I'm knocking our pitiful pathetic lawmakers. And I thank God that President Bush has stated we need a Constitutional amendment that states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I do not believe that defending traditional marriage between one man and one woman excludes anybody or usurps anybody's civil rights and denies anybody their civil rights.

I'm a little skeptical about using the Constitution this way but I also believe marriage is between a man and a woman and that the courts shouldn't legislate this matter.

Mama and Daddy King represent the best in manhood and womanhood the best in a marriage the kind of people we are trying to become.

We can practice tolerance while still holding true to cultural values that protect the institution of marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.

Today I will vote in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. I shall do so because like President Bush I strongly believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Let me first state that I believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman.

At my core what I think we need to do is to get the basics right again. We need to rebuild our family structure stay away from redefining marriage and stand by marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Forty-five States as the gentleman just said have determined by people that were elected by the people of that State that marriage is the definition of one man and one woman.

Thousands of years and many civilizations have defined a marriage as the union between one man and one woman. With few exceptions those civilizations that did not follow that perished.

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

There was no religious ceremony connected with marriage among us while on the other hand the relation between man and woman was regarded as in itself mysterious and holy.

So far 44 States or 88 percent of the States have enacted laws providing that marriage shall consist of a union between a man and a woman. Only 75 percent of the States are required to approve a constitutional amendment.

But whether a couple is a man and a woman has everything to do with the meaning of marriage.

Marriage made more sense when it was indissoluble. It's the woman trying to cope with the strains of a one-parent family who will suffer most from the relaxation of the divorce laws.

My mother brave woman lost her whole family when she decided to marry a black man in the '60s. When the marriage fell apart she had to come back to her family.

Marriage was all a woman's idea and for man's acceptance of the pretty yoke it becomes us to be grateful.

You know for many elected officials they all started in the same place. You know marriage is between a man and a woman but they understand that they are moving inevitably catching up to the American public.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships.

I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.

The only way marriage can work is if a man respects the woman and she is a thinking woman and he wants to work on the marriage.

Homosexuality is against nature. Sexual expression is permitted only within marriage between man and woman male and female. Anything else is an abnormality and is against nature.

Independence doesn't - doesn't equate to moderates. Millions of independents are pro-life. Millions of independents believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

My argument is simple which is that for several thousand years in Western civilization marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. Research is overwhelming that children need mothers and fathers.