Talk:Same-sex marriage in Indiana

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

United States: Indiana Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Indiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

For those who see just anti Same sex union/marriage things in this article and wonder why: I have looked everywhere for possible civil union and same-sex marriage bills being pushed forward by supporters but have found none, there has not even been a poll on public opinion that I have found using google. Indiana seems to be moving closer to a ban rather than the opposite way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to ban

It seems the apparent lack of vocal support for the ban is enough to remove all opposition to the ban under the guise of violating NPOV rules. I have looked for support, but have found very little. It is not uncommon for articles on same-sex marriage votes to include supporters and opponents. I think the removal is unnecessary because it does not take into account the building opposition to the amendment.S51438 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you managed to identify zero proponents does not speak well for your neutrality. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware it is only my responsibility to edit this article. The only notable supporters has already been listed in the paragraph. S51438 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to consider WP:UNDUE here, by adding a big list of those who oppose the ban it distracts the reader to the list. I would be saying the same thing if it were a list of people supporting the ban. Eyecatchers should be avoided here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would a collapsible table of sorts be enough to avoid the violation? S51438 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No because you have to introduce the section somehow and place a header on it. Right now we have the two sides and why they support/oppose it, as far as I can see the section is neutral. I do not see why there needs to be a stacked list placed in the article. It would be like adding "List of people who supported John Wilks Booth" after opinions on how the public thought about him. Those are notable opinions and I am sure interesting to some but it would not make the article neutral anymore from what is already written in it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana DOMA

Any resources on the original debate of the 1986 and 1997 laws that prohibited marriage equality? Any help is welcome, preferably scanned news articles etc? Havin a hard time in my end!--174.28.155.122 (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]