Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of the definition of a marriage as between one man and one woman.

I think you may see again a rise at the federal government level for a - a call for the federal constitutional amendment because people want to make sure that this definition of marriage remains secure because after all the family is the fundamental unit of government.

I think it's best if there's an amendment that goes on the ballot where the people can weigh in. Every time this issue has gone on the ballot the people have voted to retain the traditional definition of marriage as recently as California in 2008.

We need uniform protection of traditional marriage. You can't have different definitions on something as fundamental as marriage. The Marriage Protection Amendment is the only solution to this problem.

If we change the definition of marriage to be more inclusive then it is logical to argue that we should broaden the definition so that won't exclude anyone.

If one is going to change the definition of marriage to be quote 'same sex ' then there is absolutely no valid argument constitutionally or rhetorically you can make against multiple people getting married. These are radical social changes.

My parents did not have a perfect marriage. It was pretty good but it was not perfect. My marriage is not perfect. My wife is but I happen to be imperfect. However that does not discount the fact that the definition of marriage must be defended and protected.

Our national media refuses to report that even the Supreme Court did not say marriage was a human right in all cases nor did it say that the heterosexual definition violated anyone's right or that the heterosexual definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

While 45 of the 50 States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute that preserves the current definition of marriage left-wing activist judges and officials at the local levels have struck down State laws protecting marriage.

I've always been clear I support the traditional definition of marriage.

The problem for those who assert biblical authority in support of traditional definitions of marriage is that one could with equal validity assert that the lending of money or certain kinds of haircuts are forbidden by God or that slavery and the subjugation of women are authorized by the Lord.

I have no difficulty with the recognition of civil unions for non-traditional relationships but I believe in law we should protect the traditional definition of marriage.

Having federal officials whether judges bureaucrats or congressmen impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.

My definition of success is to live your life in a way that causes you to feel a ton of pleasure and very little pain - and because of your lifestyle have the people around you feel a lot more pleasure than they do pain.

Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life define yourself.

Vigorous enforcement of copyrights themselves is an important part of the picture. But I don't think that expanding the legal definition of copyright outside of actual copyright infringement is the right move.

By definition intelligence deals with the unclear the unknown the deliberately hidden. What the enemies of the United States hope to deny we work to reveal.