regulation, even if people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs. do you agree, marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, is it? it is not mentioned directly, no. and religious freedom is mentioned in the first amendment explicitly, correct? it is. do you share my concern that when the court takes on the role of identifying an unenumerated right, in other words, it s not mentioned in the constitution and creates a new right, declaring that anything conflicting with that is unconstitutional, that it creates a circumstance where those who may hold traditional beliefs, like something as important as marriage, that they
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 where people have so sincerely held religious beliefs, doesn t that create a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious doctrine or faith in what the federal government says is the law of the land? well, son of dirt that is of our right. when there is a right, it means
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