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.

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.

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.

For the life of me I don't understand what honest motive there is in putting this in front of this body to philosophically debate marriage on a constitutional amendment that is not going to happen and which is enormously divisive in all of our communities.

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.

The way that same-sex marriage should reach the federal level is that it absolutely should be decided by the Supreme Court as quickly as possible. It's a 14th Amendment issue. There's no argument about it.

When I started law school I was shocked to learn that our legal system traditionally had the man as the head and master of the family. As late as the '70s and '80s when we were fighting for the Equal Rights Amendment states like Louisiana still had a head and master law.

History has shown us that on extraordinarily rare occasions it becomes necessary for the federal government to intervene on behalf of individuals whose 14th Amendment rights to legal due process and equal protection may be violated by a state.