Connect with us

House GOP’s Anti-Gay Supreme Court Brief Reads Like 1950’s Racist Propaganda

Published

on

The House GOP on Tuesday filed a 60-page brief in the Supreme Court that addresses the upcoming DOMA case of Edie Windsor, and it reads like 1950’s racist propaganda.

READ: Republicans File Brief in Support Of DOMA – Gays Are Doing Fine Without Any Help

DOMA, by the way, is the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 that bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

The brief, filed by John Boehner‘s hand-picked private attorney, Paul Clement — whom Boehner has secretly authorized to receive up to $3 million to defend DOMA — addresses the question:

Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Clement, who has never, ever won a same-sex marriage case since Boehner hired him at the rate of $520 an hour to work for the “BLAG,” the House of Representatives’ Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group that has as its majority Republicans not Democrats, has decided that “traditional marriage” must be defended for these reasons:

“Gays and Lesbians Are Far from Politically Powerless.”

“DOMA Rationally Preserves Each Sovereign’s Ability to Define Marriage for Itself at a Time When States Are Beginning to Experiment with the Traditional Definition.”

“Congress Rationally Proceeded with Caution When Faced with the Unknown Consequences of an Unprecedented Redefinition of Marriage, a Foundational Social Institution, by a Minority of States.”

“Sexual Orientation Is Not an “Immutable” Characteristic.”

Among others, of course.

And look out, because the LGBT community is omnipotent!

More than twenty years ago, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits recognized that “homosexuals … are not without growing political power,” and that “[a] political approach is open to them” to pursue their objectives. Ben-Shalom, 881 F.2d at 466; accord High Tech Gays, 895 F.2d at 574. Whatever the limits of that conclusion two decades ago, there can be no serious doubt that the political power of gays and lesbians has increased exponentially since then.

…

In short, gays and lesbians are one of the most influential, best-connected, best-funded, and best- organized interest groups in modern politics, and have attained more legislative victories, political power, and popular favor in less time than virtually any other group in American history. Characterizing such a group as politically powerless would be wholly inconsistent with this Court’s admonition that a class should not be regarded as suspect when the group has some “ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers.”

And this, which can only be described as the “shuck and jive” of Paul Clement’s anti-gay animus:

There is no precedent for creating a suspect class that is based on the class’ propensity to engage in a certain kind of conduct.

Not only is sexual orientation different from every recognized suspect class in that it is based on a propensity to engage in certain conduct, the cause of that propensity is not well understood.

A “propensity to engage in certain conduct”? Really? I’d like you to take a moment, pause, and reflect on what Attorney Clement might be suggesting there.

Other reasons Clement gives for denying same-sex couples the benefit of marriage that is the birthright of heterosexual couples?

1. Providing a Stable Structure to Raise Unintended and Unplanned Offspring
2. Encouraging the Rearing of Children by Their Biological Parents
3. Promoting Childrearing by Both a Mother and a Father

Curiously, Clement notes that when DOMA was passed, in “the Senate supporters included then-Senator Biden; then-Minority Leader Daschle; current Majority Leader Reid; and current Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy. In the House, Rep. Hoyer, the Current Minority Whip, supported DOMA.”

All those have in some manner, if not specifically, come out in support of same-sex marriage. Daschle lost his seat after fighting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Later, Clement quotes Jonathan Rauch, identifying him as a gay marriage supporter, which he was not — but now is.

Perhaps extremely disgusting is the argument Clement cites, from 1996:

As Senator Gramm observed, without DOMA, state recognition of same- sex marriage will create

a whole group of new beneficiaries—no one knows what the number would be—tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, potentially more—who will be beneficiaries of newly created survivor benefits under Social Security, Federal retirement plans, and military retirement plans…. [I]t will impose … a whole new set of benefits and expenses which have not been planned or budgeted for under current law.

And:

If the federal government were forced to recognize same-sex marriages, Sen. Byrd noted, “it is [not] inconceivable that the costs associated with such a change could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions … of Federal taxpayer dollars.”

[Bolding ours]

Clement writes, “in 1996 when it appeared that states soon would begin experimenting with changing the traditional definition [of marriage], the federal government was under no obligation to follow suit.”

In what other venue, issue, etc., does anyone refer to changing a law as “experimenting”?

Is ensuring First Amendment rights “experimenting”? Are anti-fracking laws labeled “experimenting”? Are laws ensuring children receive certain levels of education classified as  “experimenting”?

Why is same-sex marriage called “experimenting”?

