it was a sweeping, undifferentiating -- essentially rendered them an isolated class and strangers to the law altogether. the court stressed that it was an unprecedented in our jurisprudence kind of statute. the precedence of marriage is anything but unprecedented. it has existed throughout the history of this country. it has been the governing understanding and definition of marriage in this state since its founding, and basically throughout the country and throughout the world for all time. the definition of marriage is anything like -- is not anything like the kind of statute that the court was dealing with in romer. in fact, in this case, i would submit to you that the question is -- your question, your honor, is governed by the crawford case, where the court said that it would refuse to interpret the 14th amendment. and these are its words -- to require the people of a state to adhere to a judicial construction of their state constitution when that constitution itself vests final authority in the people. so -- >> but you've told us that the people of california could not reinstit

it was a weaponing, undifferentiating, essentially rendered them an isolated class and strangers to the law altogether. the the it was an unprecedented in our juris prudence statute. the traditional definition of marriage has existed throughout the history of this country, it has been the governing understanding and definition of marriage in this state since its founding, and basically throughout the country and throughout the world for all time. the definition of marriage is anything like -- is not anything like the kind of statute that the court was dealing with in roemer, and in fact in this case, i would submit to you that the question is -- your question, your honor, is governed by the crawford case, where the court said that it would refuse to interpret the 14th amendment to require that people of the state to adhere to a judicial construction of their state constitution when that constitution itself vets final authority in the people. and so what -- >> you told us that the people of california could not reinstitute racial segregation in public oeducation so we know there-some thi