Former Law Clerk for Supreme Court Nominee Says Gorsuch Supported His ‘Gay Marriage’

WASHINGTON — Discussion is stirring over how Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch might rule on issues such as homosexuality and abortion should he be confirmed. His former law clerk told reporters last week that Gorsuch was supportive of his “gay marriage,” but reports also note that Gorsuch outlined over a decade ago that he does not believe the courts are the place to effect social change.

Joshua Goodbaum served as a clerk for Gorsuch in 2009, and now works as an attorney. He told Reuters on Friday that on the week of his 2014 “wedding” with his partner, Gorsuch expressed his support.

“He said, ‘This is a wonderful thing. You’ll see how your relationship grows,'” Goodbaum recalled.

“I have never felt the least whiff from him of homophobia or intolerance toward gay people,” he added.

As previously reported, Gorsuch is an Episcopalian, and attends St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. St. John’s identifies itself as “inclusive” on its website and is led by female minister Susan Springer. All of its deacons are also female.

In 2013, Springer expressed her support for same-sex “marriage.”

“I don’t think anybody in my faith tradition is out to destroy marriage between a man and a woman,” she told the Daily Camera. “I think we are out to find a way to offer the same blessing and the same sense of inclusion to same-sex couples. And I think we stand as prophetic witness, that same-sex couples ought to enjoy the same legal benefits, if you will, as heterosexual couples.”

  • Connect with Christian News

However, in 2005, Gorsuch penned an article for the National Review, where he opined that issues such as same-sex nuptials and others should be battled in the ballot box rather than in the courts.

He pointed to the writings of Washington Post columnist David von Drehle, who remarked that pushing agendas through the court system damages progressive purposes. Gorsuch said that liberals would do well to heed those sentiments.

“von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education,” he wrote.

“Liberals may win a victory on gay marriage when preaching to the choir before like-minded judges in Massachusetts. But in failing to reach out and persuade the public generally, they invite exactly the sort of backlash we saw in November when gay marriage was rejected in all eleven states where it was on the ballot,” Gorsuch noted.

He reiterated that letting the American people sort out matters in elections is the best way to solve social arguments rather than placing issues in the hands of judges.

“During the New Deal, liberals recognized that the ballot box and elected branches are generally the appropriate engines of social reform, and liberals used both to spectacular effect—instituting profound social changes that remain deeply ingrained in society today,” Gorsuch wrote. “It would be a very good thing for all involved—the country, an independent judiciary, and the Left itself—if liberals take a page from David von Drehle and their own judges of the New Deal era, kick their addiction to constitutional litigation, and return to their New Deal roots of trying to win elections rather than lawsuits.”

But Gorsusch has weighed in on social issues at times. As previously reported, Gorsuch is the author of the book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he concludes that “human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong.”

Gorsuch is also known for ruling in favor of the popular craft chain Hobby Lobby, which had sued the Obama administration over its abortion pill mandate. The company had sued to retain the right not to cover contraceptives that it considers to be abortifacients, such as the morning-after pill. Gorsuch pointed to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in his ruling.

“It is not for secular courts to rewrite the religious complaint of a faithful adherent, or to decide whether a religious teaching about complicity imposes ‘too much’ moral disapproval on those only ‘indirectly’ assisting wrongful conduct,” he wrote in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. “Whether an act of complicity is or isn’t ‘too attenuated’ from the underlying wrong is sometimes itself a matter of faith we must respect.”

Gorsuch was likewise a part of a ruling in favor of the Roman Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor, which had also sued the Obama administration over the abortion pill mandate.

Gorsuch is stated as being much like the late Antonin Scalia in that he is an originalist, that is, he seeks to interpret the Constitution in the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Scalia, however, noted during his tenure that he opposes both the complete abolition of abortion, as well as requiring legalization. He said that the Constitution does not require a state to ban abortion as he believes the 14th Amendment only applies to those who have been born.

“I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade,” Scalia outlined in a 2002 Pew Forum. “You know, both sides in that debate want the Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. One [side] wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong.”

“And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong,” Scalia further explained in a 2008 60 Minutes interview. “I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.”

The Trump administration, while identifying as pro-life with exceptions, has also expressed its support for the homosexual agenda. As previously reported, during his RNC acceptance speech in July, Trump told those gathered that he would work to protect homosexuals if elected.

“As president, I will do everything in my power to protect LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology,” he declared, being met with applause.

“And, I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said,” he said in response.

Trump had also declared at a fundraiser in June that he is the best candidate for the “gay community.”

“So you tell me, who’s better for the gay community, and who’s better for women than Donald Trump? Believe me!” he said.

