Same-Sex Marriage: Divorcing personal beliefs from the law?

Let's say, as a hypothetical, that it's the mid-1960s, and that I'm a white supremacist, a particularly nasty one at that. Not only do I encourage de facto segregation, but I flat-out hate blacks, Hispanics, and Asians as well for that matter. And, more than that, I think that the idea of interracial marriage is one of the most vile possible abominations in the eyes of both nature and God. The notion of a white person marrying a black person turns my stomach, and if a child of mine had so much as a black *friend*, I'd disown them.

Now, I've established myself as the most reprehensible of bigots, and a horrific, contemptible human being. Okay, so far, so good. Here's the question:

*Is* is absolutely *inconceivable* that, despite my incredibly passionate (albeit incredibly warped) perceptions and opinions on race, I, as someone who understands and respects the law, do *not* support legislation that makes interracial marriage illegal? Is it possible that, as distasteful as I may personally find the notion of interracial marriage, and as staunchly as I may oppose the marriages themselves, I *must* from an intellectually honest position acknowledge that other American citizens are entitled to the same protections under the law that protect *me*, and that my individual views are not a valid legal justification for denying other people the rights that the Constitution affords them?

*Or*, do you contend that, because of my personal beliefs, I literally have no choice but to *legally* oppose interracial marriage by resorting to ineffectual tripe, such as meaningless semantic nonarguments ("I don't oppose 'interracial marriage', because there's no such thing; the definition of 'marriage' is a union between a man and a woman of the same race"), pithless witlessisms ("God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Shaniqua"), personal religious views with no legal weight whatsoever ("interracial marriage is against God's will"; "allowing interracial couples to marry is another giant step in the moral decline of society and the decay of our nation's Christian values"), patently false scare-mongering tactics ("If interracial marriage becomes legal, the government will force churches to perform them against their will"), biological ignorance ("the purpose of marriage is to produce racially-pure babies, and interracial couples are incapable doing this"), appeals to tradition ("society has never accepted marriage between interracial couples before, so we don't have to do so now"), idiotic non sequiturs based on a lack of understanding of the law and other topics ("if you allow a black person to marry a white person, what's to stop someone from marrying their dog next?"), or any other so-called "arguments" that have absolutely no legal or, in most cases, even logical validity?

If you believe the former, that I *can* divorce my personal opinion from my understanding of the workings of the law, then why can't people who oppose same-sex marriage do the same today?

And if you believe the latter, then what makes opponents of same-sex marriage any different than those who opposed interracial marriage in the '60s? They may not display, or even possess, quite the same levels of hatred and vitriol as my hypothetical white supremacist, and in fact I intentionally used the most extreme, hateful personality in order to drive the point, but their fundamental rejection of the principles of equal rights is no better, and their arguments against same-sex marriage are no more legally valid, nor will they be looked upon any more favourably by the next generations than we today look upon the arguments made by the racists in the '50s and '60s, namely because they're the exact same arguments.