Since teens do not have the same rights as adults, it is a closer call when there constitutional rights are at stake. All the same, I generally think they deserve more rights than they are currently given. For instance, though the material is usually targeted on overbreadth grounds (protecting adults), I think teens also have a very important interest in viewing sexually themed material that so-called "anti-pornography" measures target. And, not just teens over sixteen. Thus, I find national attempts to target the material online dubious at best. The most dangerous things are child porn (child harm) and things like stalking. Such things are already illegal, aren't they?
The same theme pops up respecting regulation of teens who have abortions. Most states at least require one parent notification, which generally clearly has a judicial bypass measure (recently, the Supremes said one was required when health is involved), though the SC has never decided the matter (two parent notification, yes; consent, yes; not one parent notification). It is somewhat hard to insist that such laws be struck down by the federal courts -- one comes off as an extremist. But, even if not constitutionally dubious (I think they are), they are simply bad policy. The subset truly affected in forced notification cases are problem cases.
Sometimes, it is a good thing for children to notify at least one parent, even if they rather not. Forcing them to do so, especially if they can go to some other family member or perhaps other authority figure (like a priest/minister), leads to serious problems. If nothing else, there is no one perfect answer here. So, of course, the Senate just passed a bill that would criminalize non-parents helping teens to get an abortion in another state (interstate, thus the federal hook). Others have explained various problems with such legislation. So, I bow to their legwork. The only consolation is that the interstate travel hook, which might in fact make it harder to uphold in the long run, is more sensical than nationalized regulation of one type of abortion procedure. Small favors.
Meanwhile, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the state's marital discrimination against homosexual couples policy by a 5-4 vote. As with NY, this was in opposition to a lower judge's ruling to the contrary. So, we are left to looking at the justification. Homosexuality is not an "immutable characteristic" like race or gender (so only "rational basis" is required), something that really is questionable by this point. For instance, I know -- summer wear surely underlines the point -- my sexuality seems pretty unchanging. Anyway, of course, sexual discrimination is involved here too. As to the quip that the legislature might change the policy, but not after being forced by five judges, I guess when that latter sort of discrimination is at issue, such judicial activism suddenly becomes benign.
The discriminatory policy also "furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents." It is lucky for women in particular that abortion rights still enjoy somewhat heightened review, so that bans cannot be justified as a means to further procreation. Are homosexuals threatening the survival of the human race? I reckon places like China, which have had so much of a population explosion problem that it pressures people to have less children, just need more gays and lesbians. Marriage also is not limited to "children's biological parents."
The only way to consider this "rational" is to ignore the harm to same sex couples and their families. Since this seems to be taken for granted to be acceptable, it might be useful to underline that intimate association and family matters have been protected as fundamental rights, and not just when heterosexuals in marriage relationships are involved. And, religiously based morality isn't enough to override them. But, perhaps, being forced to cite such canards will be useful at some point. Discrimination breeds when it is taken for granted, even without proper defense. The need to defend it by 5-4 rulings written by judges who need to do so in a halfway credible fashion is a bit tougher.
Homosexual rights groups will guard against using the state courts for the time being, one suspects, when fairly liberal areas like NY and Washington leads to such results. But, the effort is for the best anyway, and bit by bit, the road to equality will lead to more "rational" results.