I will easily agree current law will change over time, as it always does. I will also point out however, that dramatic cultural change is an entirely different animal in both timeframe and scope. The only correlation I can see here would be the shift in our culture to increased personal freedom, which points also to my point being correct.
And for the 900th time, no, equal protection is not universal. Your gym example is wrong. Protecting the privacy of an individual is a state interest and separate wash facilities further that interest.
Your dog/cat analogy is erroneous, clearly, because dogs aren't humans.That you lament my accurate dog/cat analogy is because again, it is an accurate commonly understood presentation that illustrates the oxymoronic "gay-marriage" violation of both definitive and social propriety, which, of course, flies in the face of your erroneous take on the matter.
It is appropriate. Your attempt to dismiss it is clearly erroneous. A gender-based distinction is being made that furthers no state interest whatsoever.Your concern of understanding "equal protection" is not at issue here.
What's at issue here is grasping when application of "equal protection" is not appropriate .. or, in your case, contrived for the sake of ideological gain at the expense of both definitive and social propriety.
Your attempt to apply the equal protection clause via appeal to "gender based" is rightly rejected.
One of you will end up here next!