I think the question is: did the state legislature violate Constitutional protections. In Loving v. Virginia, it seems clear that the answer is an overwhelming YES. (I.e., it was not only the moral decision, it was also the legally correct decision.) Anti-miscegenation laws violated the 14th amendment to the constitution.

I believe the unspoken question is: does the same apply to anti-homosexual laws? Again, I think it doesn't take a very careful reading of the 14th amendment to come to the conclusion that it applies here as well. Specifically section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I believe that the post was made tongue-in-cheek. I think the point is this:

Interracial marriage was illegal.
Judges overruled the law.
Now interracial marriage is legal, and is a basic right

Gay marriage was illegal.
Judges overruled the law.
Now gay marriage is an example of "judicial activism."

The original poster was equating racial intolerance with homosexual intolerance, and making the point that today's "activism" is tomorrows "basic civil right."

Heh.

I like judicial activism because it keeps the majority from trampling all over the rights of the minority. ;-)

I'd really like a GOPer or FREEPer or Con to explain why

A) Loving was wrong

or

B) Why Loving isn't a precedent