Clear

Your case against DOMA is based on Romer. The problem is that the Court's rationale in Romer is based on "(s)weeping and comprehensive is the change in legal status effected by this law." There is nothing sweeping or comprehensive about DOMA. It applies only to a single legal institution.

The Court also ruled that Amed 2 acted "not to further a proper legislative end." J O'Connor in Lawrence acknowledged that "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a proper legislative end.

The fact that DOMA seems to have been unnecessary to achieve it's intended results further bolsters the likelihood that it was politically motivated - that Congress was seizing an opportunity to pander to popular animosity toward homosexuality and to deepen the stigma associated with same-sex relationships. There are further arguments to be made on why DOMA is unconstitutional, but I'll stop here for now.

Okay let me continue. Based on earlier comments you made, you rely heavily on the purported link between the denial of same-sex couples to marriage rights to child birth or rearing. So let me elaborate more on that and how it relates to DOMA, and it's unconstitutionality.

DOMA can be viewed as, rather than a single isolated act, a functional amendment to thousands of statutes and regulations (In 1996 when DOMA was passed, 'marriage' appeared in over 800 sections of federal statutes and regulations, and 'spouse' appeared over 3,100 times.), the practical effect of which is to deny to gays all types of benefits and priviliges readily available to heterosexuals. Insofar as the government has a hand in marriage, it is marriage as a CIVIL institution, distinct from...

any potential religious counterpart. Governmental marriage benefits serve practical purposes, such as providing for loved ones within a household, that are completely unrelated to either sex or sexual oritentation. Accordingly, no rational basis exists to deny these benefits on either of those grounds, and to do so suggests that the classification is impermissibly "drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law" (Qtd. from Romer, and O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence)...

Congress's asserted justification for denying gay couples marital benefits is, in part, it's (Constitutionally inadequate) interest in conserving government resources. In Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, the court found that the government's asserted interest in preventing food stamp fraud (a legitimate interest you might say, like 'encouraging procreation') was INSUFFICIENT to overcome the animosity toward "hippie communes" that pervaded the eligibility restrictions. The court found that....

although such households did not look like traditional families, they possessed the same functional characteristics of families that would benefits from food stamps, and this could NOT be excluded from the program. In the City of Cleburne case I cited earlier, the court held that negative attitudes and fears toward the mentally retarded could not justify treating a home for such individuals differently for zoning purposes (another legitimate state interest). In U.S v. Virginia, the VMI case....

I mentioned earlier as well, the unique and valuable benefits of a VMI education formed the basis for the court's decision that the school could not exclude women. In a series of cases relating to 'illegitimate children" (born out of wedlock), the court found NO RATIONAL BASIS for denying benefits such as wrongful death recovery, and child custody, on the basis of illegitimacy, EVEN though the 'rational basis' given by the state was to 'promote child rearing' within wedlock. Likewise, denying...

(oh yeah, see Stanley v. Illinois for one of the 'illegitimate children' opinions)denying marriage benefits to committed, cohabitating gay couples "explicitly disdains present realities in deference to past formalities," and bears no rational relationship to any nondiscriminatory state interest. There's still more to address, but I'll leave it here for the time being until I get more time to continue.