From the beginning there have been some religious leaders who greeted the funding of faith-based social services by government with ambivalence.

If marriage really is a sacred institution then why is the government controlling it especially in a nation that affirms separation of church and state?

President Bush once said that marriage is a sacred institution and should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman. If this is the case - and most Americans would agree with him on this - then I have to ask: Why is the government at all involved in marrying people?

But I think it's up to a local congregation to determine whether or not a marriage should be blessed of God. And it shouldn't be up to the government.

Where might is mixed with wit there is too good an accord in a government.

I am very much opposed to abortion personally. But I don't think it is the government's rule.

If it were not for the government we should have nothing to laugh at in France.

It is perfectly true that that government is best which governs least. It is equally true that that government is best which provides most.

Whatever government is not a government of laws is a despotism let it be called what it may.

It's the federal government's job to secure the border.

The truth is in California you can't build a new manufacturing facility and businesses are leaving in droves because of bad government policy.

We need more transparency and accountability in government so that people know how their money is being spent. That means putting budgets online putting legislation online.

But ours was intended to be a citizen government. It is what of by and for the people means. And when our most important issue in California is the creation of jobs I think it's quite helpful to have someone in the U.S. Senate or in the governor's seat who actually knows where jobs come from.

Well you know I - again even in the context of BP I wonder about this government's priorities. The federal government's top priority right now should be the cleanup. And BP certainly has done so many things wrong. They need to be held to account.

Whether Canada ends up as o-ne national government or two national governments or several national governments or some other kind of arrangement is quite frankly secondary in my opinion.

The government can only be brought down because it alienates several parties in the House.

I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions.

One side of the American psyche wants smaller government lower taxes and more choices for individuals even if those choices increase risk. The other wants a strong social safety net to protect the weakest among us even if it costs more to minimize risk.

Old forms of government finally grow so oppressive that they must be thrown off even at the risk of reigns of terror.

The Republican form of government is the highest form of government: but because of this it requires the highest type of human nature a type nowhere at present existing.

In government you carry each hope each disillusion. And in politics it's always about the next challenge.

I cannot think of any circumstances in which a government can go to war without the support of parliament.

We just put General Motors in the hands of people who can't even run our own government.

Government shouldn't tell you whom to marry.