionalized homophobia on the state and federal level throughout the history of the United States. And make no mind about that insignificant scribble called The Bible with its “abomination” passages that have been used to justify queer-bashing for centuries. Gays only started facing discrimination, like, last Tuesday.

2. SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS A CHOICE: Just like heterosexuality. Every straight person in America consciously chose to be straight. Only a defiant minority chose homosexuality, you know, because it’s cool. Seriously, gents. Even the leader of the anti-gay hate group Focus on the Family thinks that same-sex attraction is not a choice. Are you calling Tony Perkins a liar?

3. GAYS HAVE PLENTY OF POLITICAL POWER: Ironically their proof that gays have political power includes the DADT repeal and the advance of marriage equality in states like New York. Which is exactly why we must uphold DOMA and stop the advance of marriage equality in states like New York.

4. SAME-SEX COUPLES MAKE BAD PARENTS: Nevermind that the American Psychological Association says that there’s no discernible difference between children raised by gay couples and kids raised by straight couples. Everyone knows straights make better parents. Just look at Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala—their kids turned out great! Or the parents of Lyle and Erik Menendez!

5. THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE MUST BE PROTECTED: Forget divorce, adultery, bad sex, miscommunication and dishonesty. The government must attack the true threat to marriage—the homos! Their argument basically says that we shouldn’t “redefine” marriage as an institution for anything other than child-rearing because that would destabilize something that already has a 50-50 success rate. That also means that all you childless, infertile old heteros shouldn’t really be allowed to marry either. Amazeballs.

The Bi-Partisan Legal Advisory Group decided to defend DOMA via a 3-2 vote with Republicans (Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy) on one side and Democrats (House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Whips Steny Hoyer) on the other. Lets hope that each Republican gets bludgeoned with these shoddy arguments stolen straight out of the National Organization for Marriage’s handbook.

BTW, did we mention that you taxpayers are paying for this amazing legal treatise?


Image via

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #blag #doma(defenseofmarriageact) stories and more


  • Ambrose

    Nancy Pelosi signed on to this? I very, very much doubt it. Check your facts!

  • Bobby In Seattle

    I’m with Ambrose @ 1.

    I read where this was split down party lines – the two Democrats (Nancy P being one) were against this lawsuit. The 3 republicans pushed for it (surprised look on my face).

    And, the fact that Nancy Pelosi has always been a very strong supporter of LGBTQ rights, I’d find it hard to swallow that she was in support of this azzhats reasons to deny repeal of DOMA.

  • christopher di spirito


    Please correct your text. It is 100% incorrect.

    The Bipartisan House Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), by a 3-2 vote over the objections of House Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), directed the House General Counsel to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.

    Pelosi, in a statement, said:

    “President Obama took a bold step forward for civil rights when he announced that the federal government would no longer argue to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act in court. DOMA is discriminatory; it’s unfair and indefensible; and it betrays our nation’s long-held – and long-cherished – value of equality for all.

    “Since its proposal and passage, this legislation has raised constitutional questions and has been viewed as a violation of the equal protection clause. The House should not be in the business of defending an unconstitutional statute that is neither rational nor serves any governmental interest. DOMA actually discriminates against American families.

    “Given the complexity and number of cases, this legal challenge would sap hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, if not more, during a time of limited fiscal resources.

    “Pursuing this legal challenge distracts from our core challenges: creating jobs, strengthening the middle class, and responsibly reducing the deficit. And that is why I voted against this action today.”


  • AedanRoberts

    Queerty- in light of the information Christopher has graciously supplied- please change this article. It is infairly lumping Pelosi and Hoyer in with the trash.

  • AedanRoberts

    *edit- UNfairly

  • hf2hvit

    And let’s not forget that the idiot who wrote DOMA was in the middle of his THIRD divorce when he wrote it.


    Christopher is right the vote was 5 to 3 with only the Republicans wanting to defend DOMA. These people are defending the indefensible. They know the law is unconstitutional and they are putting on a show for the religious fundamentalists(at tax payer expense)!

  • kern

    I love the snarkily tough to the article and the wit, though I have to agree with {Ambrose, Bobby in Seattle, christopher di spirito, etc} that you need to get your fact right about Pelosi

  • Andrew

    In addition to the errors pointed out above, Tony Perkins is the head of the Family Research Council, not Focus on the Family. Both hate groups, yes, but decidedly different methods of crazy.

  • The crustybastard


    And lets not forget that the jackass that SIGNED it was meanwhile administering Oval Office jizzbaths to a young lady who was not his wife.

  • Robert in NYC

    And let’s not forget that Log Cabiners and the self-loathing GOProuders, the “wannabe” accepted by their GGP masters consistently vote for a party that votes against THEM. No matter who gets the nomination, thsee two groups, including Civil Libertarians, will rally around the nominee when push comes to shove so that NO democrat is ever in the White House.

    No. 10, that “jackass” you talk about had no choice but to sign DADT into law. The republican military brass were against gay people serving, period. It was either get DADT legislated or eery gay man and woman able to serve their country would have been banned altogether. In 1993, the homophobic climate in the military was at an all time high and the GOP used it as one of their wedge issues. To date, the majority of them still did not support repeal compared to the overwhelming number of democrats who did.

    Nancy Pelosi has been an outspoken supporter of marriage equality. This article is totally inaccurate on that one.

  • Daez

    @Robert in NYC: Not to mention that DOMA was a compromise to avoid an amendment that banned gay marriage which had a very good chance of passing.

  • Robert in NYC

    Daez, can you please point me to factual evidence that marriage equality would have passed in the absence of a DOMA compromise. In 1996, President Clinton was facing a hostile Republican Congress and a re-election challenge by the well-respected but way behind-in-the-polls Senator Bob Dole. Trying to find some issue that would give Dole traction with the electorate, the Republican Congress passed DOMA and sent it to Clinton, essentially daring him not to sign it so that it could be turned into a campaign issue. But he did sign it in what was widely viewed at the time as a cold calculated political decision to make the issue go away in the ’96 campaign. And indeed it did. . .for him. . .in his election, nothing more. There is NO evidence to suggest marriage equality would have happened had DOMA not occurred. Please provide the evidence to support that.

  • Daniel Villarreal

    @christopher di spirito: Chris, thanks for your input. I have corrected the article and apologize for my gross oversight. Often scribing here at Queerty requires us to switch gears and tackle complex topics quickly. It’s not excuse for inaccuracy, but we value sharp readers who help keep us accountable and remind us of the high standard to which we ultimately aspire.

  • Pitou

    Where is the link to the actual language that they answered with? I like to read them myself rather then interpreted by someone else

  • Thomas

    If weren’t for all us scary homos, these poor Republicans wouldn’t be in the place they are in.

Comments are closed.