In terms of the 14th amendment, case law suggest that yes...race is LIKE gender. Specifically, that Gender is a recognized classification under the Equal Protection Clause. One that is of slightly lower importance than race, but more importance than many other classifications. Perhaps instead of bitching that peoples words are unreadable you should instead do some research to understand what those "big words" are talking about since it's integral to the conversatoin. Case Law has established precedence that Gender is viewed under medium teir scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. This means that the government must show that the discrimination against gender serves an important state interest and that said discrimination is at least substantially related to serving that interest.
It's funny that you wish to talk about "legal precedent" while completely and utterly ignoring actual legal precedent. You say words have meaning. Thanks for that wonderful insight. Here's some insight for you. YOUR OPINION of what the law should be and how it should be applied means jack ****. Case law has established that the courts can, and have, used Gender as a class under the EPC despite your claims that those amendments prove legal precedent says it does'nt. See Ramos v. Town of Vernon, US v. Virginia (The VMI case), or even more recently and branching it out even further Glenn v. Brumby. From Ramos's decision you can even see the court specifically laying out that gender can fall under Intermediate Scrutiny under the EPC:
You keep going back to the military to attempt to prove that gender doesn't fit. Again, that fails. It's not that the EPC doesn't apply to Gender, it's that the courts had found that denying women the ability to enter into combat roles has thus far been found to adhere to the intermediate scrutiny needed to discriminate against them. You can refer back to a 1981 court case where the SCOTUS upheld a national draft law that excluded women. In terms of the various phsyical requirements, I'm not aware off the top of my head of any cases that challenged those standards and one must remember that the Supreme Court can not simply deem things unconstitutional...they must have a case brought before them to be able to take any action.“Intermediate scrutiny typically is used to review laws that employ quasi-suspect classifications…such as gender…or legitimacy…. On occasion intermediate scrutiny has been applied to review a law that affects ‘an important though not constitutional right.’” Soure
You're correct in your assumption that Race is not EQUAL to Gender. It's not. Race is a viewed under strict scrutiny while gender is done under intermediate scrutiny. However, they are "Like" each other in that they both can and have been used as classifications under the Equal Protectoin Clause. Additionally, as was my point from the very beginning, Gender being an intermediate scrutiny classification places it at a higher constitutional burden at this point via case law then sexual orientation.
As a note, Sexual Orientation does have case law regarding it's place in the courts in terms of the Equal Protectoin Clause. It is a lowest teir, or "Rational Scrutiny", level classification at this point but is essentially the "top" end of that bottom teir having something called a "second order rational basis test" to determine the constitutionality of discrimination against such classification.
Things can "To you" appear to be whatever you wish it to be. But the reality of the situation is that when it comes to constitutional law, precedence in terms of previous rulings by the court is far more important than what random opinion ANY of us...me and you included..have that run counter to what that legal precedence demonstrates.
Race is not "like" gender (nor is GLBT orientation "like" race or gender) thus they were explictly and separately addressed, via constitutional amendment. To me that establishes a "legal precedent", that we DO amend the constitution for "conceptually different" things, not simply accept that all things "like" or "sort of similar to" are the SAME or EQUAL concept.
Treating a black man not like a white man is unconstitutional, but treating a black man not like a white woman is NOT unconstitutional IFF treating a black man not like black woman is also done (e.g. military physical fitness standards) thus marriage defined as one man/one woman is perfectly legal. Just as race and gender are NOT mutually exclusive, neither is GLBT status a substitue for either gender or race, it is in its "own class" of concepts. You can be a gay black man, or a white bisexual woman, or... (you get my drift here).[/QUOTE]