But -- Equal Protection jusrisprudence is intended to protect groups that are "minorities" from being continuously oppressed through the democratic majoritarian process.
The logic of that jurisprudence is, admittedly, internally inconsistent as it is applied to help women, since women are NOT a minority in the population, but the logic applied in that case by the Court is that they were historically 'oppressed' by the male majority in setting up legal institutions. So women get an intermediate level of protection.
But the bottom line is -- men as a group are NEVER viewed as oppressed and thus protectable by Constitutional fiat, because, as the logic goes, they are not intrinsically or historically disadvantaged in the democratic process, and can 'right' any 'wrong' adequately by the electoral process.
And gays aren't viewed as a "sex" or a sexual minority, since gayness is not an intrinsiic and immutable trait, it is a lifestyle BEHAVIOR.