Because, after all, Plessy v Ferguson was not such a bad idea

You'd have to wonder from what remote era of America's Plessy v Ferguson years this issued:

I don’t actually see why communities shouldn’t prohibit inter-racial marriage if they want to. I’d prefer not to live in such a community — given my domestic circumstances, in fact, I wouldn’t be able to! — but this doesn’t strike me as an unreasonable or immoral restriction for a state or country to impose on its citizens. But perhaps that’s just me. I simply don’t “get” the hysterical race panic that’s consumed so much rational thought in the modern West.

You'd have to wonder, except that it was published two days ago at Secular Right in support of what appears to be a new attempt to craft an argument against gay marriage [h/t Waldo for the link]. The author is John Derbyshire, frequent National Review contributor.

So now the best argument against gay marriage is not that it will destroy heterosexual marriage [opposite marriage for beauty pageant contestants], but that we never should have forced people to let white people marry negroes.

Here's the point for those that don't get it: Thomas Jefferson once, famously, wrote, The Earth belongs to the living.

Gay marriage is here, and here to stay, because the upcoming generation simply doesn't care about arguments to the contrary, and are not going to spend time or political capital on trying to keep Ellen Degeneres or George Takei from finding happiness--nor do they see that institution as the end of civilization as we know it.

So while Derbyshire's comparison to interracial marriage (which he makes the paragraph after saying there is no legitimate comparison between gay and interracial marriage) is revealing regarding the intellectual poverty of social conservative thought in the 21st Century, it is destined to become (at best) a footnote relic in the history of Statist racism.