Answer to one of many questions in the interview:
Do you think there needs to be a greater sense of urgency for the federal marriage amendment?
People have got to understand that the definition of marriage is being changed act by act. And the reason I thought a constitutional amendment was the right avenue on this issue it's because it would prevent the definition—it would reaffirm the current definition of marriage and prevent it from being changed decision by decision or act by act.
Am I the last conservative on earth who's creeped out by the thought of presidents defining their job as agents of cultural change? As far as I'm concerned, my culture is Jesus Christ. Under our Constitution, no president can credibly promise to deliver on that. But -- once the job has been morphed from chief executive into High Priest -- I can think of a great many disagreeable possibilities any number of errant politicians might like to impose.
The essence of conservatism is restraint. Please let's not forget that.