Mark Neumann Quotes

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

I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Since the dawn of time, traditional marriage - the union between one man and one woman - has been the building block of civilization, and at no point in our nation's history has that foundation been under more severe attack than now.

Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve. One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don't think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don't.

My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. That's the position I've had for some time, and I don't intend to make any adjustments at this point... Or ever, by the way.

I've always been clear, I support the traditional definition of marriage.

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

I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. That's my view, and that'll be the view of our state because I wouldn't sign a bill that - like the one that was in New York.

Marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve - one man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don't think anyone else should either.

I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage.

I believe that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman from a religious aspect. That is my belief. I have stated that. I always have believed that.

I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.

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.

President Bush once said that marriage is a sacred institution and should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman. If this is the case - and most Americans would agree with him on this - then I have to ask: Why is the government at all involved in marrying people?

Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined.

You've read the Torah, right? So you know the Torah defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Culture, what you believe, what you value, how you live matters. Now, as fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debates from time to time, so it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

I support traditional marriage. I always have.

I believe that in the historic and religious nature, marriage is between a man and a woman.

I agree with 81 percent of the people of Alabama who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Marriage is and should be defined as being between one man and one woman.

I think society is entitled to recognize marriage as an institution that involves one man and one woman.

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.

My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage has historically, as long as there's been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?