The other fasicnating thing about reading Loving v. Virginia (see this earlier post) is how similar the argument for the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws is to the argument for the constitutionality of heterosexual marriage only laws. I didn't think the anology between these two things held when I was reading articles making the connection, but when you look at the actual arguments presented in Loving v. Virginia the connection becomes much more clear.

In Loving v. Viriginia there's an argument that, basically, there's no equal protection violation because the law treats both blacks and whites equally in terms of punishments and because blacks can still marry, so long as they marry someone black.

Similarly in the recent gay marriage cases you see essentially the same argument that there's no equal protection violation because the law treats gays and straights the same way, gay people can still get married, so long as it is to someone of the opposite sex.

I thought this was a bad analogy, but now I think that's just because I didn't understand the anti-miscegenation debate well enough, and it looks to me now like they're really the same issue.