I know that it doesn’t violate equal protection, because I know that the Founders would never have intended this.
However, short of an amendment to the constitution, the truth will only be shown after the culture suffers the depths of depravity to which this will take us.
IOW, sadly, the only textual argument that can be made by our side is a convoluted one. It must go to either states’ rights or to a willingness to hear an original intent from silence argument.
The DOMA needs to be made non-reviewable, the Constitution needs to change, and short of that this will not be overturned with John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy on the bench.
DOMA doesn't violate the equal protection clause, because DOMA is applied equally to all Americans. (It's not as though some classes of people are allowed to engage in homosexual unions, and other's are not.) The law says that the US government recognizes that all Americans can marry one person of the opposite sex. This means that homosexuals have the same rights as all other Americans since all Americans can marry someone of the opposite sex. Same sex couples just choose not to exercise that right. Since the law is applied equally to all Americans it does not violate equal protection.
Striking down DOMA on the grounds of equal protection is absolutely absurd. Following this court's crazy logic, incestuous and polygamous marriage will have to be upheld as well because not permitting them also would violate equal protection as described by this court.
That's why they say it violates "equal protection," and that's a fundamental misunderstanding right there. DOMA doesn't "target" gays and lesbians any more than it targets any other class of persons ineligible for marriage with each other: fathers and daughters, sisters-in-law, nine-year-olds, or triplets.
Its fundamental purpose is not to discriminate "against" gays, but to reaffirm the constant historic rational basis of marriage ---specifying a union which is potentially reproductive, as contrasted to potentially tennis-playing, foot-massaging, mutual-masturbating or condo-sharing.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that!" >:o/
The public "rational basis" for marriage is that it provides recognition and stability for the one-and-only kind of union which can inherently generate offspring.
Marriage wasn't invented by the state. It is not state property. It always has been, and still is, the only institution which unites children to their natural father and mother. The state can recognize it, can protect it, but cannot steal its name, delete its nature, and then launch something different in its stead.