A Quote by Dianne Feinstein

For the life of me, I don't understand what honest motive there is in putting this in front of this body to philosophically debate marriage on a constitutional amendment that is not going to happen, and which is enormously divisive in all of our communities.
I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life.
No Congress ever has seen fit to amend the Constitution to address any issue related to marriage. No Constitutional Amendment was needed to ban polygamy or bigamy, nor was a Constitutional Amendment needed to set a uniform age of majority to ban child marriages.
The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.
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.
We can protect the Second Amendment, we can protect our constitutional rights, and we can still do something about this public health crisis that is gun violence in our communities.
The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.
The Second Amendment is not open for debate. Why do Democrats feel that this is the one enumerated Constitutional right that they can trample?
I oppose a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
I do not support a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage.
I'm knocking our pitiful, pathetic lawmakers. And I thank God that President Bush has stated, we need a Constitutional amendment that states that marriage is between a man and a woman.
So now we're after a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a guy-and-gal thing. To the founders, this would have been like an amendment requiring the sun to rise in the east; it would fall under the category of obvious truths that the Constitution need not address.
I definitely do not support a constitutional amendment that has to do with prohibiting gay marriage.
Of course, such judicial misconstruction theoretically can be cured by constitutional amendment. But the period of gestation of a constitutional amendment, or of any law reform, is reckoned in decades usually; in years, at least. And, after all, as the Court itself asserted in overruling the minimum-wage cases, it may not be the Constitution that was at fault.
Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
I didn't know that President Bush would endorse a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Why wouldn't somebody have the same legal rights as everybody else in our society? What is that about? I don't even understand them putting same sex marriage on the ballot. So if fifty-one percent of the people say it shouldn't happen, it's not going to happen? You can get fifty-one percent of the people to say just about anything - to say let's bring back slavery, or all Mexicans should be slaves, or something absolutely crazy like that. Does that mean we do it?
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!