Equality before the law is, or equality in right absent a fairly high hill to climb.
Sure. Capacity has a great deal to do with the reasoned discrimination and limitation of right. But we don't disallow contract rights for only the tall or short, or Jewish, or black. It's a recognition of an objective, empirical fact, along with an experiential one.
Right is the province of people. We protect people and the rights we hold they are born with absent extraordinary conditions that necessitate abrogation or infringement. When you speak to children you're speaking to capacity really. We're protecting them from being exploited.
I disagree with your foundation, supra. Marriage isn't protected by law, it's defined. And if the definition abrogates the rights of others then the justification for it should meet exacting standard.
So do I. And I think it would be a violation of law in most or any jurisdiction that I can think of.
Which is exactly what discriminatory law often aims to do, or at least the sort that won't find justification on review.
The interference with freedom and its justification or lack thereof is precisely the point the Court is being asked to address.
