With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". reasoning expressed in the Searcy case and finds that Alabama’s laws violate the Plaintiffs’ rights for the same reasons. Alabama’s marriage sanctity laws violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by prohibiting same-sex marriage. Said laws are unconstitutional. After considering the circumstances of this case and in light of the court’s conclusion that the laws in question are unconstitutional, the court finds that Plaintiffs have met the preliminary injunction factors. Plaintiffs’ inability to exercise their fundamental right to marry has caused them irreparable harm that outweighs any injury to defendant . See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Plaintiffs in this case have

A: holding that deprivation of constitutional rights unquestionably constitutes irreparable harm
B: holding that even a temporary deprivation of first amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm
C: holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury
D: holding that loss of the opportunity to fairly compete for a contract constitutes irreparable harm
A.