Chemerinsky is another typical liberal lying "law professor" who doesn't care about the law, as long as scotus creates decision that the left likes, the actual meaning of the law be darmed. The const was never intended to change the definition of marriage from one man, one woman. The framers had no idea they were changing it, and their intent is what controls interpretation that is needed. Striking bans on gay marriage by use of the const is analogous to judges ignoring what the testator's intent was in drafting a will. We would never accept a judge said actions in the latter case, so we shouldn't in the former, either.