Indeed and it went on to the SCOTUS as Loving V. Virginia. Despite the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Loving and thereby outlawing laws banning miscegenation, Alabama actually left theirs on the books until 2000 at which point the voters got rid of it. At the time of the election in 2000, only 31% of Alabama residents thought blacks and whites should be able to marry.
It was earlier this year that a judge in Louisiana refused to marry a white woman and a Hispanic! The judge was concerned about the off-spring of such a coupling and how they would be accepted. Where have we heard that argument before?
Ironically though, it's not Loving V. Virginia that is being cited as judges across America knock down anti-marriage equality laws aimed at gays and lesbians - it's Brown V. Board of Education. It really comes down to an equal protection issue and that will continue to stand regardless of what voters decide to do. I mean, look at who is challenging the passing of Prop 8 in California: Ted Olson of all people. If you don't know who he is, I suggest you Google him. To get you started, he represented George W. in 2000 vs. Gore in front of the Supreme Court. Pretty much every challenge to laws banning marriage equality has won in the courts. So for all the bitching and moaning about letting the people decide these things like they did in Maine- the courts are still in charge when it comes to human rights and you will lose and you lose on Brown Vs. Board of Education. Maine will eventually have marriage equality despite the vote there last November.
What many people fail to realize is that many gays and lesbians have children and they do it just like heterosexual couples with fertility issues do - they use IVF, they adopt, and sometimes one of the partners already has kids with a previous partner. They are a family just like any other family and by denying the adults of that family marriage equality, it's the kids who get denied the rights their peers have - insuranc rights, inheritance rights among just many of these things that other kids and their families take for granted. It's you, the taxpayer, that ends up paying for those failures because if one of those kids gets sick and the wage-earning parent can't cover the kids via their insurance, it becomes charity care if the "legal parent" is a stay at home. Wouldn't you rather not pay for this failure in law?
The only other possible outcome is for the government to eventually stop recognizing all relationships when it comes down to inheritance rights and tax law. Is that an alternative those of you against marriage equality are willing to risk?