. . . I was going to say more about the Presidential election here, but on second thought I think I'll hold off for a while.
I will, though, note that I'm distressed about the 11 states that passed anti-same-sex-marriage constitutional amendments. But I continue to be mildly heartened that (last I heard) the citizenry at large is opposed to making such a change to the US constitution. San Francisco and Massachusetts probably raised unreasonable hopes of swift change; change at the national level is usually slow. According to Wikipedia's article on miscegenation:
Interracial marriage was prohibited by state laws, the constitutonality of which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Pace v. Alabama" (1883). That decision was not overturned until the United States Supreme Court ruled in "Loving v. Virginia" (1967). At that time, 16 states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
. . .
While miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional in the United States by the Supreme Court in 1967, those laws were not completely repealed in individual states until November 2000 when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law. According to Salon.com: "In November 2000, after a statewide vote in a special election, Alabama became the last state to overturn a law that was an ugly reminder of America's past, a ban on interracial marriage. The one-time home of George Wallace and Martin Luther King Jr. had held onto the provision for 33 years after the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Yet as the election revealed—40 percent of Alabamans voted to keep the ban—many people still see the necessity for a law that prohibits blacks and whites from mixing blood."
Steps forward, steps back. Change is, generally, slow. But it does happen over time.