I think the judge is right about age of consent, but wrong about his right to veto laws based on subjective opinion. The legislature can act on its opinion whether it is substantiated by research or not. They are elected to represent the people. The judge's job is to make sure the law is enforced.
Modern age of consent laws came about when Christians were duped into going along with feminists who pushed for them (in the late eighteen hundreds). They claimed that there was an epidemic of young girls being taken advantage of by older men, and that the laws were necessary to stop this.
There is no age at which it is morally acceptable to consent to sex outside of marriage. And there is nothing morally wrong with someone under eighteen getting married with parental consent.
The judge's job is to make sure the law is enforced. No, enforcement is the job of the Law Enforcement Agencies within the state..
A judge's job is to interpret the law..
A judge determines if the law is "legal" in the first place, that is to say, whether it falls within established law and does not conflict with it..
Then a judge determines whether the law is being properly applied to the case at hand.
Seems to me that is what this judge was doing..
As to legislatures acting on it's opinion, well, that's why the judiciary is a seperate branch of the government..
It's a balance of power intended to constrain that very legislature from enacting all sort of laws without restraint...
Legislatures can enact laws, but they must be "lawful"..
They must be constitutional, first of all..