provide a rational basis for the law. Williams, 399 U.S. at 239, 90 S.Ct. 2018. Simply, the “ancient lineage” of the law does not render it rational. See Heller, 509 U.S. at 327, 113 S.Ct. 2637. BLAG argues, but does not explain how denying marriage benefits only to same-sex couples will somehow make marriage between opposite-sex couples better. The proffered justification may derive from strongly-held religious or fundamentally traditional beliefs, but still does not provide a legally recognizable rational basis for sustaining a law that actively discriminates against legally married couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages. See Perry II, 671 F.3d at 1089, 2012 WL 372713, at *23 (<HOLDING>); see also Perry, 704 F.Supp.2d at 972
holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument holding that a party waives an argument if the party fails to elaborate or provide any citation of authority in support of the argument holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court holding that an argument was barred where the movant could have but did not raise its argument before the district court ruled in the original motion holding that the argument that withdrawing the designation of marriage from samesex couples could on its own promote the strength or stability of oppositesex marital relationships lacks any such footing in reality