28 [65] It was for this reason that we invited both parties and the Minister to address us on the constitutional question and to indicate whether evidence may assist this court in arriving at a conclusion. So too, notice of the proceedings was given to Doctors for Life International, its legal representative in his personal capacity, the Marriage Alliance of South Africa and the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project. [66] None of the non-governmental organisations who were notified of this appeal applied to intervene as amicus curiae. Moreover, counsel for the appellant, for the respondent and for the Minister all agreed that this distinction does constitute discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and/or age in terms of s 9(3) of the Constitution, which discrimination is in terms of s 9(5) deemed to be unfair unless the contrary is established. Counsel for the respondent expressed one qualification, to the effect that any unconstitutionality flowing from the distinction between same-sex and heterosexual acts in s 14 of the Act should be ‘cured’ by raising the age of consent to heterosexual acts from 16 years to 19 years and thus eliminating the distinction, or by setting the legal age of consent for both same-sex and heterosexual acts at the age of 18 years (the new age of majority as from 1 July 2007 in terms of s 7 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005). This would, however, create a criminal offence which did not hitherto exist, in a situation where a Parliamentary choice of a uniform age of 16 years has already been made in the 2007 Act. In the alternative, counsel contended that s 14(1)(b) of the 1957 Act should remain unchanged so as not to diminish the protection of children in respect of the period prior to the promulgation of the 2007 Act. [67] It is clear that the broader governmental purpose underlying s 14 of the 1957 Act was the legitimate one of protecting children against potentially exploitative sexual conduct, a purpose in line with s 28 of the Constitution. However, in the 14 years since the advent of a constitutional democracy in this country in 1994, South African courts, including the Constitutional Court, have repeatedly recognised that gays and lesbians are in ‘certain respects in a uniquely vulnerable position as far as legal protection and the exercise of political power are concerned’ (see Edwin Cameron ‘Sexual Orientation and the Constitution: A Test Case for Human Rights’ (1993) 110 SALJ 450 at 456). To be faithful to the guarantees contained in the Bill of rights, however ‘[s]exual orientation is – or should be – a matter of indifference