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