This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.
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.
whereIstand admin
724 Opinions
73 Followers
Set as news: False
Set as news: True
whereIstand member
This is a good issue.
250 Opinions
10 Followers
Okay. This is a bit redundant, given the other questions about same-sex marriage. But it does get the Constitution and even federalism out of the issue.
353 Opinions
3 Followers
i don't want to muddy the waters. adding "legally" still gives public figures an out. i want to know if people believe marriage should be for men and women only ... period.
Very good. Pin the tail on the McCain. You're sneaky Jacki...
whereIstand editor
606 Opinions
Sounds good to me. "Legally defined?"
We sometimes have trouble pinning public figures down on this one bc they say that the states should decide and thus they don't support a federal amendment. let's ask the question this way, shall we? it will help us pin people like mccain down since he supported this measure in az.
You must be signed in to participate on whereIstand.com.
Register now to take stands, follow people and issues, request opinions and interact with other whereIstand members.