and a conquered from that twinned together as a 5o1c3 and a 501(c)(4) organization. they filed under virginia corporation law to operate under what they called fictitious names. that is the term of launder which they filed. fictitious names. there is to traditional crisis network, one of those fictitious names of the concord fund. there is a parallel judicial education project that is a fictitious name of the 85 fund. if you re interested in voter suppression you can move down to the honest election the project action, another fictitious name. it s 5o1c3 to income of the honest elections project. they ve even got new ones that are less active. afraid to learn action and frayed to learn. these are eight organizations that are essentially one organization. as lawyers we think from time to time about piercing the corporate veil, that s the
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