realities of the subject addressed by the legislation,’ and thus cannot be credited as rational.” Perry II, 671 F.3d at 1088, 2012 WL 372713, at *22 (citing Heller, 509 U.S. at 321, 113 S.Ct. 2637). Accordingly, the Court finds that Congress’ stated justification of encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing bears no rational relationship to the classification which burdens same-sex married couples. b. Nurturing the institution of traditional, opposite-sex marriage. BLAG contends that the institution of opposite-sex marriage is deeply rooted in American law, embedded in history and tradition, and has been defined both by Black’s Law Dictionary and the Bible. (BLAG Motion to Dismiss at 23-24, citing Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 792, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983) (<HOLDING>) and Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d
holding that traditional marriage is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country and has become part of the fabric of our society recognizing the common enterprise theory of marriage holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of  an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred holding husband could not have marriage annulled because wife was pregnant by him at time of marriage recognizing that basis for deportation was aliens misrepresentation about his marriage not the validity of his marriage