Sam Clovis

—Nominee for Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics. Clovis, a non-scientist, withdrew his nomination for the chief scientist position, citing political division.

—Told rabidly anti-LGBTQ radio host Bryan Fischer that “the progressive movement is trying to redefine marriage because if they can break down the establishment of marriage, then they have broken down the first and essential building block of society, and this is exactly what the purpose is and why they’re advancing this agenda.”

—Said he would vote against ENDA, a measure guaranteeing fair employment practices for LGBTQ people, because he doesn’t believe in protections “based on a choice of behavior—and even if it’s a genetic factor, there’s not enough of them to turn the constitution on its head.”

—Argued that the Supreme Court’s 2013 DOMA ruling opens the door to polyamorous marriages; also called the ruling “another step in the wrong direction for the social and physiological strength of our nation.”

—Joined an anti-LGBTQ coalition, including the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Leader, on a campaign to oust the Iowa Supreme Court justices who voted for marriage equality.

—Said: “One of the four pillars of American strength is the traditional, nuclear family. That family begins with one man and one woman brought together in holy matrimony and from this union should come the children that fill out the family unit. This model works and clearly provides the strongest economic, social and psychological base for this most important building block of society.”

—Argued that being gay is a choice and compared LGBTQ protections to the legalization of pedophilia: “Follow the logic, if you engage in a particular behavior, what also becomes protected? If we protect LGBT behavior, what other behaviors are we going to protect? Are we going to protect pedophilia?”

—Claimed: “The LGBT community is using marriage as a wedge issue, but the ultimate goal is to gain 14th Amendment protections for LGBT individuals, which are 4 percent of the population. People often times do not see the connection here because what happens is if you are able to change the definition of marriage, you’ve accomplished a great number of things. One is the further driving of a wedge between a God and a state recognized institution…. The real issue is, imagine the arrogance of a group of people saying they want to change the definition of something and that’s it. There are no intellectual underpinnings for that. To say we now have marriages between two consenting adults is a fallacious argument because what happens is you want to define marriage from one man to one woman to consenting adults. What’s to say you can’t pass that on to other things? They want to deconstruct the fundamental institution of this country—the family. That is the reason for this.” Continues: “This whole issue is the absolute elimination of religious influence on this nation. Essentially it’s the last brick to be pulled out of the wall and then they’ll have taken the wall down.”