Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

An IP user is trying to add the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community as a tribe with same-sex marriage, but I'm not sure if the law is in effect yet. "Tribal leaders have acknowledged that both of those proposals conflict with state and federal laws, and that they may not be able to implement them." [1] Prcc27 (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Windsor pointed defining marriage to the states. To my knowledge, Michigan is NOT one of the states (Iowa, Kansas, New York, North Dakota and California limited to Agua Caliente Indian Reservation are the ones I'm sure about) wherein the federal government granted the state jurisdiction over tribal criminal and/or civil matters. Their sovereign land, they can technically do what they want as long as it doesn't break federal law. SusunW (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
And now you made me learn something because I was curious about it - State laws (not federal ones) allow states some jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction over criminal and/or civil matters in Alaska, California, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, Montana (only on the Flathead reservation) Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. Specifically, the circuit court for Michigan has ruled that state courts lack jurisdiction on Indian lands located within the state's boundaries, unless the parties are non-Indian. So, as long as both parties are Indian, they can do what they want. SusunW (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@SusunW: I wasn't questioning the sovereignty of the tribe, I was wondering if same-sex marriage is currently legal or in the process of becoming legal. Also, DOMA allows Native American tribes to decide whether or not to allow/ban same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Update table with new population estimates?

Does anyone wish to update the table so it's in line with the latest population numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.159.163.24 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Missouri to the table?

So with Missouri being colored marriage blue on the map per our coloring of Kansas and the state's recognition of licenses issued within it, should we include Missouri in the state table? Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe we should. Kumorifox (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... if we do then we are going to have to put notes for the local compliance cases in Illinois and New Mexico and possibly change the legalization & enactment dates to either reflect the local cases or just leave dates for statewide legalization only. If we leave dates for statewide legalization only (which I think we should) we should probably leave the legalization date blank for Missouri and possibly Kansas as well. But I support adding Missouri to the table so we can be consistent with the United States same-sex marriage map and the Same-sex unions template. Plus, same-sex marriage is far more legal in Missouri than it is in Kansas! Prcc27 (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure either way, but if MO is added, it should be placed based on the ruling dating, and thus follow KS. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also add to the Missouri section that the marriages are recognized statewide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.159.163.24 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"Most Americans live in a jurisdiction where same-sex couples can legally marry."

I deleted this line. Not only was it not sourced but plays down the situation of the people who do not live in states that offer them legal protection.

Material doesn't need to have a reference in the introductory section of an article if it is summarizing material from the body of the article, which this is - later we establish that such states cover 66% of the population. I don't see how it isn't part of an accurate summary of the current situation. As such, I have undone your edit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Then why not use the actual number or just say that approximately 35% of Americans live in states which offer no legal protections? (Some sources list the figure at 64% instead of 65%.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.155.36 (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It's one more piece of data that would need to be kept up, we don't have all the data on tribal jurisdictions so we have trouble being precise, it would get into every argument of whether we count whichever-state-is-in-flux. And especially the "offers no legal protection" statement would get into a lot of argumentation over what counts as "protections" as well as what counts as "no" (i.e., a state that just allows the spouse's name on a death certificate, for example.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Tribal law

I have been working on the Tribal Marriage page. I think the number of tribes that allow marriages needs to increase by two tribes. 1) The Blackfeet Tribe does not have its own marriage code. It follows the state law of Montana, thus by default is legal. 2) Same situation holds for the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, except it follows Arizona law. SusunW (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

But are they acting as their own jurisdiction in such matters, or are they just acting as agents of the states in these cases? If they aren't acting as their own jurisdictions, then we'd have to look carefully at how we phrase it; it would be like saying that SSM is legal in Los Angeles, when it's just part of California law. (Sorry, pilpul, I know.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I learned a new word! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Just as in all the marriage cases, there are two issues, performance and recognition. The code specifically states this, "All members of the Blackfeet Indian Tribe shall hereafter be governed by State Law and subject to State Jurisdiction with respect to marriage hereafter consummated. Common-law marriages and Indian Customs marriage shall not be recognized within the Blackfeet Reservation." Thus they recognize in their jurisdiction (the Blackfoot reservation) marriages lawfully performed in Montana. Whether or not the Montana Code allows marriages to be performed on the Blackfoot reservation is a separate issue.
The Yavapai situation is similar as their code states "all marriages in the future shall be in accordance with state laws" and provides, that "state marriage licenses may be secured at the office of the clerk of each county court," BUT must be recorded "within thirty (30) days with the Yavapai Agency and community court." In any case, the marriages are recognized, though may or may not be performed there depending on Arizona law.SusunW (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community would be another that should be added in this same "recognition" category. Their code is almost identical to that of the Yavapai. The singular difference that I see is that there is a specific section which says "Judges of the Community court may solemnize marriages between persons authorized to marry." Whether or not they are performing marriages is unknown, but they recognize by filing them, marriages performed in the State of Arizona jurisdictions. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A 4th add in tribal recognition would be Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes of the Fort McDermitt Indian Reservation. Their reservation is split into parts of Nevada and parts of Oregon, but their marriage statute states that as of 13 September, 1988 tribal marriages follow the laws of either Nevada or Oregon, whichever state it occurred in. As both have marriage equality, the tribe would as well. Like the Yavapai and Salt River Pima-Maricopa, the code does require that licenses be registered with the tribe.

