4. Race and behaviors are totally different.
Under your premise the SCOTUS would have ruled in favor or Texas in the Lawrence v. Texas case because you call homosexual acts a "behavior".
Yet they didn't, they ruled - using your term - that such restrictions were unconstitutional.
>>>>
What one does in one's bedroom, legal or not, does not automatically qualify one to rewrite society's terms of marriage.
Now you are moving the goalposts. Your claim has been that behaviors don't qualify for protections under the 14th Amendment.
Yet in Lawrence v. Texas the court held that it violated the 14th Amendment to target those behaviors.
Your claim is proven false.
(Whether the 14th Amendment extends to Civil Marriage, is unknown as the SCOTUS has not addressed any case dealing with the question. The Windsor case ONLY dealt with (Per the decision and the Chief Justices own remarks in the writings of the case) Federal law and didn't address State law at all.)
>>>>