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.