There are clearly other factors in the case of an underage partner that don't invalidate age-related discrimination laws. That's an absurd and simplistic view. US also has laws against age discrimination, but they don't apply until a child has reached the age of majority which is usually 18. There's no such restriction on discriminating by gender.
It should be clear that the comparison is very similar.both cases deal with intercoarse, both cases deal with constitutional rights. Both cases are using the persons partner as justification. Both cases deal with morality. There is not a closer comparison, if there is I would love to hear it.
There are clearly other factors in the case of an underage partner that don't invalidate age-related discrimination laws. That's an absurd and simplistic view. US also has laws against age discrimination, but they don't apply until a child has reached the age of majority which is usually 18. There's no such restriction on discriminating by gender.
It should be clear that the comparison is very similar.both cases deal with intercoarse, both cases deal with constitutional rights. Both cases are using the persons partner as justification. Both cases deal with morality. There is not a closer comparison, if there is I would love to hear it.
Except one case involves minors who are covered differently under the law. What about this is difficult for you to comprehend?
Now we are getting somewhere. So you mean to tell me, that the right is not absolute and that other laws can supercede that right?
No rights are absolute.