issues very carefully, how to write in a lot of ways because the way in which he is so fastidious with his opinions. he s been an extraordinary mentor. we are very proud of him. if you know he s on senior status and we were able to recommend the rosary thompson to succeed him. i think rhode islanders are equally proud and she is now gone on senior status and i hope will be considering shortly and equally impressive vibe nominee for her possession. on an unrelated subject, it relates to yesterday s activities, you can relax a moment, your honor, this will not be a question for you. a lot was said in this room about dark money by our republican friends to the point where one of the headlines about
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