My President stands against DOMA... and so do I

Yesterday, the Obama administration filed a brief with the justice department in support of Edie Windsor  in  United States vs. Edith Windsor. Click here to read the brief for yourself. If you are short on time, I have essentially written a Spark-Notes-esque version below.

In essence, the executive branch's argument is that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the words "spouse" and "marriage" in the US, enacted under President William Clinton violates the 5th Amendment right to equal protection*. The argument is three-fold. Part One goes like this:

1. Gay and lesbian persons have historically been discriminated against
2. Sexual orientation does not effect an individual's ability to function as a productive member of society
3. The LGBT-community can readily be defined (and there is a scientific and medical consensus, moreover, for most people sexual orientation is not a choice)
4. The LGBT community is a minority group (and thus have limited political power)
5. As such,  the court is obligated to give higher scrutiny to any laws that would give different legal treatment to gay and lesbian persons just as they would laws that treat women or racial minorities differently

As higher scrutiny requires that the government shows as important governmental objective to a potentially discriminatory law, Part 2 follows as such:

1. Moral opposition to homosexuality is not an adequate or appropriate governmental objective
2. Tradition is not an acceptable reason for discrimination (and, at any rate, Section 3 of DOMA would be a terrible way to preserve the "traditional" definition of marriage as heterosexual because gay marriage is currently a state issue, as supported in Section 2 of DOMA)
3. Studies have shown that gay and lesbian parents have children that are just as well adjusted as straight parents, so procreation and child-rearing as a governmental objective is not an adequate reason to give heterosexual married couples special treatment (and, again, Section 3 of DOMA in no way promotes responsible heterosexual parenting nor punishes irresponsible homosexual parenting, nor does it in any way address the so-called problem of unplanned offspring, nor does it seek to reduce the heterosexual divorce rate,...)
4. States rights were addressed in Section 2 of DOMA, not section 3. At this time, no one is trying to prove Section 2 of DOMA unconstitutional [although the author of this blog personally hopes they throw out the entirety of DOMA rather than just Section 3]. 
5. Denying same-sex married couples their federal marriage rights actually costs the federal government money, so the argument that Section 3 spares the government budget is null and void. Even if Section 3 did save the government money, however, it is unethical for the government to deny rights to a certain arbitrary segment of the population simply to save on costs. 
6. (a.) Section 3 of DOMA might ensure that committed same-sex couples in states which do not allow gay marriage are not deprived of potential federal rights they could have had if they were in a state that  recognized gay marriage, but that's a crap reason. (b.) Wanting to proceed with caution on the issue of same-sex marriage is also a stupid reason, especially in the absence of a temporal clause in Section 3 of DOMA.
7. Therefore, Section 3 of DOMA fails higher scrutiny and, therefore, must be found unconstitutional if this line of reasoning is used. 

Part 3 is simple: If other lines of reasoning are used, Section 3 of DOMA is still unconstitutional. 

President Obama, like many other people in this country, clearly thinks bans against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Or, in the words of another great American document, he too "...hold[s] these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

*The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution says no one should "...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," a statement that has been interpreted as meaning people in the same situation should be treated the same way. It seems like common sense to me that due process of law must apply to all persons equally.