A Quote by Jens Spahn

It's ridiculous to insinuate that the social recognition of homosexual civil unions damages families or the institution of marriage. — © Jens Spahn
It's ridiculous to insinuate that the social recognition of homosexual civil unions damages families or the institution of marriage.
Separate is not equal. Civil unions are civil unions. Marriage is marriage. They're different institutions.
I oppose any attempt to grant homosexual unions the same legal privileges that civil government affords to traditional marriage and family life.
I support gay unions. I think the government should get out of the marriage business completely - leave marriages to the churches. And grant civil unions to gay couples, grant civil unions to a man and woman.
How long before we have, not just homosexual marriage, but homosexual unions between adult men and small boys?
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.
I'm not sure that it's right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn't get around and say, 'Let's have this institution, but let's keep out homosexuals.' The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn't include homosexual couples.
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.
The gay-rights community had a strategy going in; they thought that they needed to have 30 states with some form of recognition - whether that be marriage, whether it be civil unions - but they wanted to have 30 states signed on before they went to the federal courts.
More people more accepting of civil unions and gay marriage, which our pollster said was the most significant change they've seen on any social issue. So, this country is changing in a way.
Civil union is less than marriage. Marriage is a sacred and valued institution and ought to be afforded equal protection.
Marriage is built around complementarity of the sexes, and therefore the institution of marriage is a support for stable families and societies.
Marriage is built around complementarity of the sexes and therefore the institution of marriage is a support for stable families and societies.
In many ways, the crumbling of the institution of marriage is the real 'war on women.' Marriage is the civilizing influence for men and for families.
Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union.
Generally, the arguments for same-sex marriage go along these lines: 'I have a civil right.' What the homosexual movement wants to do is to hitch their agenda to the civil rights movement, but I point out that this is illegitimate for a number of reasons. Number one, no black person has ever left his black-ness or changed his black-ness, but plenty of people have come out of the homosexual movement. What we need to do is distinguish between race and behavior.
I don't think it's a great leap to go from civil unions to gay marriage - I may be in the minority in believing that.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!