[Luis Gonzalez]

"...pedophiles and non-pedophiles are equally told not to molest children. Equal protection problem against pedophiles?"

No, protection of the rights of children who are not legally allowed to consent to sex, enter into contracts, or a myriad of other things.

As I said, your rights end where the rights of another start.

"...the analogy doesnt compute."

Then address it.

[WOSG]

Protecting traditional marriage is also "protection of the rights of children" of course.

I can cite you many statistics where children do best in 2 parent heterosexual married biological parents than any other 'family' configuration. No matter how the anti-traditionalists slice it, undermining family values causes child abuse, lower child performance at shool, juvenile delinquency, and deaths of children.

Protection of children is a very good reason to defend traditional marriage from being washed away in the effluent of cultural socialism.

[weegee]

But minors under the of "age of consent" DO consent to have sex and there is no prosecution for it.

You say that they cannot legally consent but the law in today's permissive society does permit a certain level of sexual activity (bounded only by the age of the partner although it is not set in stone). Adults (over 18) are permitted to have sex with "consenting" minors even below a legal "age of consent" of 16.

Either minors can have sex legally or they can't. Is sex with an 18 year old "better" for that 14 year old better for her/him than sex with a 21 year old?