[masteryxisman]

I think we're getting a bit wrapped around the axle about Constitutionally granted "rights" here, which kind of would lead a person to assume the Constitution actually grants rights to the people, which is actually false (which is why the ninth amendment to the Bill of Rights exists and partially why the fourteenth came about a little bit later). What really seems to be in question is whether service to our military is a right, a privilege, or something else entirely (I'm sure draft proponents would argue for the third). Bearing arms in defense of personal liberty is a right to all persons, which by our current definition includes women. Another right is to earn fair compensation for services rendered in terms of a social contract between employer and employee, which is not as specifically enumerated in the Constitution but moreso recognized by the law of the land. So simple arithmetic logic would tend to imply A + B = C, women have a right to fight for their country, and they have a right to be paid for it. Constitutionality is kind of an off-concern, as a Constitution only binds government, which is more serving the role as employer than Federal government in this instance, but nonetheless subjected to the terms of social contract. I think it would at least be fair to say that denial of women to exercise their right to bear arms in defense of liberty, and denial of a fair wage in terms of social contract, would be a violation of their rights.

What is not covered here, however, is whether we can derive this to mean the military must admit women specifically into the special forces. This falls more under the Equal Opportunity in Employment Act of 1964. That would imply there is a significant occupational hazard preventing women from serving under these roles, which I think is the key question.