Mark Levin says that the Supreme Court has no business deciding this case, and he explains why below:

So let me suggest this to you with respect to the power of the courts, in particularly the Supreme Court. Where there is not a clear constitutional issue as there clearly was in Loving vs Virginia under the 14th amendment, a clear violation of the 14th amendment, then why should the federal courts intervene? Why should the Supreme Court intervene?

The Equal Protection Clause doesn’t say the ‘liberal promotion clause’ or the ‘radical egalitarianism clause’ where people can pour their economic or social agendas into the Constitution for the courts to decide. That’s not what that clause is there for and that’s not what it means.

‘So Mark, what should the court do?’

In my humble opinion, the court should strike down the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, and through it the district court’s decision in San Francisco. And the court should say:

‘We have no business in this case. The people of California voted, they passed Proposition 8 to amend their constitution. Maybe in ten years they’ll pass another proposition to reverse course. But there’s no federal constitutional violation here. This is not the same as segregation and racism. This is not a matter of equal protection.’

LISTEN:http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-...+Right+Scoop%29

Isn't this what Roberts argued with the Lefties on Obamacare? He said people voted for a congress that passed this so it wasn't their issue to deal with. Same should apply here. People voted in a clean election and got what they wanted.