My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a

Hear, O listener, the unwavering words of Mitt Romney, who declared: “My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. That’s the position I’ve had for some time, and I don’t intend to make any adjustments at this point… Or ever, by the way.” In this utterance is revealed the voice of conviction, a steadfastness that clings to tradition even as the world shifts around it. Romney, a statesman bound by faith and principle, here speaks not of compromise but of permanence, affirming a definition of marriage rooted in centuries of cultural and religious heritage.

The origin of this conviction lies deep in the soil of Western civilization. For thousands of years, marriage between man and woman was upheld as the foundation of family, society, and order. It was through this bond that children were born, households established, and communities strengthened. Religions across the ages enshrined this union as sacred, woven into ritual and law. When Romney speaks, he does so from within this lineage, drawing upon a definition that has long stood as the cornerstone of tradition.

Yet his words are also those of resistance in a time of transformation. The modern age has seen the rise of movements proclaiming that love and commitment are not bound by gender, and that equality demands a broader recognition of unions. Courts, nations, and communities have redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, seeing in such unions the same dignity, loyalty, and devotion as in heterosexual bonds. In this context, Romney’s stance is one of deliberate immovability: he will not bend, he will not adjust, not now, not ever.

History has often borne witness to such firmness. Recall Marcus Aurelius, emperor and philosopher, who clung to the principles of Stoicism even amidst the chaos of war and plague. He would not shift his view of virtue to accommodate convenience. So too Romney’s words reflect this ancient spirit of steadfastness: to hold one’s ground even when the current flows the other way. Whether praised as integrity or criticized as rigidity, such resolve marks a man who seeks to remain consistent to his vision.

But let the wise understand the double edge of such conviction. For tradition provides stability, yet when held too tightly, it may exclude, wound, or fail to recognize the changing needs of humanity. Just as laws once denied women the right to vote, or once upheld slavery as unchangeable, so too the definition of marriage has been contested. In each age, some stood immovable while others pressed for change. History teaches us that permanence is not always justice, and that sometimes fidelity to the past must yield to compassion in the present.

Still, Romney’s words bear a lesson for the generations. It is this: if you hold a belief, speak it with clarity, without hypocrisy. Say what you mean, and stand by it. In an age of shifting opinions, there is strength in honesty, even when it is unpopular. Better the man who declares his conviction plainly than the one who cloaks it in ambiguity. His statement is a reminder that every society must wrestle openly with its divisions, for only by naming them can dialogue and progress be born.

What then must you do? Hold your convictions, but hold them with humility. Defend tradition if you believe in it, but do not let defense turn to cruelty. Listen also to those who call for change, for their voices, too, arise from deep wells of human longing. Strive for dialogue where there is division, and remember always that marriage—however defined—was meant to be a covenant of love, responsibility, and faithfulness. To honor that spirit, whether in tradition or reform, is the greater calling.

Thus, Romney’s words ring across time: a declaration of fidelity to an ancient view of marriage, unshaken and unyielding. Whether one sees in them courage or rigidity, they remind us of the eternal tension between past and present, tradition and progress. Carry this wisdom: know what you believe, speak it plainly, but never close your ears to the cry of justice. For societies, like individuals, must balance conviction with compassion if they are to endure.