aaron linstrom: as a friend of davis, yes, your honor. judge daughtrey: you know the problem with the quality foundation as i read it, it depended on, it relied upon the supreme court's decision which was reversed in lawrence. so i wonder -- aaron linstrom: your honor, the equality foundation opinion mentions bowers only when talking about prior history and it's based on roemer. it was remanded in light of roemer and now it's under roemer. so it doesn't rely on bours. it doesn't talk about bours and again, this court, even after lawrence has continued to apply the same -- judge daughtrey: i have to tell you, we are sometimes perfectly capable of blindly applying cases. i'm not sure i would be willing to say that we did in davis, but that has happened. judge sutton: if you were to lose under either one possibility, a possibility of same-sex marriage and the other possibility is the review which makes life difficult for justifying the law, would a practical implementation problems, you know, with brown you could say the only implementation

aaron linstrom: i agree, when you focus on fundamental rights, history is the focus.nd i guess the preliminary question, is why is the state interested in marriage in the first place? why is the state interested in emotional connections between people? we discussed this in our brief. state doesn't have interest in regulating friendships, it doesn't regulate how many people can be in a friendship or how long a friendship has to exist. the thing that changes and the reason state has interest in marriage is because marriage leads to children, hence bringing new children into society in houses ideas going to make sure they are cared war. so it is rational for the state to have an interest in promoting marriage so that it is more likely a child will have both a mother and a father and will have the b