I routinely never discuss my marriage. It's nice to have things in my life that are totally mine.

They make Spy Kids they make Scream they make A Scary Movie. This doesn't do that so it could be a very bad marriage. I'm trying to keep this potential nightmare quiet because we're just finishing editing.

We are very puritan in America. We still hold true to these really antiquated values this idea of the sanctity of marriage.

The definition of marriage cannot be disputed. It's right there in black and white and it's been the same since the start of Wikipedia.

President Bush has a record of cutting taxes has provided a prescription drug benefit for seniors has upheld the Second Amendment and remains committed to stopping liberal activists judges who are redefining marriage.

My parents had a wonderful marriage but it was a very dependent relationship. My mother was entirely dependent on my father because that's how it was in those days.

When I got married in my twenties I had a happy marriage and happy kids but at some point in time I let it go off the rails I let it go off the rails.

I believe it's a real tedious hostage negotiation to have a marriage be what it is.

Clearly if it is sensible to hold a referendum on independence it is crucial that we have one on marriage. It is the only way the country can move forward on this issue. Let all those who have a view on this subject place their trust in the Scottish people and let Scotland decide.

There is no doubt that as a society we have become blase about the importance of marriage as a stabilising influence and less inclined to prize it as a worthwhile institution.

If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage?

The church's teaching on marriage is unequivocal it is uniquely the union of a man and a woman and it is wrong that governments politicians or parliaments should seek to alter or destroy that reality.

No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.

I know there are a lot of readers that think I've got a very crappy marriage just because of the things going on with Rick and Lori but there's really nothing that's been like a mirror. I'm just making this stuff up.

I found it an interesting portrait of a marriage in exploring notions of how one partner supports the other whilst not jeopardizing the greater good - which is the family.

I did know Ted Hughes and I partly wrote the book to explain to myself and others the complexities of a marriage that was for six years wonderfully productive of poetry and then ended in tragedy.

I have a wonderful marriage and two great kids.

I know in my own marriage I stayed in it to provide my son with what I thought was a stable background and to give him what I thought was the family life a child should have with two parents. But that isn't always the best way and it took me taking my son to therapy after the divorce to really see it.

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.

That is why I fought against abortion and that is why if I were still in the Senate I would be doing everything I could to defend the sanctity of marriage.

I know I'm guilty of and I think a lot of people are guilty of sort of getting starry-eyed with love and sort of looking over the bad things and keep going and you don't really prepare for how much work marriage really is.

What we need are not prohibitory marriage laws but a reformed society an educated public opinion which will teach individual duty in these matters.

I found marriage somewhat stifling. I don't know that I am the kind of man who ought to be married.

If you leave your wife and you don't ever contact her again that says something about how you felt about the marriage.