Zack Ford writes:

The case was brought by Edie Windsor, who was forced to pay exorbitant federal inheritance taxes when her wife of 44 years passed away because the government did not recognize their marriage under DOMA. Clement’s primary goal in defending the law is to prove that sexual orientation is not a characteristic that deserves “heightened scrutiny”—essentially, that gay people have not been historically subject to the kind of irrational discrimination that justifies constitutional protection. Doing so requires perpetuating common myths and misperceptions about sexual orientation to convince the court to toss out Edie’s lawsuit. Here are five attacks he makes against gays and lesbians pulled from two of the briefs filed this week:

1. GAYS HAVE NOT HISTORICALLY FACED DISCRIMINATION [...]

2. SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS A CHOICE [...]

3. GAYS HAVE PLENTY OF POLITICAL POWER [...]

4. SAME-SEX COUPLES MAKE BAD PARENTS [...]

5. THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE MUST BE PROTECTED