Stephen Harper Quotes

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.

Homosexual marriage is counterfeit marriage.

I unequivocally repeat: marriage in accordance with the Polish Constitution is a union between a man and a woman.

As a former resident with strong personal and ministry ties to the North Star State, I pray that the good people of Minnesota will show their support for God's definition of marriage, between a man and a woman.

Traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been a cornerstone of our society for generations. If we are going to change that, it ought to be done by the will of the people.

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

There are more than 30 states, who either by statute or constitutional amendment, have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

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

Supporting the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is not anti-gay: it is pro-traditional marriage. And if support for traditional marriage is bigotry, then Barack Obama was a bigot until just before the 2012 election.

Today, I will vote in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment. I shall do so because like President Bush, I strongly believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

I believe in traditional marriage and I believe in the Defense of Marriage Act.

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

In terms of the legal matter of creating a contract between two people that's called marriage, and allowing them to live together with the protection of law, it seems to me is the way we should be moving in this country.

If two men or two women can marry, then there is no way a court could deny three men and two women or any combination thereof.

I have voted in support of efforts in the Senate to enact a Constitutional amendment that would have limited marriage to one man and one woman only.

I do believe that the states have the right to make the definition of marriage, and each state can define it as they so choose through their elected representatives.

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.

Our national media refuses to report that even the Supreme Court did not say marriage was a human right in all cases nor did it say that the heterosexual definition violated anyone's right or that the heterosexual definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

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 propose that the government should get out of the business of marrying people and, instead, only give legal status to civil unions.

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.

Civil union is less than marriage. Marriage is a sacred and valued institution and ought to be afforded equal protection.

Australia is much more liberal in accepting de facto relationships than the U.S.

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.