I do not know if these warrant their own section, Tribes that follow state marriage statues ?, or not. SusunW (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please not a section for this small amount of info. Just add to Tribal law I think. Even a sentence that described these complications without specifics and then linked to the details would suffice, IMO. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I have added them and the references. Am not sure how to make the footnotes into the format like the ones on the rest of this page, but if that needs to be corrected, feel free to adjust. Just barely learning how to use Wikipedia. Research I do. Formatting, not so much. Appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What ties the data to the blue chart in the top right corner of both pages stating "Legal status of same-sex relationships"? I changed the number of tribes to 15 in the header topic and in the section on tribal marriages, but the chart still says 11. SusunW (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll explain on your Talk page. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Another tribe that follows state law: Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa domestic code states that it follows the law of Wisconsin. Added them to tribal jurisdictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs) 20:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

How many different tribes exist in the US? It looks like a major undertaking to research them all, and I don't even know how big a task this is. Kudos to you for your work, in any case! Kumorifox (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

566 legal entities recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I have checked every single one on the list. Not all have separate law codes, some have codes that are only available to tribal members, and I suspect a bunch more follow state marriage law statues, but cannot prove that. When public law 280 was passed, it created a jurisdictional nightmare. The federal government claimed that the law did not removal tribal jurisdiction and transfer tribal civil and criminal jurisdiction to the states, but some states and certainly some tribes thought that it did. http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/47/jimenez.cfm Then there was the termination program that began in the 1940s. From 1953-1964 109 tribes were terminated (the bulk of them in Oregon 61 and California 41). In the 1970s Nixon rejected further terminations and started a policy toward reversing some of them. The Menominee was the first restored tribe in 1973 and that reversal program continues to the present day. Seems logical that in the ensuing years, the previously terminated tribes used state law, and unless a marriage statute exists, probably still do, but the rub is where is the proof? So...it's complicated but I am continuing to work on it. :) SusunW (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

In the Tribal Law section, the colon (:) between "Some tribes have passed legislation specifically addressing same-sex relationships and some tribes specify that state law and jurisdiction govern tribal marriages" and the list of tribes and nations was removed recently. This changes the meaning (specifically, makes it unclear what the list of tribes is about). I'm not sure if the colon was removed intentionally but if so, what is that list of tribes about? As it's currently written, I'm confused. -kotra (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I added a sentence at the end clarifying the list of tribe names. Kumorifox (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! -kotra (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Anticipating Florida

Given various claims being made about what the preliminary injunction in Brenner v. Scott does and does not cover, I thought I'd put a few quotes here from the text of Judge Hinkle's order.

"The defendant Secretary of the Florida Department of Management Services and the defendant Florida Surgeon General must take no steps to enforce or apply these Florida provisions on same-sex marriage: Florida Constitution, Article I, § 27; Florida Statutes § 741.212; and Florida Statutes § 741.04(1)." Included in this along with the two officials are "their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys".
"The defendant Clerk of Court of Washington County, Florida, must issue a marriage license to Stephen Schlairet and Ozzie Russ." Included in this along with the clerk are "his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys".

