Olson equates interracial marriages with same gender messages.
He does not seem to see the difference between one and the other.
That's been the homolawyers' line of attack consistently since 1981, when they were pushing the Baehr vs. Lewin case (it actually had two or three captions at different times) in Hawaii, which was a "homomarriage" </cant> case. That case ended up mooted by a timely amendment to the Hawaiian constitution.
Ted Olson has been arguing before the SCOTUS longer than most of the Judges have been on the Court and has forgotten more than they knew to begin with.
This is just “inside baseball” friendly poking one another. Don’t read anything big into this, especially how Scalia felt about Olson’s counter questions.
I can not find anywhere in the Constitution wher it says the court can nullify a legal vote, even though they try sometimes. My guess is that the majority will side with the voters, not the liberal Judges under and on the 9th.
He REFUSES to see (selective insight) the difference. Like many people in modern society, he is in denial of moral absolutes.