In February, he replied in the affirmative when asked by a lesbian reporter if the nation can expect “more forward motion” on homosexual issues if elected president.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • OldBut YoungMoney

    If this is true, he’s a fking sellout traitor.

  • sammy13

    Changing times. Yet we still have the Bible.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    White men and their mental slaves should change their Sodomic way of thinking by reading the Holy Bible not to harm people especially children. Morality is normality for mankind.

  • Emmanuel

    Trump supports LGBT, so does the current bench and now the new guy. Can we stop saying these people are christian and how happy the Christians will be with this pick?

    • RWH

      Only those Christians who are obsessed with gays will be unhappy. Those Christians who don’t like to see others summarily labeled and stepped on will be happy.

      • Emmanuel

        I have to say, I’m not obsessed with gays or their lifestyle, I just don’t want the state/feds/court to detect theology or change theology. The church needs to stand on Biblical principles and if it’s contrary to the state, oh well, we will not change.

        • RWH

          Never to worry. First Amendment protections don’t allow the government to meddle into church affairs. If so, the Catholic Church would have been sued for refusing to remarry divorced people and for denying them communion. What the government has done is to work backhandedly. In my town, officials passed laws years ago prohibiting more than two unrelated people from cohabiting the same dwelling. This law was designed to prevent the Catholic Church from establishing a rectory for priests and a convent for nuns in town. It wasn’t until 1950 that the Catholics could even build a church.

          • Emmanuel

            I know #1 protects the church but as we have seen with #2, there’s ways around it. That is where I worry. The church could be told to marry gay couples. They can because of the tax exemptions and pastor state licenses. Again, going around #1 to find loopholes. Or, the church will be seen as horrible, old fashion and insensitive for not marrying gay couples, divorced couples, siblings and so on. How can we guarantee that the church will not suffer and have to change?

          • RWH

            There’s a whole bunch of people who tried to sue the Catholic Church because a priest would not baptize infants of lapsed Catholics. Others have sued to get a church wedding. Others have sued because lapsed Catholics couldn’t get a church burial. The courts threw out every single case. Catholic churches have fired parochial school teachers and church musicians, and the “injured” found out that they cannot sue. Churches determine who is a member and who is not. A church can just about do anything that it pleases.

          • Michael C

            The church could be told to marry gay couples. They can because of the tax exemptions and pastor state licenses.

            Are you aware that churches are free to refuse to hold wedding ceremonies for black couples? It has happened, most recently to Charles and Te’Andrea Wilson in 2012.

            The church hasn’t lost their tax exempt status to my knowledge.

            Given this information, do you really still see a threat to your and your church’s religious liberties? Gay people have legally been getting married in the U.S. for over a decade. Can you cite a single instance where a church was sued for refusing a gay couple? Do you really think that the government is totally cool with racial discrimination but will all the sudden draw a line when it comes to gay couples?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Doesn’t matter if a church was sued, only that the suit was upheld or the plaintiff won. THAT would be evidence that the courts can strongarm churches.

          • Emmanuel

            I have spoken to some gay activists. They told me that they will use the tax exemptions as a way in to make sure churches marry gays. Now, you can argue with me about this but it would be pointless since my info comes from the people pushing this.
            In my church, no members of color will be refused. Maybe where you live or in places where hate is still allowed, that might be happening.
            No, the churches have not lost their exemptions. Can they? yes. Will they stop being a church? no. Churches can still survive without it. I actually rather not have it but that’s just me. I think the church puts itself in a tight box with they are non-profit. I rather be free.
            You are getting two things confused, to my knowledge. Theology and legal.
            Legally, yes, anyone can get married. Go the court house, get your paper, pay the charge and go for it. Completely legal. no issues with me.
            Theology is when the state tells the church to do something it does not agree to do or else. Has it happened? no. Will it happen in the future? I have not a clue but I hope not. The private christian venues have been sued and we see that all the time. Some churches have changed their theology to include gays but that is contrary to the Bible. That is up to that church and how God will handle them. Many churches will not change, can not change and must not change even is the state tells them. I am not threatened by this. I will just move from one church to another. I will look for the church that stands with Biblical principles. Is not shaken or moved but stand firm on the Rock.

          • Michael C

            If churches everywhere have remained free to discriminate against black people for all these years without ever being at risk of losing their tax-exempt status, why do you think it’s any different with gay people?

            I know you’re just saying that it could happen, but that’s entirely different than what is likely or probable. I could make any number of ridiculous claims while only defending them by saying that it could happen.

