I want to address the last speaker's comments and say that, first, we need to step back from trees and look at the forest and try to take a long view of our culture, and we can look at history and show that no culture that has ever embraced homosexuality has ever survived. Second, I would say that what this same-sex marriage is seeking is State sanction of their relationship. There is nothing that prevents the gentleman from Massachusetts right now from having a loving relationship with his significant other, no matter what their sexes are. I think we need to be very civil and very professional on this House floor. We each have 30 minutes, let us use our 30 minutes. Let us talk, and I think first of all understand this is not an issue between the parties.
Steve Largent: “I want to address the last speaker's comments and say that, first, we need to step back from trees and look at the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of same-sex marriage during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Steve Largent
The pro-choice movement has lost a lot of credibility during this debate, not just with the general public, but with our pro-choice friends in Congress. Even the White House is now questioning the accuracy of some of the information given…
Absolutely. I would just submit, Mr. Speaker, that the relationship of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] with another man does not threaten my marriage whatsoever, my marriage of 21 years with the same woman.
The Government has a lot of spectrum. We need to try to figure out a way to free it up.
I also am concerned that the provision only mentions State law and does not mention Federal law, and I hope that the provision can be modified to make it clear that purchasers of these systems have to comply with relevant Federal law, such…





