Mem and women are prohibited from committing acts of sodomy...
Stop right there for a second. The act prohibited is "sodomy." You guys keep wanting to tack on "with members of the same sex" as if this makes the act of "sodomy" different. It's doesn't. It's still a mouth on genitals or however the act is defined. "Sodomy" is the same act: whether its for people of the opposite sex or people of the same sex. The act of "sodomy" is allowed for certain members of society but not for others. That's where the "equal protection" comes in.
See if you can wrap your head around this hypothetical: "Baptisms are allowed but they are only allowed for people of the Mormon faith." So all other people in other religions are not allowed to baptize. Clearly, not "equal protection."
Same thing here. The action (baptism/sodomy) is identical to both groups (Mormons vs Baptists/opposite sex participants vs. same sex participants). The only restriction on the law is the identity of the acting parties (Baptists/homosexuals).
If you don't get it by now, you never will.
And as it is discussed on this and other threads, some states which permit homosexual sodomy still make a distinction over the the age of consent for adults and minors to have sex.
Right and that's not "equal protection" either.
Some states permit heterosexuals to engage in intercourse, sodomy, what have you at say age 16 (and that includes a partner of age 18+) while holding homosexuals in violation of statutory rape laws for engaging in homosexual sodomy below the age of 18.
Again, not "equal protection", clear, obvious, irrefutible.
The prohibited acts are listed under "homosexual conduct" in Texas law. Homosexuals do not have complimentary genitalia so the only way that they may copulate with a member of the same sex is to engage in homosexual sodomy.
Men who feel that they are homosexual are still permitted under the law to have heterosexual sodomy. That they are prohibited from engaging in homosexual sodomy is the law. Heterosexual men are also prohibited in engaging in homosexual sodomy (should they care to do so).
Male and female are genders and protected under equal protection. Homosexuals try to define their "gender" on a sex act and that holds no weight. There is no gender of homosexual male or homosexual female.
But rather than challenge the "unequal protection" (in your mind) of the age of consent laws in a state that already permits homosexual sodomy, they chose to challenge the notion of "equal protection" as it applied to persons who engage in homsexual acts in a state that does not permit acts of homosexual sodomy. And yes I still alledge that these men fabricated the situation under which they were "caught".
I guess that they got better PR pursuing this case in a "bigoted" state that prohibits homosexual sodomy than to pursue overturning cases of statutory rape against adults males who had sex with 16 year old teenaged males.
Each case could be pursued under the "equal protection" c;ause and be just as suitable to overturn the laws (if it is determined that homosexual sex acts are protected constitutionally).
And those who feel that Big Brother has no place in the bedroom would still have a case to embrace (although they might find it distasteful to support lowering the age of consent for adults and minors to engage in sex together).
This is ass backwards. Who are you saying would prohibit baptisms? Mormons claiming exclusive ownership to the concept of a baptism? (Don't laugh, the Scientologists do this with their "trade secrets").
Would the government in your farcical example permit Mormon baptisms but prohibit all others?
What about priesthood? A church that prohibits female ministers might be more fitting of the "equal protection" clause but because the state is not forcing this prohibition on female ministers it really doesn't strike as a parallel either; that would be more akin to the case where a golf club does not permit female golfers to join. Of course, there are health clubs that do not permit men to join and the NOW gang doesn't get upset about that.
The human consumption of horsemeat IS illegal in Texas. If a group of people identified themselves as "horse eating carnivores" or "horse eating ominvores", would they be protected constitutionally in their desire to eat horse meat? (And yes horses are currently slaughtered in Texas for consumption in Europe so they would be able to procure their desire without violating any animal rights that aren't already being violated).
Can someone define their persona as a horse eater? Sure they can eat cow, chicken, fish, or carrots just like all other Texans but they choose not to.