            The federal government could amend the Constitution to outlaw the word “scrim.” Anyone who says or prints out the word “scrim” could be arrested and executed. It could happen. It really could. It is possible.

            …but is it at all likely or probable?

          • Emmanuel

            Can you give me an example of the racial discrimination of the blacks by the church? you talk about it so you must have seen something recently

          • Michael C

            There are zero laws that prohibit churches from discriminating on the basis of race and the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. If a church doesn’t recognize remarriage after divorce, they’re free to refuse to conduct a wedding ceremony for a couple on their second marriage. The same goes for any and every other type of religious ceremony.

            I’ve already cited a recent example of a church refusing to conduct a ceremony on the basis of someone’s race.

          • Emmanuel

            Can you share it with me, I did not see it.
            I agree with you with the first paragraph but do you know why?

          • Michael C

            “Are you aware that churches are free to refuse to hold wedding ceremonies for black couples? It has happened, most recently to Charles and Te’Andrea Wilson in 2012.”

          • Emmanuel

            thank you, I am doing research right now.

          • Emmanuel

            I just read the news clippings and interviews. This church or that small group of members are not right. That church/pastor should have never allowed them ugly hateful people to have a say in this. Cut out the bad apples to save the tree. That pastor should have stood up for what is right. That family was part of that church.
            Now legally, the church did not break any state laws. Before you have a meltdown, let me explain. This is a church and not a public place. This is not the wedding venue that everyone uses. Churches are more protected. No will get arrested or fined for this.
            Morally, they stomped on all the laws and biblical principles. Was it right? nope, racism is not allowed in churches. Does it happen? yup, only in Mississippi. LOL
            Was this discrimination and racism? No question. But, THAT church is not right. Mine and many others would not do that.
            Here is where you are getting at, gay marriages. It’s not the same. Why? this marriage was between a man and a woman. No sin here. Holy in the eyes of God. This retarded church saw skin color and not the holy communion. A gay marriage is not blessed by God and not holy in his eyes. Regardless of skin color, age, race, creed and social class, still not morally right. Legally, it’s all good.

          • Michael C

            Personally, I don’t care what certain churches believe or teach. I don’t care whether or not they’re properly following the teachings of their particular faiths. I don’t care if they’re “right” or “wrong” in their beliefs. I don’t care what religious ceremonies they refuse to perform or for what reason they refuse to perform them. None of this has anything to do with anything I’ve said.

            You originally said that churches could be forced (via threat of revocation of their tax-exempt status) to perform religious ceremonies that are in opposition of their beliefs and teachings.

            I’m saying to you, no, there’s substantially powerful evidence that the government will do no such thing. I’m saying that your claims are absurd, unfounded, and detached from reality.

          • Emmanuel

            LOL, you brought up the issues and I answered them. You did not like my answer and that is evident by your response. That is fine. No issue with me. i like our talks.
            But, you don’t see the situation through our eyes but only through yours. You don’t want to hear that many gay activists want to see the church fall to the state. Remove separation of church and state and at the same time say keep separation of church and state. The day will come that you will see the state force churches to marry every type of relationships. The pastors will go first and then the churches. We are not seeing it now but just wait a bit.

          • Jason Todd

            What is it with you intellectually lazy fools, comparing skin color to sexual behavior AGAIN? It’s a false comparison and shame on anyone who entertains such rubbish.

          • neenerpuss .

            Whether you believe gays a born gay like blacks are born black OR gays chose to be gay like Catholics chose to be Catholic….it’s irrelevant.

          • Jason Todd

            What? Could you clarify?

          • neenerpuss .

            It can be just as easily compared to the chosen behavior of religion.

          • Jason Todd

            Religion is protected. Sexual behavior is not.

          • neenerpuss .

            It is “protected” from attack…..it is not “protected” when attacking. You don’t get to use it to get others to follow the rules of your faith.

          • neenerpuss .

            Your religion is only protected FROM the government….not private citizens.

          • Jason Todd

            Listen to me carefully, as I will only say this once:

            You do not have the right to force your behavior on me. Try it, and I will say no. Try to use people in black robes, I will ignore. You want my money? You won’t get it. I will put every dime I own in an offshore account or bury it. I will not comply.

            And if you want me in jail, you can have my body, but you will never have my soul. That belongs to Jesus Christ, and as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

          • neenerpuss .

            Listen to me. I will NOT let you treat me any differently than any other customer. I don’t need black robes. I have THOUSANDS of friends that camp out on your front lawn and picket until your income collapses. As for Jesus surely you realize he was a middle age man than never married and never dated. He hung around 12 other single men one of which he called “my beloved”. He threw a fabulous dinner party and at the end was kissed by a male guest and told everyone to “eat me” Jesus was more like the gay community than any so called “christian” follower…..so tread carefully. You may regret your actions….

