MR. CLEMENT: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

The issue of same-sex marriage certainly implicates profound and deeply held views on both sides of the issue, but the legal question on the merits before this Court is actually quite narrow. On the assumption that States have the constitutional option either to define marriage in traditional terms or to recognize same-sex marriages or to adopt a compromise like civil unions, does the Federal Government have the same flexibility or must the Federal Government simply borrow the terms in State law? I would submit the basic principles of federalism suggest that as long as the Federal Government defines those terms solely for purposes of Federal law, that the Federal Government has the choice to adopt a constitutionally permissible definition or to borrow the terms of the statute.

This is Clement's opening statement for his argument. It leads into his point quite well and provides a clear foundation for the rest of his argument. Mr. Clement is trying to argue that despite the differing morals that play into the argument over what marriage's role are, the state should be primarily concerned with what is within their legal reach. He argues that the Federal government does not have the jurisdiction to overstep the authority of the states and must leave the decision up to them.

Clement uses a solid tactic and provides a small variety of rhetorical devices in his statement. Most notable, Clement employs a sort of flip tactic through his rhetorical question. He turns his point around to the judgesby asking, " does the Federal Government have the same flexibility or must the Federal Government simply borrow the terms in State law?" he is keeping the judges on their toes and drawing them in knowing full well that a judge's duty is to the law and nothing else.

Clement is playing to his audience both with his rhetorical question and with his use of logos. He acknowledges the true role of the Federal government in the affairs of states and challenges the justices to disprove his argument that any attempt made by the Federal government on this issue would be in direct violation of the law the justices have sworn to uphold.

Clement also makes a nice attempt at avoiding a bias by avoiding speculation on the effect of gay marriage on society. He gives neither side criticism but instead tries to convince that he is primarily concerned with what is law and what isn't.
Overall, Clement provides a pretty logical argument that is well targeted and well constructed.