Keith O'Brien Quotes

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.

Homosexuals can be, you know, committed to each other. And they have freedom to behave in the ways that they do, but they cannot be a family. They cannot be married. I mean, virtually every culture in the history of the world has considered marriage to be between one woman and one man.

That's what this gay marriage thing is all about … poly-amorphous marriage … you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck.

Homosexual marriage is counterfeit marriage.

If gay marriage was OK ... then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.

To show you, just to illustrate the inroads the homosexual marriage crowd has made, it is now common to hear on television and in the midst of debate the concept of "opposite-sex marriage."

I was trying to point out I'm not opposed to gays having their partnership. I'm opposed to gays using the term marriage for their relationship.

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.

I have a deep-seated belief that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively.

I do not believe that defending traditional marriage between one man and one woman excludes anybody or usurps anybody's civil rights and denies anybody their civil rights.

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.

But whether a couple is a man and a woman has everything to do with the meaning of marriage.

Same-sex marriage is not the future.

Society may no longer define marriage in the only way marriage has ever been defined in the annals of recorded history. Many societies allowed polygamy, many allowed child marriages, some allowed marriage within families; but none, in thousands of years, defined marriage as the union of people of the same sex.

I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.

I have a theory: I believe that with the advent of the United States and the lawful definition of marriage, it was defined as between one man and one woman. It was anti-polygamy, in effect saying no man can hoard his women.

I don’t believe that opposite sex and same sex marriages are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same sex relationships are over.

Giving public sanction to homosexual marriage ends up redefining marriage, and it's certain to harm children.

I believe marriages should be legally defined as between one man and one woman.

I believe that anybody can cohabitate with whoever they want to, but marriage to me is, you know, between a man and a woman and I'm not going to be afraid to say it.

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

But I don't think that it's a form of family that I would be comfortable in. I've found a way to this character and this family, but I still believe that a marriage is between two people and not seven or three.

People should be allowed to marry, and gay marriage should be out there. If a man or a woman has a good partner and they love each other with their heart and soul, let them marry. I am very much for gay marriage.

Marriage equality is coming, and not merely to a theater near you.

I have no difficulty with the recognition of civil unions for non-traditional relationships but I believe in law we should protect the traditional definition of marriage.