A Quote by Todd Akin

I oppose any attempt to grant homosexual unions the same legal privileges that civil government affords to traditional marriage and family life. — © Todd Akin
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.
I oppose the attempts of homosexual activists to treat homosexual activity as a civil right to be protected and promoted by the government.
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.
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.
When you hear all these things about homosexual marriage, this has nothing to do with homosexual rights. The whole objective is the destruction of the traditional family. It has nothing to do with homosexuals.
The first question for me is: Are same-sex unions ‘marriages’? I’m against discrimination, I’m against hatred, I’m in favor of marriage equality, but I don’t think same-sex marriage is marriage. Therefore I think it is wrong for the government to insist, through the use of law, that we all believe that same-sex unions are marriages.
How long before we have, not just homosexual marriage, but homosexual unions between adult men and small boys?
I propose that the government should get out of the business of marrying people and, instead, only give legal status to civil unions.
If the court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act, is that a 'liberal' result enabling gay couples married in states where gay marriage is legal to enjoy the same economic advantages that federal laws now grant to straight couples? Or is it a 'conservative' ruling, limiting the federal government's ability to override state power?
I don't support gay marriage, but I also don't support a constitutional amendment banning it. However, I do support same sex unions that would give gay couples all the rights, privileges and protections of marriage.
What is behind homosexual marriage. It's really more about the destruction of the traditional family than about exalting homosexuality, because you need to destroy also loyalty to the family.
I really can't imagine how anyone could, in good conscience, oppose the proposition that the states should be able to deny the status of marriage to same-sex unions.
Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.
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.
Conceit of the anti-gay law in Russia is to protect children, then the people who have the most to fear are LGBT parents. And sure enough, in conjunction with the homosexual propaganda law, they instituted a ban on adoptions by same-sex couples, or single people from countries where same-sex marriage is legal. That has very scary potential for any LGBT person with adopted kids, because Russian courts practice this particular legal concept called "annulment of adoption." So an adopted child is never exactly the same as a biological child, even if he or she was adopted ten years ago.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!