The US Supreme Court misinterpreted the equality clause when he legalized gay marriage nationwide

Relationship between one man and one woman has been recognized by state for millennia in all societies, civilizations, and empires. But recently, in the US, the US Supreme Court has ruled that this recognition violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So, the equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among groups but only "equal application" of the laws, meaning that it's not a requirement that everybody be treated equally no matter what the circumstances. Otherwise, a violation would occur because a child does not have the same right to vote as an adult or because an non-eco-friendly business does not have the same right to subsidy as eco-friendly business. By saying that since heterosexual unions are legally recognized and benefited from taxpayer's money, if we don't recognize homosexual unions also, this violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, the Supreme Court implicitly negated precedent definitions, misinterpreted the Equal Protection Clause and arbitrarily, without objective justification, legalized gay marriage nationwide.In a human society there are many various types of romantic, economical, spiritual or sibling unions in which people live together, such as: heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, polyandrous, roommates, benedictine nuns, unmarried sisters. But they are not all recognizad by satate because it not for the state to confer a dignity to this adult unions but to recognize union that is of pubic importance. Why is it that every society in human history, across cultures and ages, have recognized union between one man and one woman as that of pubic importance. It's because this union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value. Without it, society would cease to exist after only a single generation. Since the existence of a society is publicaly important this type of union is legally recognized and individuals that have chosen to enter into it are entitled to publicly funded benefits.Since public recognition of this union equals - "marriage", people that decided to enter into different types of romantic, economical or spiritual unions, that are not entitled to public recognition, can't marry ipso facto and are not entitled to publicly funded benefits, as this benefits are intended for individuals that decided to enter into publicly important type of union. So, saying that since heterosexual unions are legally recognized and benefited from taxpayer's money, if we don't recognize the homosexual unions also, this violates the equal protection clause ... is as apsurd and nonsensical as saying that since eco-friendly business is recognized and benefited from taxpayer's money in the form subsidy, if we don't recognize a non-eco-friendly business and benefit it with subsidy also, this violates the equal protection clause. Legal recognition of eco-friendly business arises from the public importance of environmental protection. I the same way, legal recognition of heterosexual union arises from the public importance of reproduction of society and linking children to its true dual identity since every child has a built-in identity of one man and one woman.A violation of Equal Protection Clause would occur if a state prohibited an eco-friendly business from subsidy because individual who owns a business is homosexual. Also, a violation would occur if a state prohibited an individual from entering into a marriage because he or she was a member of a particular race. But, the law has every right to define marriage as between a man and a woman and this does not represent the violation of Equal Protection Clause.To conclude, the US. Supreme Court denied this easy understandable principle, misinterpreted the equal protection clause and arbitrarily legalized gay marriages.