with a case in the argument is going to be made that this is an unenumerated fundamental right, and the voters, whatever they've sighed is irrelevant. because we, five members of the supreme court, are going to decide what the law of the land should be. anybody who disagrees with us will be labeled a bigot. or be accused of discrimination. even if their beliefs happen to flow from sincerely held religious conviction, like the definition of a marriage between a man and a woman. but you've already told me that you see what this is a concern. >> i see why it's a concern and i would just say that although the supreme court is not bound in the sense of having to apply prior precedent, there is star a decisive's in our system. there are now standards in the star a decisive's world, when