We, the people, do not have to be locked into what your side feels we the people have, for all time, "decided".
Your side on this argument certainly didn't accept it, don't depend on my side accepting what they don't agree with, either. The idea that we "cannot take treat groups unfairly under the law without showing that this treatment furthers some legitimate state interest" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
First: Define "fair". Does "fair" mean equal? No, so "fair" is a basically unmeasurable concept generally; can be placed on a continuum wherever we so choose. Next, what is "the law"...? And we know that the law is always subject to change. A "legitimate state interest" ? So, who defines that? Again, the minority does not get to rule the majority... except by our consent.
We, the people, are the sovereigns here...not your rickety courts and corrupt statists... sorry to see so many that have been misled on that.