[counterrevolutionary]

Why is it necessary to look at it that way? You can just as easily say, "If white men, but not black men, have the right to marry white women, then white men and black men are not being treated equally."

And if women can marry men, but men cannot marry men....

I presume that, even under your interpretation, a law that allows white men to marry interracially, but does not extend the same right to black men, would be unconstitutional.

Clearly, yes.

[BikerNYC]

And if women can marry men, but men cannot marry men....

You're changing the subject to avoid the hypothetical as given. You're interpretation is certainly one way to view the 14th Amendment, but I don't see it as the only interpretation or even a compelling one.

Moreover, why is "men" the defining class and not "white men," since, even a statute that allows only white men to interracially marry, is allowing all white men the same priviledge?