29 morally and constitutionally. There is thus no basis which can be countenanced before the law for treating homosexual men and woman differently’ (per Ackermann J in National Coalition for Gay & Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice 1999 (1) SA 6 (CC) para 25). [68] As pointed out above, no justification in terms of s 36(1) of the Constitution was proffered by any of the parties or relevant non-governmental organisations for maintaining the age differential in s 14 of the Act, which age differential on the face of it discriminates unfairly on the grounds of sexual orientation. On the contrary, as already pointed out, the representative of the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act effectively conceded that there is no such justification. On what we have before us, this concession appears to be correct. [69] Here at home, the legislature would similarly appear to have come to the same conclusion that there is no justification for the age differentiation in s 14 of the Sexual Offences Act of 1957. This section has been repealed with effect from 16 December 2007 and replaced by ss 15 and 16 of the 2007 Act, which sections set a uniform age of consent of 16 years for both same-sex and heterosexual sexual acts (see para 8 above). The promulgation of the 2007 Act was the culmination of a lengthy process of research and consultation by the South African Law Reform Commission, which process commenced in 1996. The initial investigation concerned only sexual offences by and against children and, in May 1997, an Issue Paper on Sexual Offences against Children was published for general information and comment. Hereafter, the scope of the investigation was expanded to include sexual offences against adults and a general overhaul of the criminal justice system in relation to sexual offences. Parliament has thus already spoken by making an unequivocal choice of a uniform age of consent – a choice made after years of research, consultation and public debate. Parliament opted to achieve the legitimate governmental purpose of protecting children in a manner that did not at the same time discriminate against homosexual and gay persons. In my view, it would take a great deal to convince any court that this choice is constitutionally invalid. This, in turn, lends much weight to my conclusion that ss 14(1) and 14(3) of the 1957 Act are indeed constitutionally invalid to the extent that these sections distinguish between same-sex and heterosexual sexual acts by setting different legal ages of consent to such acts. It follows that, in terms of s 172(1)(a) of