it's true they didn't reach today's issue in hollingsworth. but what's a lower court to do with that beyond baker? >> setting aside baker, i think that those -- i think those roemer and windsor at least are just garden variety applications of the animus case and i think judges holmes' concurrence in the bishop case was a pretty good analysis as to why this type of animus doctrine can't apply here. and that's simply because in windsor it was unusual federal intrusion in to what had always been a state matter. and in roemer, it was an unusual, expansive elimination of one class of people's rights. and that just cannot -- that just cannot explain the traditional definition of marriage which has existed since the founding of the state and can't really explain either, i don't think, the 2004 amendments because i think the 2004 amendments were explained primarily by democracy. and the citizens and the general assembly worrying that this fundamental question of public policy would be taken by -- taken from them either by massachusetts court or by the