James Inhofe Quotes

Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.

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

As far as same-sex marriage, I really would want to think about that a lot more given the fact that my focus would be always on the child. The innocent should not be given more even burdens than what is absolutely necessary.

If two people of the same sex fall in love and want to marry, why would our government stand in their way?

I'm an activist for gay marriage equality and children's rights. I'm the face of Share Our Strength.

Like it or not children are being raised by gay and lesbian parents all over America - as many as 10 million children. And it does nothing to make their lives more stable and secure to attack their families, to attack their parents to prevent us from marrying each other.

Let gay people get married.

There's certain issues, as I say in my speeches, that I'm not going to compromise on; I'm not going to compromise on a woman's right to choose and on marriage equality.

I believe that in the historic and religious nature, marriage is between a man and a woman.

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

Families are not merely constructs of outdated convention, and traditional marriage laws were not based on animosity toward homosexuals. Rather, I believe that the traditional family structure - centered on a lawful union between one man and one woman - comports with nature and with our Judeo-Christian moral tradition.

I personally have always been in favor of people who are gay being permitted to marry legally - and I still feel that way.

I believe in family values, and I believe that we all ought to be able to have a family and marry if you want to. I don't think the government should be in that business of denying people the fundamental right to marry.

Gay marriage acceptance is happening in the blink of an eye.

It's not like the right for gay people to marry just happened.

Isn't that sort of what happened with gay marriage? Right before gay marriage was legalized, everybody was just losing their minds and, like, the worst possible things were happening, and it was just all like it couldn't get any worse, and then it suddenly got a lot better.

I'm not sure gay marriage was an issue that made or didn't make any single election that I can think of.

Committed and loving gay and lesbian couples deserve to have their love, their relationships, and their families recognized like everyone else.

We're no longer saying that people who are pro traditional marriage are bigots, and we're also not saying that people who are, like me, a Republican that is for gay marriage, is less of a Republican.

There are lots of different ideas, lots of different opinions about the First Amendment Defense Act and what it should be. There were a lot of different forms of it while I was on the Hill. But I would say that I agree that the decision on gay marriage does mean that we need to take some steps to defend religious liberty.

I'm for same-sex marriage.

I'm a married gay man, so you might think that I appreciate the government forcing a Christian baker or photographer or florist to act against their religion in order to cater, photograph, or decorate my wedding. But you'd be wrong. A government that can force Christians to violate their conscience can force me to violate mine.

It makes no sense to me that my gay friends cannot get married to each other because a certain slice of Christianity doesn't believe in gay 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.

The cradle-to-grave welfare state diminishes individual initiative and can breed a pervasive sclerosis.