I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger every innovation as a toilsome trouble every social advance as a first step toward revolution and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.

Until the men of action clear out the talkers we who have social consciences are at the mercy of those who have none.

Even people who feel perfectly comfortable investing in the stock market and owning their own homes often have qualms about individual medical accounts or Social Security private accounts.

The fact that he didn't get credit for a while is more the story of social injustice. But his own spirit wasn't driven by that and wasn't dependent upon that. He just wished he had the cash to go to medical school.

When I talked to my medical friends about the strange silence on this subject in American medical magazines and textbooks I gained the impression that here was a subject tainted with Socialism or with feminine sentimentality for the poor.

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.

I think it's unfortunate that there exists only one path in America to complete social legitimacy and that is marriage. I think for instance that it would be far easier for Americans to elect a black president or a female president than an unmarried president.

In interviews I gave early on in my career I was quoted as saying it was possible to have it all: a dynamic job marriage and children. In some respects I was a social adolescent.

Marriage is socialism among two people.

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.