Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not STATES, but JURISDICTIONS

[edit]

The DC act recognizes SSM performed in other "jurisdictions", not just states. All the press on this says other states only. I corrected the article.

Why is "jurisdictions" in quotation marks in the article? It seems unnecessary.

Question

[edit]

Do we need a separate page for each state concerning DP? How about Domestic partnership by US state? - tdempsey 17:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Needed

[edit]

Expansion of this is needed as the rights have expanded. I'll do it later when I have more time, but here is a possible source [1] jtowns 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SSM

[edit]

Shouldn't this page be renamed to "Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the District of Columbia" or something like that to include the recent decision to recognize out-of-District SSM? The SSM sidebar also needs to be edited accordingly. Unfortunately my technical Wikipedia skills are not up to the task. Elliotreed (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes & Done. Fortuynist (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

[edit]

Could anybody change title of article to Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia? Ron 1987 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can request a change, but I think it's best to rename the article when the thing has passed the "review". Hekerui (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't change the title... it's perfectly accurate. The article also discusses domestic partnerships (which are still in force) and the entire history of same-sex unions, not just marriage. Best, epicAdam(talk) 17:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the title should be changed per all the other articles where ssm has been legalised. The bill now also seems certain to pass its review period. MaesterTonberry (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree per the reasons I stated above. -epicAdam(talk) 23:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the reason stated by MaesterTonberry. Ron 1987 (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose D.C. kept domestic partnerships and considers them not a mere stepping stone, so per epicAdam Hekerui (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; failing that, we may want to spin this into two articles. It seems clear marriage is the predominant situation. Domestic partnership is not same-sex specific, and may warrant an article on its own merits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, perhaps with split. I believe there is a signficant advantage in WP usability to having a consistent titling for articles on the subject. --Joe Decker (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of a split. The article on domestic partnerships would have virtually the same information as an article on same-sex marriage. The fact that DC began allowing domestic partnerships so far back is a significant component of the history of same-sex marriage in the District. Change the article title if you absolutely must, but I would vehemently oppose any split. Best, epicAdam(talk) 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was imaginging a split in which there would not be "virtually the same information", by analogy with the sort of split that exists in the equivalent articles for the California institutions. I'd certainly have absolutely no interest in splitting into two mostly-identical articles, and the whether-or-not-to-split decision would be best made on the basis of what information made sense to include in any putative split. (One additional thing comes to mind, and I don't pretend to have a solution to this, but neither the current title nor the old title does particular justice to the fact that DP in DC is equally open to opposite-sex couples, and always has been, if one were to (and again, I don't have a strong preference) split off domestic partnerships from marriage as articles about DC, I don't think it would be necessary to make the domestic partnership article's title include a term like same-sex, as I understand it the DC DP has always been an equal institution. The marriage article in such a hypothetical split could focus it's history coverage on the specific "marriage" thing.) Dunno. --Joe Decker (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with Domestic Partnerships having its own article if necessary. Marriage and DPs are fundamentally different from each other. Marriage is a universally recognized institution that's evolving, while Domestic Partnerships are not. Who knows in the future, the DC council might do away with DPs and issue only marriage licenses; DPs would become history. - Native94080 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasons previously given, and I see enough consensus to go ahead and do it. AV3000 (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Opponents of DC Marriage Equality Make Last Ditch Pitch to Supreme Court

[edit]

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/03/opponents-of-dc-marriage-equality-make-last-ditch-pitch-to-supreme-court/
Native94080 (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding something to the article, otherwise this is a forum post. Thanks Hekerui (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

[edit]

"Same-sex marriage" is the wording used as neutral as the article title implies. "Homosexual marriage" is almost never used and also discounts bisexual and transgender people. Hekerui (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of domestic partnerships

[edit]

The article claims that domestic partnerships were finally implemented in 2002 when the rider mentioned was not included in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for the year. I was looking for the date that would have become effective, and went searching for the bills before that to see when they end. However, I found that the rider was still included in both earlier and later bills:

  • October 1, 2000-September 30, 2001: HR 5547, section 124 (passed through HR 4942, section 1) - PL 106-522
  • October 1, 2001-September 30, 2002: HR 2944, section 118 - PL 107-206
  • October 1, 2002-September 30, 2003: n/a
  • October 1, 2003-September 30, 2004: HR 2673, section 416 - PL 108-11
  • October 1, 2004-September 30, 2005: HR 4850, section 313 - PL 108-335

Does this mean that domestic partnerships were only valid from October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003, then invalid after that? There's no mention of that in the article. --ΨΦorg (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Psiphiorg, the restrictions that are included in the laws you found state that no federal funds can be used to implement domestic partnerships. That means that as long as the District uses its own local tax revenue it could implement the program. Hopefully that clears it up. Best, epicAdam(talk) 22:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_District_of_Columbia&oldid=1210192305"