Those who made and endorsed our Constitution knew man's nature and it is to their ideas rather than to the temptations of utopia that we must ask that our judges adhere.

All the perplexities confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation not from want of honor or virtue so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin credit and circulation.

In fact my mom always told me because I was the daughter of an Army officer born overseas in Paris France that under the Constitution she believed that I could never run for president.

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

We are confident that the Supreme Court will soon see the direction that this country is headed and enshrine marriage as a constitutional right for all.

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.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution.

The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society any status short of that is inferior unjust and unconstitutional.

There are more than 30 states who either by statute or constitutional amendment have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

I didn't know that President Bush would endorse a constitutional amendment banning same-sex 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.

I'm a little skeptical about using the Constitution this way but I also believe marriage is between a man and a woman and that the courts shouldn't legislate this matter.

I do not support a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage.

I think you may see again a rise at the federal government level for a - a call for the federal constitutional amendment because people want to make sure that this definition of marriage remains secure because after all the family is the fundamental unit of government.

So far 44 States or 88 percent of the States have enacted laws providing that marriage shall consist of a union between a man and a woman. Only 75 percent of the States are required to approve a constitutional amendment.

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.

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.

If one is going to change the definition of marriage to be quote 'same sex ' then there is absolutely no valid argument constitutionally or rhetorically you can make against multiple people getting married. These are radical social changes.

Our national media refuses to report that even the Supreme Court did not say marriage was a human right in all cases nor did it say that the heterosexual definition violated anyone's right or that the heterosexual definition of marriage was unconstitutional.

While 45 of the 50 States have either a State constitutional amendment or a statute that preserves the current definition of marriage left-wing activist judges and officials at the local levels have struck down State laws protecting marriage.

I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying.

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually our constitutions expand liberties they don't contract them.

Nature and human life are as various as our several constitutions. Who shall say what prospect life offers to another?

Even those who like me believe that Roe v. Wade and the decisions elaborating on reproductive rights were constitutionally correct must recognize that for many on the right the sudden and relatively sloppily reasoned character of the abortion rulings... did real damage to the Court's reputation as a relatively neutral arbiter of legal disputes.