The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause, because it isn’t rationally related to a legitimate government interest (the so-called “rational basis” test). ... And the Circuit said that “the district court properly concluded that the denial of benefits to same-sex domestic partners cannot promote marriage, since such partners are ineligible to marry.”The court said that it tried to think of all possible justifications for limiting benefits to spouses, but there are none with any rational basis.
Of course Arizona promotes marriage when it ties health benefits to spouses. The promotion is literal and direct. If that is not rational, then I wonder what would be an example of a rational law. The rationality of marriage laws was not being challenged, so the court had no business complaining that marriage was discriminatory.
You know that judges are just applying their own political prejudices when they accuse the other side of not having a rational basis.
For rational arguments supporting opposite-sex marriage laws, I suggest the Connecticut SSM dissents or the Obama DOMA brief.