Original sin.

The self-defined originalists on the SCOTUS are likely informed by their familiarity with original sin, the concept that give lief to some to control the behavior of others to enforce conformance with defined moral standards. (I should note that I perceive a significant difference between coercion and restraint). Who’s the boss? Is there a legitimate boss?

What is the original sin enshrined in the Constitution? That humans are property and properly owned by their progenitors until they are set free at a socially predetermined age.

What is the significance of child marriage in this context, if not a strategy to deprive females of freedom? What is the effect of entering into a legally sanctioned/recorded marriage? A voluntary subjugation to the authority of the state. Yes, there are associated, mostly financial, benefits. But, those are bribes to encourage surrender to the state’s authority.

What is the difference between a voluntary and coerced subordination? The latter identifies agency properly. Slavery is less deceptive. Funny that they call it “involuntary servitude,” as if voluntary servitude were the norm. Of course, it is only funny because none of framers engaged in servitude of any kind. They were a bunch of self-centered males who expected to be curried and cared for. Perhaps Benjamin Franklin was an exception.