I don't think feminism as I understand the definition implies the rejection of maternal values nurturing children caring about the men in your life. That is just nonsense to me.

Let me be clear. I support the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

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.

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.

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

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.

If we change the definition of marriage to be more inclusive then it is logical to argue that we should broaden the definition so that won't exclude anyone.

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.