Is it possible that the Supreme Court could rule the California law unconstitutional for procedural reasons, but yet not necessarily declare gay marriage laws from all states to be null and void? I know you say that that’s the not argument they’re making, but I’m wondering there’s a “third way” for the court to be more incremental in their ruling. I highly doubt there are 5 justices on the court now that will vote to overturn all state laws in this matter. Three of these guys thinking sodomy should still be illegal. I know Kennedy can be unpredictable on social issues, but I don’t know.