The Justices and Mr. Olson have an extensive discussion about the importance of marriage, and how critical the actual label “marriage” is to heterosexual and homosexual couples. Buried in the discussion is another important legal point: the justices may be looking for a way out of deciding the case on the merits by dismissing the case as improvidently granted. If the justices were to so decide, the 9th Circuit opinion striking down the ban on same-sex marriage would be left intact, and same-sex Californians would be free to marry. The entire discussion is critical, as the justices and Mr. Olson explore the basic meaning of marriage, sexual identity, and the progress of constitutional protections throughout American history. Constitutional protections against racial, gender, and other discrimination – taken for granted today – were only recognized or concretely realized fairly recently in the Court’s jurisprudence. Rather than being a venture into “uncharted waters,” a pro-equality ruling in Hollingsworth would be in the best traditions of the Court expanding, rather than contracting, constitutional rights.