The Supreme Court, in Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973): “[I]f the constitutional concept of “equal protection of the laws” means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”
Looks like DOMA might get pwned in the courts before Obama has a chance to talk Congress into taking it down.
I like the question of whether some legislative purposes are impermissible. Anyone can figure out of there’s a rational connection between the means provided in a law and the ends to which Congress wants it to proceed, but what if stuff like “defending traditional notions of morality,” in extension, run counter to the Equal Protection? You can’t answer that question by using the usual “rationality” test.