The crux of my decision in Smith v. Alaska

Last spring, I took a class on constitutional law, the curriculum of which included a moot court. The case, Smith v. Alaska involved the arrest and conviction of Smith, a teenage male, who was older than the age of consent, for statutory rape due to a sexual relationship he had with a teenage male, who was younger than the age of consent. The complicating issue here is that under a hypothetical Alaskan statute, there is a "Romeo and Juliet" exception to the statutory rape law which legalizes relationships if the individuals are within a certain difference in age. Smith and his partner were within this age difference, however, the wording of the statute implies that the exception only applies to heterosexual relations. So, what does the constitution have to say about it? Well, here is the third (and best) section of my decision along with the conclusion.