It's not only because the 14th amendment only applies to protected classes. It's also because a privilege is NOT being denied. See: Anyone can get hetero married. I'm offering steak to my 5 guests. One of them doesn't want steak and wants vegetables. He says that I'm starving him by not offering him food. I am offering him food, and I'm not starving him, he is the one who doesn't want to partake in the meal and instead wants something else (if you say vegetables are food, you're a damned commie rabbit, I don't eat what my food eats). And I'm not against any given state that wants to do it. In fact, were I to vote on some ballot initiative, I'd probably vote
for homo marriage. My main issue is pushing it on to the state's, "In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sexcouples, or to retain the historic definition."
The Supreme Court is, as Robert's said, "Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered)".
I love SCOTUS. Even prior to lawschool I read a number of biographies of their members, a number of books about their decision making, etc. - Because they're hot. I remember reading Roe v Wade and being like "Shit nigga this is a damn good opinion". I generally love their stuff, and for me to disagree with their decision is very rare, as I normally think that even if it doesn't reach my preference (IE: Anime is the new national anthem), their decisions are made in a horribly reasonable way that reaches a beyond preferable solution that doesn't necessarily cater to my desires. And I'm okay with that. If the goal was to maintain the application of the Founders despite the whims and tides of the population, I don't think we'd be very different today than originally - and that includes a lacking number of rights for a large mass of people, which I do think would be inappropriate. As it is, their argument for the equal protection act is entirely absent. They say it, but they
don't elaborate at all how marriage is a privilege to be extended (and again, as I said to Java, it's not about extending all privileges to everyone - not everyone gets the same privileges: voting, taxation, money, what court you get, what lawyer you get, which hospital to go to, how much spare spending money you have, etc as not all laws are equal, not all people are equal - egalitarianism over equality),
how there is any discrimination occuring (and I genuinely don't see there as being - if some people get a tax break for charity and others don't, that's not discriminatory - you chose not to take part in the 'privilege', again the difference between equality in opportunity, better called egalitarianism, and actual equality), etc. Does that mean the court's conclusion is wrong? No. But their reasoning to get there is absolutely miserable. And so, regardless of how okay I am with gays being married, I'm going to argue against it. It was bad reasoning, a bad court decision, and I don't think you can overstep the states without a very good reason (which IS what the court normally does. They just don't do it here, hence my issue with the case).
In terms of the pedophilia argument, I'm not so much just focusing on fucking kids (BOY I CAN'T HELP IT, IT'S HOW I WAS BORN but not really), I'm focused on an argument from age. Sadly, people always pick up the pedo thing and focus on THE TOPIC IS TOO HARSH/PATHETIC/DISGUSTING TO EVEN LOOK AT, which makes talking hard. Age itself, as an example, is a very much non-protected class. You yourself are saying they can't even be able to consent. Why? If the constitution has in it the equal protections clause, which focuses on the fact that
everybody gets equal privileges, then we have a problem. We can't erase the problem by saying "Oh, they can't even be able to consent", as that makes the problem WORSE. We're now saying not only do they not get privileges, they aren't even able to use the privileges period. Now, if you want to change the 14th, and use the view as I was suggesting which is NOT the textualist/traditionalist writing one and instead use the protected class argument, then it's not a problem. The issue then switches to gays not being a protected class. But let's get back to age, since I do think it's important to focus on the fact that it's not just about putting your diddly in a spring of youth.
Voting. That seems to be a privilege. Gotta be able to vote! There's even a string of election law cases involving the 14th, since many people have been restricted from that 'right to vote' in many forms (flat out restrictions, literacy tests, horribly unfair redistricting, etc). Can kids vote? No. Why? This has nothing to do with their consent for a full bodily act. This has nothing to do with protecting them from predatory abuse. What is it that allows us to restrict an age group on the basis of just that, their age, with no repercussions from the 14th amendment?
Restricting privileges to groups, even if it is done to protect them, in no way falls in line with the 14th amendment from a straight textual approach. So, if you want to be able to protect children, you have to surrender that aspect of it and switch to having a method to distinguish between certain types of groups. Were I to craft it similarly: Transgender folks (or gays, I don't care) aren't able to consent, because they aren't mentally competent enough to or they wouldn't have their lifestyles. Dangerous argument, right? I'm not a fan of it either. Doing things to 'protect people from themselves' is never a very appealing argument to me, too scary. Which is why I tend to always go for more liberty, hence me being more than perfectly fine with gay marriage.
I hope that clarifies my view of the 14th amendment and why I think it is doublethink, or at minimum not logically sound, to hold those values simultaneously.
In my perfect world, marriage would be whatever any given state wants it to be: from polygamy to only being able to marry sharks (fish are friends, not food). The benefits to a marriage being allowed to encourage whatever it is the states have a "compelling interest" in (another common basis for bypassing the 14th, IE: to subsidize stable families, or to increase the number of sharks). The church question...I'm undecided on. I've read very convincing arguments both ways, but I can't seem to find one that resonates with me, so as it is I'd just do the "leave it to the states", which would allow states to encourage churches to come there in the same way some states encourage business or corporation making (Delaware).
Someday they'll find it, the rainbow connection, the Javas, the Faithful and meeeeeeee allll of usss unnnnder it's speelllll we knooow that we should have called speeeeelllllbaaaaaaannnnne.
PS: if brevity is my friend, I have no friends ;__;