          • neenerpuss .

            “Legally, yes, anyone can get married. Go the court house, get your
            paper, pay the charge and go for it. Completely legal. no issues with
            me.”

            That is all anyone has asked for….but SOME religious people are back at it trying to deny that right with the state again. What should gay people do? Religious people are oppressing gay people…so gay people are left with little options but to use the courts.

            To get respect you must give respect. Respect us…let us live our lives….stop obstructing our rights and you’ll be amazed at the respect that will be shown in return. If you keep messing with our lives we will mess with yours right back.

          • Emmanuel

            I agree with you but I have to address one little issue. Marriage and a license is not a right. It’s a choice, privilege and an option. Voting is a right. A gay person is not denied a right like the blacks and women were denied the right to vote. A straight or gay couple do not have to get married or they can get married.
            Again, I don’t have an issue with getting married. Go for it. The church wants to be free to exercise their first amendment right to say that it’s a sin. To say they will not marry a gay couple. And to not feel like they just committed a crime where a right was not violated.

          • neenerpuss .

            There are over 1 million married same sex couple in the US alone. How many sued a church to get married? How many had to sue the government to get married? The government belongs to all of us. That means sometimes a government official may have to do something that is against their beliefs or religion because it is legal and everyone must be treated equally by their government. Somehow Christians are claiming martyrdom because they think something “may” happen in the future….but hasn’t yet because the laws prevent it.

          • Emmanuel

            Again, I don’t have a problem with gay, multiple and even sibling marriages. Go for it. Just don’t bring that stuff to the church and say it’s blessed by God. When it’s not.
            I would not have a problem issuing out licenses. I can sleep at night knowing I am not living in that sin. That is their problem. As a christian, separate church and state is not a problem for me. Actually, it’s better for us. The line is drawn in the sand and it is more visible.

          • neenerpuss .

            We are on the same page. Surely you must see the gay community’s concern as well as the rights of the church. I too believe in separation of church and state because the door swings both ways. Once religion is used to write state laws that means the state has now issued religious decree….whether it is your religious belief or not. All laws must have a secular purpose to keep freedom of religion safe. We just need to respect each other.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Was that law enforced recently?

          • RWH

            Yes. When Cardinal Law closed a number of parishes in the Boston area, congregations tried to sue, and the courts threw out the suits because this was internal church affairs. Within the Catholic diocese where I reside, the Bishop combined a number of parishes where Sunday services would be held in the primary church, and the subordinate church would only be used occasionally. People got upset, but they couldn’t do anything about it. Courts would not take a case.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I think I replied to the wrong post. I meant the law forbidding multiple unrelated people to live in a house.

          • RWH

            No, this was something passed back in the 1930s. We have numerous college students who rent apartments or houses together. However, in the past, the town officials passed whatever they could to keep the Catholics from building a church in town. My parents retired to the south. In their town, two Baptist pastors tried to prevent the Catholics from opening a parish in the town. They lost, but a lawyer representing the diocese had to issue an ultimatum to the town council. Great Neck, NY has a huge Jewish population and seven rather large synagogues because historically, the towns surrounding it tried to institute all sorts of policies to keep the Jews out. Back in the 1960s, Garden City, a very wealthy Long Island community, was “forced” to allow the Jews to build a synagogue. Today, the community has an assortment of houses of worship, including an Episcopal Cathedral, a Greek Orthodox Cathedral, a synagogue, and a few houses of worship for various non-Christian religions.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Well, any law that aims to disadvantage one religious group, regardless of how innocuous it sounds, violates the Free Exercise Clause. That was the ruling in City of Hialeah v. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye.

      • Darren H

        That’s called “projection.” You people are obsessed with Christians. That’s why you troll Christian blogs 24/7. It’s sad.

        • RWH

          I’m not sure what you mean by “you people.” Christianity has never been defined by your particular slants on doctrine or political issues. A lot of sincere Christians do not believe nor think as you do. To claim that people are not Christians because they do not believe not think as you do is the ultimate state of arrogance.

          • Darren H

            You gays obsess over Christians 24/7. All you’re doing is proving you have no life at all. Other than your hate for Christians, you got nothing. What a pity.

          • RWH

            If you’re thinking of me, you’re aiming at the wrong target. Why not deal with the issues instead of hurling insults.