As I read the text, it covers two state departments and orders one clerk to issue one license. When Hinkle explains why certain officials are properly being sued he explains that the "Secretary [of the Florida Department of Management Services] administers the retirement and healthcare provisions that apply to current and former state employees." The Surgeon General is responsible for the state's death certificate form. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, this looks like another Kansas-style battle then, especially since the state defence attorneys already stated they will use the "No party, no ruling applies" defence. They take "Ius vigilantibus scriptum est" very literally. I don't like it, but it's their job, after all. Kumorifox (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: The Supreme Court has refused to stay the decision. This allows the Wikipedia community here ample time to avoid edit warring like that over Kansas. S51438 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute everyone. The decision states "All claims against the defendant Governor and Attorney General are dismissed without prejudice as redundant." If a ruling against the Governor would have been redundant, does this mean it applies statewide? S51438 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That's the tricky part: the injunction does not say in the orders that the bans are struck. It states so in the conclusions, but the orders are just for the plaintiffs, until there is a final injunction (like in Marie, with a preliminary injunction, the case itself is not finished). So it looks like it won't be state-wide just yet (from my limited knowledge of law and precedence in Kansas). Kumorifox (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No it does not "apply statewide". Rulings don't apply. The Gov got off because the specific claims were addressed by orders to 2 state officials. Remember that a ruling does not apply to anything. It's the rationale for what follows. It's the order that applies to people or agencies. The order to those two state officials applies to all their acts (which you may call statewide). But the order about giving out a marriage license applies in a very limited fashion. You may find the legal opinion provided to the Court Clerks Association here useful. Also worth remembering that the clerks are not under the governor's authority. They're in the judicial branch. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's also keep in mind that it is a crime in Florida for a clerk to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. A unique Florida feature! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. Arkansas also has a statute prohibiting clerks from issuing licenses to same-sex couples. It was struck the first time, but is still subject to the stay. Kumorifox (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Note the difference between "prohibit" and "crime". According to the legal opinion above, only FL makes it a crime. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Pam Bondi has responded declaring the state will seek "uniformity". Same-sex marriage in every county? S51438 (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Her statement says "It has always been our goal to have uniformity". That just repeats her argument for the stay. More likely a complaint that the wrongheaded Supreme Court is now introducing disparity than a flip on her part, even though only two dissents sends a message even she should get. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And now the clarification process begins. While some wonder if Hinkle's order applies statewide, the key Washington County clerk asks the first question: do have to issue just one marriage license as your order says or start issuing them to all same-sex couples? ????

This is great. Now Hinkle wants the Secretary of the Department of Management to say how he understands the order and, critically, it better match what he said when asking Circuit and Supremes for a stay! In those I think the Sec says that all Washington Co marriages are affected, not just one, but not other counties, and that FL would have to recognize out-of-state SSMs for certain purposes as well, like state retirement system. He (the state) also argued the importance of uniformity. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait patiently until the 29th and see how it plays out. It is the Sec's job to respond, then Judge Hinkle will have to clarify his ruling completely, right? Kumorifox (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

At the very worst Florida should be included but with an asterisk. The ruling applies statewide, and it's only the fault of the clerk's firm as to why there is the confusion that exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.159.163.24 (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The only same-sex marriage that is required to be issued as a result of the ruling is the plantiffs'. Every other same-sex marriage depends on whether or not a county decides to issue licenses to other same-sex couples. Nonetheless, even though clerks are allowed to issue same-sex marriages, same-sex marriage isn't going to be legal or recognized. [3] Prcc27 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
There may not be a mandate ordering the other clerks to issue marriage licenses, but they are not stupid enough to refuse. Doing so would tie them up in expensive litigation. They wouldn't want to go bankrupt, I would presume. Same-sex marriages would be legal and recognized because the administrative arm of the state government, as well as any others "in active concert or participation" with it, is bound by the order requiring it not to enforce any of the bans on same-sex marriage recognition. Teammm talk
email 02:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that Florida is a done deal, the map for "State laws regarding same-sex marriage in the United States" needs to be turned dark blue, to match the table of states where marriage is legal above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.143.13 (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

One extra state

With the Florida ruling multiple reliable sources are saying that it is the 36th state to allow Same sex-marriage. [4]. So my question is why do we already have 36 states in the table that allow SSM? I understand that some here want to go by what they know about the legal system but isn't this WP:OR without any published fact? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I also want to point out this map as a possible reference (Minus the recent Florida ruling). [5] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to explain your addition of the "dubious" tag, you need to do that explicitly here on Talk. Your comments above about a miscount don't address the issue. You might also modify your dubious tag with the parameter for the proper location on this very long talk page. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel it is a bit redundant seeing this in the lead "In the United States, same-sex marriages are recognized by the U.S. federal government and are legal in 36 U.S. states" the footnote below in the references mentions 36 states with a reliable source attached with no mention of Missouri. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Look up the meaning of redundant when you have a moment. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay not the best choice of a word but seeing that the info is already presented in the article's lead section I would think that the table would match what the sources say to avoid WP:OR. I have removed Missouri as I don't see any mention of it in the sources and we should try to be consistent here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Kansas footnote

For discussion of the Kansas footnote that reads

Only select jurisdictions within Kansas issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples; same-sex marriage is not recognized by the state government."

see File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Kansas_footnote Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Missouri's footnote

