"Marriage has been defined by every legislature that has ever sat in the United States from every State, now 50 States, the same way, but now we have unelected judges altering and changing that fundamental institution"

In this quote, Jeff Sessions is revealing a perspective on the institution of marriage and its legal analysis in the United States. Sessions, a former U.S. Attorney General and U.S. Senator, is highlighting a traditionalist view on marriage, asserting that historically, marriage has actually been evenly specified by the legislative branches of federal government across all 50 states. The traditional definition he mentions likely refers to marriage as a union exclusively in between a guy and a woman, which was the fundamental legal and social definition for much of U.S. history.

Sessions highlights that this uniformity was interfered with not by legislators or public votes, however by the actions of judges, whom he describes as "unelected". This usage of "unelected" recommends a critique of judicial advocacy, in which judges make rulings that, according to Sessions, modify considerable social standards and legal meanings without the direct input of the populace or their chosen agents. His statement is likely an action to landmark judicial decisions, such as the U.S. Supreme Court's judgment in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

His concern appears to come from a belief in the primacy of chosen legislative bodies over unelected judiciary members when it comes to making or changing laws, especially those related to fundamental social structures like marriage. This raises questions about the function and power of various branches of federal government in forming social policy and highlights a tension in between traditional conservative views and progressive legal interpretations.

In essence, Sessions is advocating for a democracy-driven technique to specifying marriage, recommending that such fundamental changes must emerge from democratic processes instead of judicial mandates. This quote encapsulates a significant argument in American politics about the balance of power in between legal action and judicial review, and the role of each in a democratic society.