And then this, what amount to their final argument: gays are already too powerful:

Creating new suspect classes takes issues away from the democratic process, and this Court has wisely refrained from recognizing new suspect classes over the last four decades. Homosexuality would be a particularly anomalous place to eschew that reluctance, as gays and lesbians have substantial political power, which has grown exponentially with each election cycle. Nor do the other factors this Court has looked to support recognizing a new suspect class here. To the contrary, with an issue as divisive and fast-moving as same-sex marriage, the correct answer is to leave this issue to the democratic process. In that process, there is a premium on persuading opponents, rather than labeling them as bigots motivated by animus. And the democratic process allows compromise and way-stations, whereas constitutionalizing an issue yields a one-size-fits-all-solution that tends to harden the views of those who lose out at the courthouse, rather than the ballot box. In the final analysis, the democratic process is at work on this issue; there is no sound reason to constitutionalize it.

And then this: Government must defend traditional marriage and exclude same-sex couples from the institution because heterosexuals are irresponsible:

The link between procreation and marriage itself reflects a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples— namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies. Government from time immemorial has had an interest in having such unintended and unplanned offspring raised in a stable structure that improves their chances of success in life and avoids having them become a burden on society.

Ian Millhiser at Think Progress makes the case as well:

One can only wonder what Paul Clement might have written if Virginia had hired him to defend their practice of racial marriage discrimination when it was before the justices in 1967. “Negro leaders meet often with the President and with Congressional leaders, and indeed, President Johnson himself signed two major laws pushed by the Negro lobby. Negro groups not only led a widely attended rally on the National Mall, but they routinely organize well-attended sit-ins, marches and other events that garner press attention and national sympathy. Recently, a Negro march at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama even sparked the President of the United States to give a speech endorsing the Negro lobby’s agenda before a joint session of Congress.”

Because, of course, if the fact that gay people have won a few political battles lately were reason to deny them the equal protection of the laws, then the same would also be true about African-Americans and women. Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act two years before Virginia lost its marriage discrimination case in the Supreme Court. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 promised equal treatment to women in the workplace — a promise still denied to gay men and lesbians —seven years before the justices first recognized that official discrimination against women violates the Constitution. Political victories do not cancel out Americans’ constitutional rights, they augment them, and Clement is simply wrong to suggest otherwise.

Read the entire brief, below:

House GOP’s BLAG files SCOTUS brief in support of DOMA by

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Johnson Scrambles to Defend Trump’s ‘I Love the Inflation’ Remark — Critics Don’t Buy It

Published

9 hours ago

on

June 10, 2026

By

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was quick to defend President Donald Trump’s widely reported remarks following Wednesday’s sharp spike in inflation, which is now at a three-year high.

“I knew somebody was going to ask me that,” Johnson told CNN’s Manu Raju. “It was totally out of context, you know what he was talking about.”

When pressed whether Trump’s remarks were what voters want to hear right now, Johnson insisted that the president “is laser-focused on the domestic economic situation.”

“He is working to bring down prices, he is going to get the Strait of Hormuz reopened,” Johnson insisted. “We have passed legislation, he has used executive orders to get the cost of living down. Everybody got their highest tax refunds they’ve had in their whole lives, they’re getting great paychecks, there’s all sorts of great economic indicators, but there’s still challenges — gas prices among them.”

“So, what he was saying is, it’s going to be great having that number and compare it to what comes next when we get these situations resolved — that’ll be a fun thing to consider and compare — that was the context,” said the Speaker.

Speaking about the inflation report, as CNBC reported, Trump had told reporters: “No, I love it, the numbers were great.”

“You know what I really love? I love the inflation. You know why?”

“Because as soon as this war is over, you know I can say it now … you know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil.”

“Nobody knows it. You know who doesn’t know about it? Iran, until right now,” Trump said.

CNBC noted that Trump, “speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, also predicted that inflation is ‘going to come down like a rock’ after the United States’ war against Iran is over.”

Critics blasted Speaker Johnson.

“Trump meant what he said and if people are taking things outta context maybe trump should speak English,” said one social media user.

Another called Johnson a “Trump apologist.”

A third remarked, “Aaaand, right on cue, here’s Mike Johnson, denying Trump said and meant what we all heard him say.”

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Steve Schmidt Slams ‘Decrepit’ Trump as a ‘Human Malignancy’ on America

Published

11 hours ago

on

June 10, 2026

By

Political strategist Steve Schmidt, a Republican turned Democrat, is blasting President Donald Trump as “despised,” “decrepit,” “bitter,” “angry,” “old,” “lonely,” and “hated” — while warning that “this week of desecration is only going to get worse from here.”