Discussion for Missouri's footnote (Same-sex marriages are licensed in three jurisdictions in Missouri, but is only legal in St. Louis. All legal same-sex marriages are recognized by the state government. The state's same-sex marriage ban was overturned but the decision is stayed indefinitely.) is here. Prcc27 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Missouri's Status

In the opening paragraph of the page, it mentions that same-sex marriages are licensed in St. Louis (city) legally, as well as St. Louis County and Jackson County with uncertain legality. Under the "State Law" section, it states that the those licenses are legally valid from all three counties. The only source I can find to verify that information is the source listed in the "state law" section here. Is that convincing enough evidence to assume licenses from Jackson County are valid, where the District Court's decision is stayed? Or for St. Louis County where there is no court ruling, but they are citing the ruling affecting only the city of St. Louis? There should be some consistency, and apart from Kansas, Missouri has probably the most complicated case of all 50 states.

  • @Semperferox: That source is not reliable, they claimed that Jackson County was issuing in response to the state court ruling which is untrue. So I wouldn't use that source (and I removed it from the table but must have missed the same exact reference in the "state law" section). AFAIC, those two counties are rogue and the state has not made any announcement stating that same-sex marriages from those counties will be recognized. There is nothing "uncertain" about the legality of same-sex marriage in those two counties; same-sex marriage is illegal in those counties and AFAIK unrecognized! Prcc27 (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Need for explanation between the 36 in "Intro" and 35 in "State Law"

Here's list A = {117, 367, 86, 347, 286, 339, 325, 347, 25, 357, 169, 193, 205, 71, 71, 256, 309, 32, 230, 308, 280, 411, 430, 399, 391, 365, 288, 410, 2, 268, 124, 223, 465, 189, 426, 194}, and here's list B = {117, 367, 86, 347, 286, 339, 325, 347, 25, 357, 169, 193, 205, 71, 71, 256, 309, 32, 230, 308, 280, 411, 430, 399, 391, 365, 288, 410, 2, 268, 223, 465, 189, 426, 194}. They are in the same order, but one entry is missing in B. How fast can any of us tell the difference, without an entry-by-entry comparison? (Unless you known in advance what's missing.) That's why I gave a short, one-sentence explanation for the missing state in the section "State Law", for the new reader's convenience. Titus III (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, Titus III added this sentence to the "State law" section:
"(The lead paragraph counts Kansas, thus has a total of 36 states.)"
I don't disagree with his/her point. But it's a horrible way to do it and discussion here might have been useful. To be consistent, under "State law" I would say 36 and include Kansas in the list and follow the list with an immediate comment that the inclusion of Kansas in this list is problematic because.... Then the later paragraph that now discusses KS and MO becomes all about MO. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As a temporary repair, I've changed Titus III's parenthetical remark to this:
If Kansas–where the legal situation is not uniform–is included, the number of states in which same-sex marriage is legal is 36.
Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It's "his". :) Anyway, I've already raised the question of consistency a month ago ("Sigh, 34 or 35 states?") and, up to now, there seem to be no consensus on whether the two sections ("Intro" and "State Law") need to cite the same number. However, one compromise would be to explicitly mention the non-common state in "State Law". Rationale: Some student/media/layperson would come across this article and may ask, "Q: Hey, why does the start mention 36 states, and this section 35 states?" Instant answer: Kansas. It's not easy to prove ANY two LONG lists A and B (see numbers above) are identical except for a few entries, without going through each entry. Why let many readers repeat the process many times, when one editor can do it once and be done with it? P.S. Your repair is adequate. It also answers Q. Titus III (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
But really hard to justify 2 different numbers. Better to have 36 with a caveat to follow. Than just 35. That matches 36 at the top. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Kansas should not be included in the "State law" section since that paragraph is for states that license and recognize same-sex marriages. If anything Missouri would fit more than Kansas. Kansas doesn't recognize in-state same-sex marriages and the ban on recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages was never struck down (Section 23-2508). Prcc27 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Then the text should be modified to match the opening paragraph and make whatever distinctions are necessary with respect to KS and MO. Conflicting counts that are not clearly explained don't help the reader if we don't underline the distinction between recognition and licensing. Distinctions need to be absolutely clear. I'll give it a shot later. It's one thing to track the details, but we have to do a better job at communicating them. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
My deeper problem is what the first sentence of the entire entry says: "same-sex marriages ... are legal in 36 states". That's true only if "legal" means you can get a license, which is a cramped definition of legal to me. I'd prefer that be much more precise: "marriages licenses ... are available to same-sex couples in 36 states". But whatever. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Mistakes in map

There is a map near "In litigation" section - Litigation against same-sex marriage bans in the United States. So the there are some mistakes - red color is for "Current litigation in Supreme Court of the US, or petitioned for certiorari". But we forgot on thing - in Ohio and Tennessee there is NO case agains SSM ban, but there are cases to recognize out of state SSMs. So theses are different kind of questios. Hence, the colors for Ohio and Tennessee and colors for Michigan and Kentucky should be different. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Should Missouri be removed from the table of states where same sex marriage is legal?

