Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman?

Yes
No
Resources for this issue
Reviews of this issue

This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.

Do not use this page to take a stand on this issue.

This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.

7/8/2008 12:55:47 PM

Set as news: False

6/20/2008 10:44:30 AM

Set as news: True

6/20/2008 10:11:53 AM

Set as news: True

6/18/2008 4:27:05 PM

Set as news: True

6/3/2008 2:58:59 PM

Set as news: True

4/25/2005 9:54:23 PM

Issue prior to edits:

Should the Constitution be amended to exclude same-sex marriage?
Yes
No

4/25/2005 6:58:27 PM

Either wording is fine, the political implications will no doubt arise in the blogging section.

4/24/2005 10:53:48 PM

Egh, maybe this one should be changed to "Should the Constitution be amended to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman?" Because that, after all, is the arguement. The arguement is not, "should the constitution be amended to exclude a minority group?" The best route here might be to say what would happen objectively, and then go from there.

4/24/2005 5:50:34 PM

Issue prior to edits:

Should the Constitution be amended to exclude same-sex marriage?
Yes

4/24/2005 5:50:27 PM

I think the wording is fine. Exclusion is a good way of putting it, rather than saying that an amendment would define marriage as between a man and a woman. Politically, it is about excluding a minority group.

4/22/2005 8:32:56 PM

Absolutely not.

Wait.

Why is the (secular) government in the business of marriage, an altogether traditionally religious institution? Before secularism, no polity performed a marriage.

Civil Unions are swell. A marriage is a civil union, in the way a square is a rectangle (does that allusion reach everyone okay?), like a subtopic of civil union.

In a free society, how can anyone but the self define how they live, what their family / kinship structure should be? The rights afforded couples in marriage, should be afforded individuals.

This is Andy D.