First and foremost, no, I do not think that there should be any laws disallowing any consenting adults to marry each other regardless of whatever.

However, I think we're borderline intentionally twisting the intent of this guy's point. No, I don't like him, nor would I vote for him. However, that doesn't mean I can't be honest about understanding what he meant. He was clearly talking about judges making rulings that aren't backed up by law (no, I'm not a lawyer and have no idea if the Loving v. Virginia had a legal backing or not). While I love it when judges make decisions that I personally agree with, we do start treading on thin ice if we don't require our judges to primarily rule based on laws, because it can go the other way. As a liberal, I don't want conservative judges in the highest courts in the land to start ruling based on their personal politics and not based on the laws of the land. I almost think this guy explicitly brought up Loving v. Virginia because it's (I hope) a decision most folks agree with from a human morality standpoint, but his point was that the ruling may not have had the backing of law. Which I honestly have no idea if that's true or not, but the point is that if we allow, socially accept, judges in the highest court in the land to make rulings, and set precedent, that isn't primarily founded in laws we have a problem.