You are master of the simpleton's legal argument.<quoted text>
It's designed to maintain heterosexual supremacy.
And to deny equal rights to homosexuals.
But have it your way if you must.
There's even a Flat Earth Society for the likes of you, who refuse to learn and grow.
No offense--we can still be friends.
It is rational and legitimate to base policy on gender differences, but not racial differences. It is rational to have separate public bathrooms for different genders, but not separate for blacks and whites of the same gender. Your health policy is legitimate if it covers prostate treatment for one gender, but not if it covers it for one race.
Gender difference is a fundamental principle of marriage. Race is not. Racial classification for marriage was a moral aberration. Gender classification for marriage is a moral norm. Anti-miscegenation was about keeping two groups apart, whereas marriage is fundamentally based on the principle of bringing two differing groups together. The unification of the two groups is based on gender difference, by definition, whereas anti-miscegeneation was non-definitional, but based on bigotry against a factor, race, which was peripheral.
Furthermore, the impetus behind anti-miscegenation was a bigoted principle of avoiding the mixing of white and black blood in the offspring, which was believed to contaminate the white blood. No such principle applies in same-sex oppostiion.
It's a bogus analogy.