John Sentamu 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.

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

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.

Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

I've made it abundantly clear that I think that marriage is 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.

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.

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?

I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman.

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.

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.

I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I can’t impose my views on everyone else.

The right to marry is vital in society. It's a right that's older than the Bill of Rights because it goes back to the common law.

I do believe in the traditional definition of marriage.

Marriage in our Constitution is very clear that it's a man marrying a woman, largely with a view to having a natural family, and if they are unable to do that, obviously then they can adopt.

I feel like marriage is a sacred institution that should only be between a man and a woman. If a gay couple wants to be married, why can't they just be satisfied with a civil union? Why do they have to get "married"?

Marriage and the creation of families has been an integral part of our society since its creation; it should not be defined without the kind of involvement by the people which a constitutional process would require.

I think that marriage is, dare I say it, between a man and a woman, hopefully for life and there are all sorts of other relationships which should be acknowledged and recognised, but I don't know that they can be recognised as marriage.

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?

There is a real sense of anger among many people who are married that the government, any government, thinks it has the ability to change the definition of an institution like marriage.

I think the government should be out of the marriage business and leave marriage to the churches.

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

Marriage has been defined by every legislature that has ever sat in the United States from every State, now 50 States, the same way, but now we have unelected judges altering and changing that fundamental institution.

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