applaud, but why isn t substantive due process just another way for justices to hide their policymaking under the guise further constitution? welcome of the justices have interpreted the due process clause of the 14th amendment to include a substantive provision that the right to due process, they have interpreted that to mean not just procedural right relative to government action, but also the protection of certain personal rights related to intimacy and autonomy, and it includes things like the right to rear one s children. i believe the right to travel, the right to marriage,
0 christianity, judaism, islam, embraces traditional definition of marriage, correct? i am aware that there are various religious faiths that define marriage in a traditional way. do you see that when the supreme court makes a dramatic pronouncement about the invalidity of state marriage laws, that it will inevitably sit in conflict between those who ascribe to the supreme court s edict and those who have a firmly held religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? woman? well, senator, these issues are being litigated, as you know, throughout the courts as people raise issues. i am limited with what i can say about them. i m aware there are cases i m not asking you to decide a case or predict how you would decide to, i m just asking isn t it apparent that when the supreme court decides that something that is not even in the constitution is a fundamental right, and no state can pass any law that conflicts with the supreme court s edict, particularly in an area w