One observation:

Yeah, and black people had the same right to marry a member of their own race as white people did???

As perverse as it may sound, whites were unduly burdened by anti-miscegenation laws relative to blacks.

As noted in the California decision, the law struck down in Loving v. Virginia (and most laws like it) did NOT say, “blacks can only marry other blacks.” Blacks were perfectly free to marry, e.g., Asians or American Indians. Only whites were forbidden from marrying outside their race (and blacks were therefore forbidden from marrying whites only indirectly, or only consequently, as a result of that ban).

The purpose of the law was to preserve the purity of the white race; any marriage that did not implicate that policy goal was perfectly legal. Once the illegitimacy of that policy goal was finally accepted, then the law was struck down — first by states, and then finally by Loving.

So too with gay marriage bans — once it becomes clear that no legitimate policy basis underlies such a ban, the ban must — and eventually will — fail.

Cheers!

[dolphin says: The worst victims of anti-miscegenation laws were mixed race individuals (Marie Antoinette Monks in the Estate of Monks case), who were effectively barred from marrying anyone as their status as being "a descendant of a Caucasian" left them unable to marry non-whites and their status as a non-white left them unable to marry whites!]