Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, on Tuesday declined to answer questions about Obergefell, the 2015 ruling that found gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked Barrett whether she was in agreement with the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the issue of marriage equality. Barrett clerked for Scalia and during Monday's hearing said that “his judicial philosophy is mine too.”

“In 2013, as you probably know, because you know so much about this, U.S. v. Windsor, the Supreme Court struck DOMA down,” Feinstein said. “Two years later, in Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court recognized that the fundamental right to marry could not be denied to LGBT Americans. Both decisions were decided by a 5-4 margin. Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg was in the majority; Justice Scalia dissented in both cases.”

“Now you said in your acceptance speech for this nomination that Justice Scalia’s philosophy is your philosophy. Do you agree with this particular point of Justice Scalia’s view that the U.S. Constitution does not afford gay people the fundamental right to marry?” Feinstein asked.

“Senator Feinstein, as I said to Senator [Lindsey] Graham at the outset, if I were confirmed, you would be getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia,” Barrett replied. “So I don’t think that anybody should assume that just because Justice Scalia decided a decision in a certain way that I would too. But I’m not going to express a view on whether I agree or disagree with Justice Scalia for the same reasons that I have been giving.”

“Well, that’s really too bad because it’s rather a fundamental point for large numbers of people I think in this country,” Feinstein said. “I understand you don’t want to answer these questions directly but … you identify yourself with a justice that you like him would be a consistent vote to roll back hard-fought freedoms and protections for the LGBT community and what I was hoping you would say is that this would be a point of difference where those freedoms would be respected, and you haven’t said that.”

Barrett responded by saying that she “has no agenda” and has “never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference.”

Later in the hearing, Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono, a Democrat, described the term sexual preference as “offensive and outdated” language “used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice.”

“Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity. That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority’s opinion in Obergefell,” Hirono explained, “which by the way Scalia did not agree with. So, if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a preference, as you noted, then the LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you would uphold their constitutional right to marry.”

Barrett later apologized for using the term, saying that she “didn't mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community.”

Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, questioned Barrett's ties to the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a project of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is best known for representing Christians opposed to LGBT rights.

Barrett, who gave a lecture on originalism to the group, said: “Nothing about any of my interactions with anyone involved in the Blackstone were ever indicative of any kind of discrimination on the basis of anything.”

Sharon McGowan, legal director for LGBT legal group Lambda Legal, questioned Barrett's statement.

“Clearly, Judge Barrett sees no inherent problem with her affiliation with ADF, which is deeply problematic to us and should be to anyone who cares about LGBTQ people and our families,” McGowan said. “ADF is among the largest, best known, and most extreme of the many anti-LGBT legal organizations, so her claim that she isn’t aware of their hostility toward LGBTQ people is disingenuous at best.”

“Her use of the term ‘sexual preference’ instead of ‘sexual orientation’ during today’s hearing, as well as her prior misgendering of transgender people, come straight out of the ADF playbook,” McGowan said. “Such language is not only dismissive of our identities, but also reveals a deep hostility to our entitlement to equal protection of the law. It is unreasonable to think that she would be able to administer fair and impartial justice to our communities if she can’t even accept our basic humanity and dignity.”