FCC v. Beach Comm., 508 U.S. 307, 313, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993). Nevertheless, rational basis review is not “toothless.” Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U.S. 181, 185, 97 S.Ct. 431, 50 L.Ed.2d 389 (1976). “[Ejven in the ordinary equal protection case calling for the most deferential of standards, [courts] insist on knowing the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be attained.” Gill v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 699 F.Supp.2d 374, 387 (D.Mass.2010) (quoting Romer, 517 U.S. at 633, 116 S.Ct. 1620). In Romer, the Supreme Court held that gay men and lesbians, as a class, are at least protected from burdensome legislation that is the product of sheer anti-gay animus and devoid of any legitimate gov ernment purpose. 517 U.S. at 632-35, 116 S.Ct. 1620 (<HOLDING>). In Perry, the Ninth Circuit applied Romer and
holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification recognizing heightened rational basis scrutiny holding that colorados antigay ballot measure fails indeed defies even this conventional inquiry applied under the rational basis test holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction