>>> WELL, SENATOR, MARRIAGES ARE OFTEN PERFORMED IN RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.
>> WELL, WHEN THE -- YOU AGREE
THAT MANY OF THE RELIGIONS,
CHRIS ANTI, JUDAISM, ISLAM,
THEY EMBRACE A TRADITIONAL
DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE,
CORRECT?
>> I AM AWARE THAT THERE ARE
VARIOUS RELIGIOUS FAITHS THAT
DEFINE MARRIAGE IN A
TRADITIONAL WAY.
DO YOU -- DO YOU SEE THAT WHEN
THE SUPREME COURT MAKES A
DRAMATIC PRONOUNCEMENT ABOUT
THE INVALIDITY OF STATE
MARRIAGE LAWS, THAT IT WILL SET
IN CONFLICT BETWEEN THOSE WHO
ASCRIBE TO THE SUPREME COURT’S
EDICT AND THOSE WHO HAVE A
FIRMLY-HELD BELIEF THAT
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A
WOMAN?
>> WELL, SENATOR,.
>> I’M AWARE THAT THERE ARE
CASES --
>> I’M NOT ASKING YOU TO DECIDE
HOW YOU WOULD DECIDE.
I’M ASKING ISN’T IT APPARENT
WHEN THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES
THAT SOMETHING.
>> AND NO STATE CAN PASS A LAW
THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE SUPREME
COURT’S EDICT, PACKAGELY --
PARTICULARLY IN AN AREA WHERE
THEY HAVE BELIEFS, DOESN’T THAT
CREATE A CONFLICT BETWEEN WHAT
PEOPLE MAY BELIEVE IS A MATTER
OF THEIR RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE OR
FAITH AND WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SAYS IS THE LAW OF
THE LAND?
>> WELL, SENATOR THAT IS THE
NATURE OF A RIGHT THAT, WHEN
THERE IS A RIGHT, IT MEANS THAT
THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON
REGULATION, EVEN IF PEOPLE ARE
REGULATING PURSUIT TO THEIR
SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS.
>> MARRIAGE IS NOT MENTIONED IN
THE CONSTITUTION, IS IT?
>> IT IS NOT MENTIONED
DIRECTLY, NO.
>> RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND 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, NOT
MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION,
AND CREATES A NEW RIGHT,
DECLARING THAT ANYTHING
CONFLICTING WITH THAT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THAT IT
CREATES A CIRCUMSTANCE FOR
THOSE WHO MAY HOLD TRADITIONAL
BELIEFS LIKE SOMETHING IS
IMPORTANT AS MARRIAGE?
THAT THEY WILL BE VILIFIED AS
UNWILLING TO ASCENT TO THE NEW
ORTHODOXY?
>> SO, SENATOR, I UNDERSTAND
THAT CONCERN AND BECAUSE THERE
ARE CASES THAT ARE ADDRESSING
THESE SORTS OF ISSUES, I’M NOT
IN A POSITION TO COMMENT ABOUT
EITHER MY PERSONAL VIEWS OR --
>> I’M NOT ASKING YOU TO,
JUSTICE ALITO IN THE OBERFELT
CASE WROTE, HE SAID I ASSUMED
THOSE WHO CLING TO THE OLD
BELIEFS WILL WHISPER THEIR
THOUGHTS THOUGHTS IN THE
RECESSES OF THEIR HOMES BUT IF
THEY REPEAT THE VIEWS IN
PUBLIC, THEY WILL RISK BEING
LABELED AS BIGOTS AND TREATED
AS SUCH BY GOVERNMENT,
EMPLOYERS AND SCHOOLS.
THE OBERFELT WAS UNDER
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS,
CORRECT?
, IF MEMORY SERVES SUBSTANTIVE
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION CONCERNS AS WELL.
>> THE SUPREME COURT HAS
APPLIED THAT SOMEHOW FAIRLY
MYSTERIOUSLY BY THE CONFLUENCE
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE 1
AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES