its impartiality would be suspect.”)). 2. Application of Rational Basis Review to Justifications Proffered by Congress. The Court has already addressed the four interests proffered by Congress during the passage of DOMA and found them not to be substantially related to an important governmental objective. Similarly, under the rational basis review, the Court finds that none of Congress’ proffered justifications constitute a rational relation in furtherance of some legitimate governmental end. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 631, 116 S.Ct. 1620 (citing Heller, 509 U.S. at 319-320, 113 S.Ct. 2637). Specifically, the Court finds that Congress’ justification of promoting traditional notions of morality does not satisfy rational basis scrutiny. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 582, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (<HOLDING>) Also, if the denial of benefits is designed to
holding that moral disapproval of homosexuals like a bare desire to harm the group is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the equal protection clause holding that the impact fee there imposed did not violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment using the rational basis test we discuss here holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause holding that because lawrence declined to address equal protection it did not disturb philips equal protection ruling under the rational basis standard of review holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction