With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 951 F.Supp.2d 891, 901 (W.D.Tex.2013) (enjoining enforcement of a provision that required abortion providers to have hospital privileges within thirty miles of the clinic where they practice, after the court held the provision did not survive a facial challenge and was deemed unconstitutional). Section 32 fails the constitutional facial challenge because, as mentioned before, Defendants have failed to provide any — and the Court finds no — rational basis that banning same-sex marriage furthers a legitimate governmental interest; that is, the Court finds "no set of circumstances” under which Section 32 would be valid. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987); Barnes v. Moore, 970 F.2d 12, 14 (5th Cir.1992)

A: holding that when plaintiffs bring a facial challenge to a law it must be established that there are no set of circumstances under which the law would be valid
B: holding that damages are not available for a facial challenge to a gun control law
C: holding that facial challenges will be sustained only if no set of circumstances exist under which the act would be valid
D: holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
A.