Does anybody realize that ...?

... If gay marriage is ruled to be a constitutional right by the US Supreme Court, it does not prove that sexual orientation is not a choice? It does not prove that heterosexuality and homosexuality are not "the same"?

I've studied a whole lot of case law on the subject of "the equal protection of the laws," and there is not and never has been a pattern or statement that "the equal protection of the laws" is a principle that is limited to ONLY human characteristics that people are born with and can never change.

I've seen the Court uphold laws that "discriminate" on the basis of age, ...

I've seen the Court uphold laws that "discriminate" against people with a mental handicap, ...

I've seen the Court uphold laws that "discriminate" on the basis of gender, like the draft, ...

I've seen the Court uphold laws that "disciminate" on the basis that you were born out of wedlock, ...

And I've see the Court strike down laws that "discriminate" on the basis of a characteristic that obviously IS the choice of the person who wasn't treated equally! Please Yahoo or Google search for:

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, ...

Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elec., 1966, ...

Glona v. American Guaranty, 1968, ...

Plyler v. Doe, 1982, in which the Court explicitly acknowledges that someone's behavior is the basis of the discrimination, ...

And most pertinent to the marriage debate, look up Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978, ...

So, if the Court legalizes gay marriage in the name of the Equal Protection Clause, what does it prove? How about nothing more than the fact that our Justices are substituting their value judgments for that of the majority?