If so then I am wrong but I think of marriage on more of a metaphysical level that one of Rights or even under contract law.Literally the opposite of the truth. Loving v. Virginia literally declared marriage to be a fundamental right.
.Equal protection is not a universal magic bullet. The state can still uphold unequal protection when an important enough interest exists in doing so. With children, preventing them from entering permanent legal contracts is a pretty clear interest - children lack the emotional and intellectual capacity to make such decisions in their own best interests, or anyone else's for that matter
I do not think that that will happen either especially since most people recognize that children are not adults and can not be held to a standard of that of an adult. But I do worry about unforeseen issues if the case law is not set up properly. Multiple marriage is an example. We do not even have a means on making determinations of degree of responsibility if the case law forced that issue forward.
This is a good argument for its recognition. With respect to your comment on furniture I would point out in the not too distant future when we have sentient AI someone may want to marry a AI insted of another human and that issue would have to be addressed similarity at that time.Such an interest does not exist in banning same-sex marriage. There are certainly state interests in the existence of marriage, and the promotion of stable families, procreation, and all that jazz that goes with marriage. But the banning of same-sex marriages does not in any way further any of those interests, nor does same-sex marriage cause any sort of demonstrable harm. Therefore same-sex marriage bans do not pass the test of equal protection, but the age requirement does pass the test of equal protection. Marrying animals and furniture are just stupid, desperate diversions from real discuss. Animals and furniture aren't people, they don't have rights.