with a case in the argument is going to be made that this is an unenumerated fundamental right, and the voters, whatever they ve sighed is irrelevant. because we, five members of the supreme court, are going to decide what the law of the land should be. anybody who disagrees with us will be labeled a bigot. or be accused of discrimination. even if their beliefs happen to flow from sincerely held religious conviction, like the definition of a marriage between a man and a woman. but you ve already told me that you see what this is a concern. i see why it s a concern and i would just say that although the supreme court is not bound in the sense of having to apply prior precedent, there is star a decisive s in our system. there are now standards in the star a decisive s world, when
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