The co-founder of The Lincoln Project, Schmidt declared Trump’s White House — complete with a UFC cage match “Octagon” constructed to celebrate his 80th birthday and the start of the nation’s 250th birthday celebrations — a “symbol for the destruction of this era.”

That destruction, Schmidt says, includes “red hot” inflation and a lost Iran war.

Trump “isn’t just mistrusted. And disliked,” says Schmidt, “Donald Trump is genuinely despised. He’s hated.”

“He has earned this hatred, well and fully,” Schmidt declares, before calling Trump a “decrepit man” who is “the leader of a cult in America.”

“Consider his decrepitude,” Schmidt urges. “He cannot walk in a straight line.”

Offering examples, Schmidt points to Trump’s ankles, his sleeping in meetings, his “slurring of the words.” Trump “is physically and mentally incontinent,” says Schmidt, in words similar to those he used on Monday when he declared the president “psychologically incontinent.”

“And yet, the cynical men, the vandals, who have assaulted the Republic, lit the Constitution on fire, and have curated this fascism from day one, insist, by the time we get to 2028, Trump will just be getting started,” he warned, before playing video of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon declaring he believes Trump will run for president again in 2028, despite the current constitutional ban.

“Donald Trump is the worst president in American history,” Schmidt continued. “He is a human malignancy. A pancreatic cancer on the American Republic, a lethal terminal cancer,” a “MAGA cancer” that “must be excised, fully from our politics.”

“Despite what men like Steve Bannon and Donald Trump promise and threaten,” Schmidt observes, “and then abuse and break, we will always have a vote. And the American people will vote these people out of office with an extreme prejudice come November. We will vote them out from coast to coast. From the top of the ballot to the bottom of the ballot.”

“Donald Trump,” Schmidt continues, “is unfit, physically. Emotionally. In every conceivable way. But especially morally. And because of that, all of us, the American people, all the people of the world are in danger. Make no mistake about that.”

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

GOP Leader Skips Trump’s Bill Signing—Then Pins Three-Year High Inflation on His Iran War

Published

14 hours ago

on

June 10, 2026

By

Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune was noticeably absent from Wednesday’s Oval Office bill signing ceremony — but top House and Senate leaders — including Speaker Mike Johnson — were present, cheering on the president. Thune did take time to talk with reporters, where he tied Wednesday’s surging inflation numbers to Trump’s Iran war.

The Washington Examiner’s David Sivak asked Thune directly why he wasn’t present at the president’s signing of the $70 billion reconciliation bill to fund ICE and the Border Patrol, or to talk about FISA legislation with Trump.

Thune noted that Speaker Johnson is “down there anyway” and that he and Johnson “talk regularly,” Sivak reported.

Thune appeared to suggest that there might not have been an invitation, adding, “I don’t know that we got asked, but I’ve got stuff going on here, as you know.”

Thune spelled out the inflation connection to reporters, as Punchbowl News’ Andrew Desiderio reported.

“The sooner we get the situation in Iran stabilized, the Strait [of Hormuz] opened up, those [inflation] numbers will trend in a better direction,” he said. “But obviously right now there are important national security objectives we’re trying to achieve.”

“The American people realize that if we’re heading in the right direction and the trendlines are good and the confidence is good long-term — which I [think] it will be because of all the other things we’ve done on the economy — then obviously people will start to see improvement,” he also said. “It may not happen overnight, but it will. But at least for now, we’ve got to do everything we can to keep the pressure on [in] getting the situation in the Middle East resolved.”

Getting the situation in Iran resolved was not how President Trump appeared to approach Iran on Wednesday.

“Iran’s Military is a complete and total mess,” he wrote on Truth Social. “Much of it, like their Navy and Air Force, doesn’t even exist anymore – They have been completely defeated. Iran is all talk and no action. The Bully of the Middle East is dead!!! They’ve taken too long to negotiate a deal that would have been great for them, now they will have to pay the price!!!”

In that Oval Office meeting, Trump also slammed Iran, saying that the U.S. would hit Iran hard again on Wednesday, and insisted the Iranian government is “playing us for suckers.”

Thune has distanced himself from the president over time, refusing his repeated demands to pass the controversial SAVE America Act — legislation some call voter suppression — to kill the filibuster, and to fire the Senate parliamentarian. He has also opposed Trump’s intelligence nominee. Thune tried to persuade Trump to back Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), but the president endorsed Ken Paxton instead — and Paxton went on to defeat Cornyn in the May primary runoff.

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.