and then justice william rehnquist, in 1974, although the state court would not be compelled to followederal court holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as a highly persuasive. this is the opinion of the united states supreme court in a california case in 2013. the federal courts do not bind the california supreme court when it decides a federal constitutional question. >> following up on that if the supreme court, as you know is hearing a gay marriage case this spring, if the u.s. supreme court rules that gay marriage is constitutional and therefore the law of the land, sometime this spring or summer, what would that do to your posture with respect to the supremacy clause, and what will you do in alabama if that is the case? >> the supreme court authority is the only authority arbiter of a difference of opinion between federal and state courts. it would live state courts, but i would submit to you that nothing in the constitution of the united states gives the power or authority of the supreme court or any federal court to reinvent the definition of marriage. that definitio