          • Amos Moses

            “Only those Christians who are obsessed with gays”
            “Why not deal with the issues instead of hurling insults.”

            hmmmm …. my spidey sense senses contradiction ………..

      • Chet

        You mean those who are Christians in name only or perhaps those have never bothered to simply read their own Holy Bible to see the mind of God on such issues?

  • Robert

    This judge and Dallas Dr Jefferies to are all members of the church of Sweden and Norway and US Military chaplaincy.

  • msicairos

    One either sides with the entire word of God (The Bible) in its proper context of course; or continue to compromise into eternal damnation. If one is not completely with God/Jesus, your against him. No middle of the fence or lukewarmness. I though VP Pence was the real deal; True born again of the Holy Spirit Christian. Sad.

  • The foxes are running the hen house. However, it’s not the foxes that we were so very worried about, so let’s be happy. They all wear chicken masks, so everything is ok. Besides, they’ll eat us plump ones last.

  • Chet

    There are other prominent Christian men and women and Jews who have these sticky issues firmly resolved in their own hearts and minds in accordance with God Almighty’s writ. Perhaps the current nominee should be now recalled, especially after his so called derogatory comments of late …

  • “It’s amazing how pride can conspire to blind us. Take the nomination of Neil Gorsuch for example.

    “Conservatives invested a lot in their support of Trump so they have a lot of incentive to see Trump’s choice as great. We want to see Mr. Gorsuch as Christian and conservative whether he is or isn’t. Conservative media have exclusively portrayed Mr. Gorsuch as very conservative.

    “Liberals invested a lot in their opposition so they are saying the same thing. They are screaming Mr. Gorsuch is an extreme conservative to drum up opposition on their side.

    “Neither side wants to admit any possibility they could have been wrong. Because of that there are a few facts neither side will tell you:

    “Mr. Gorsuch attends St. John’s Episcopal Church of Boulder, CO. This is one of the most liberal churches in the nation. Parishioner’s from Mr. Gorsuch’s church sponsored the recent “Women’s March” in Boulder. Mr. Gorsuch’s pastor, Susan Springer, attended that march and spoke about it glowingly in her weekly church blog. The church’s official position on abortion is that it is a woman’s right and should be defended. They also support homosexuality as a perfectly Christian option.

    “Mr. Gorsuch is being portrayed as anti-abortion based solely on a book where he opposed euthanasia. But in Pino v. U.S., 507 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2007), Judge Gorsuch argued a “non-viable fetus” does not possess the same rights as a “viable fetus”.

    “He is also being portrayed as anti-gay. But in 2009, Judge Gorsuch was one of the earliest to decide federal law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. (Kastl v. Maricopa County Cmty. College Dist., 325 Fed. Appx. 492 (9th Cir. 2009)….” (John Wickey)

    This nomination would never occur under a biblical government:

    “…The Bible stipulates, among other things, that judicial appointees must be men of truth who fear Yahweh and hate covetousness. (See Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” for a list of additional Biblical qualifications.) The United States Constitution requires no Biblical qualifications whatsoever [made all-but impossible by Article 6’s Christian test ban]. Nowhere does the Constitution stipulate that judges must rule on behalf of Yahweh, rendering decisions based upon His commandments, statutes, and judgments as required in Exodus 18. That not even one constitutional framer contended for Yahweh,3 as did King Jehoshaphat, speaks volumes about the framers’ disregard for Him and His judicial system:

    ‘And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH,4 who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of YHWH, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.’ (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)….”

    For more, see online Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 6.

    • neenerpuss .

      I am opposed to Gorsuch for one reason and one reason alone at this point. AND that reason is Merrick Garland! Republicans have now broken another institution and tradition that makes government function. Democrats plan to filibuster Gorsuch and any other nominee that isn’t Merrick Garland and will be able to force Republicans to go back to Garland or nuke the filibuster completely, or of course leave the court at 8 members until one side or the other gets back to a filibuster proof majority ….but the court is more likely to die off one by one before that happens.

  • Gorsuch penned an article for the National Review, where he opined that issues such as same-sex nuptials and others should be battled in the ballot box rather than in the courts.

    He pointed to the writings of Washington Post columnist David von Drehle, who remarked that pushing agendas through the court system damages progressive purposes.

    This is wrong headed. Pursuing constitutional rights through the courts is not the same as pursuing “agendas” through the court. The only “agenda” here are the religious attitudes that stress Christianity should prevail over the land.

    Christians want the government out of their lives, then they should not be calling for the government to micromanage OTHER people’s lives. Leave them alone to seek happiness according to the dictates of their conscience just like anyone else. Who they love and marry hurts NO ONE.