Obviously I would differ with that opinion (of the courts), but that's why we are where we are. Interesting use of that phrase 'otherwise qualified', though. Clearly, they aren't qualified, so other than "breathing" and "of age", I would certainly take issue with any representation of a same-sex pair as 'qualified'. But there we go again.
Why should age be any limitation?
From Obergefell:
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
Have you ever heard such mush?
By the way, the Constitution does not grant rights.