There is currently a dichotomy between the number of states where same sex marriage is legal (36) and the number of states listed in the table (37). This is due to the addition of Missouri to the table. Since the table is "States that license same-sex marriage" and the explanatory note says: "This table shows only states that license same-sex marriages or have legalized it. It does not include states that recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions but do not license them" I believe Missouri should be removed from the list until a ruling covering the whole state is put into effect.

Shoeless Ho (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep If we include Kansas on the basis that a judge ruled the ban invalid yet only select counties are issuing, then we need to include Missouri, where a judge ruled the ban invalid and select counties are issuing. I would update the number of states to 37 in the article. Kumorifox (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarification for my opinion: the order in Missouri v. Florida explicitly states that "Section 451.022 RSMo and Article I, Section 33 of the Missouri Constitution are unconstitutional", therefore, the judge declared the ban unconstitutional, just like what happened in Kansas in Marie v. Moser (or whatever it is named these days). So whatever way we treat Kansas, we have to treat Missouri. Kumorifox (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The difference between Kansas and Missouri is that the state judge only has jurisdiction over St. Louis and the ruling is only binding there, but the judge in Kansas has jurisdiction over the entire state but the ruling is only binding on the defendants. Prcc27 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Still doesn't matter. If the KS ruling is only binding on the defendants, regardless of whether the judge has jurisdiction over the entire state, then KS shouldn't be included at all as the state itself was not a defendant; only specific people were named defendants, and plenty of people not named are therefore not bound by the ruling, ergo, SSM is not legal state-wide in KS. Kumorifox (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Remove --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Remove I don't see the similarities vis a vis Kansas. Different points of law and one is state court and the other is federal. Every news source I've seen counts Florida as the 36th state. Also, why is it in the other table too? Shoeless Ho (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Remove or create a new Table for Missouri (States where SSM legal partially). M.Karelin (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Remove and remove Kansas while you're at it.Czolgolz (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Remove Missouri but retain Kansas where it is legal statewide (despite that the administration is breaking the law). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not legal statewide in Kansas and as we've seen with many injunctions in the past, they only applied to the plaintiffs and defendants in the case Indiana, Ohio (death certificates), Illinois, and the judge in Florida said that the preliminary injunction only applied to Washington County but left it to the other counties to decide at their own discretion. Just because many states in the past decided to comply with preliminary injunctions doesn't mean Kansas is in the wrong for not complying with it. If it were a class action lawsuit like Virginia's case or Georgia's case it would be a different story; but a preliminary injunction only grants the plaintiffs relief! Prcc27 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
If we're going to remove Missouri then I think we should remove Kansas as well since same-sex marriage is not legal statewide there. But if Kansas remains on the table, I don't see a problem with keeping Missouri since Florida is being counted as the 37th state with same-sex marriage either statewide or in some counties [8]. BTW, KS & MO already have notes that same-sex marriage legality is "partial". We could possibly keep both states on the table and remove them (or Missouri) from the population total and/or remove their number in the table (like we do with D.C.). Anyways, if Kansas stays then I think we should keep Missouri. Prcc27 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
For Kansas, it's legal statewide, it is just that administration and the clerks in ~20% (by population) of the state are breaking the law. This is a table of laws, and Kansas' federal case law says SSM is permitted regardless what the anti-SSM administration/clerks say. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Remove As OP stated. Probably should remove Kansas as well. Gaming4JC (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Remove along with Kansas and create a new "legal in part" category. The current status is misleading. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I also support a partial legal table with Kansas and Missouri Kumorifox (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Remove I say to remove Missouri but retain Kansas. Kansas might continue to fight until February or more depending on the federal judge and remember 56 counties with 80% have ssm which is a clear majority compare to only 3 counties of Missouri.If not make a table special for Kansas and Missouri.--Allan120102 (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The number of counties issuing is totally irrelevant! Regardless, both states don't have statewide same-sex marriage so it would be inconsistent and confusing to the reader to include one while removing the other. A special table for the two states would work. Prcc27 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. It does not matter how many counties are issuing or what percentage of the population lives in them. If we want to report a fact, it has to be accurate. Kumorifox (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Remove. I do not think Missouri belongs there, but Kansas does. Missouri is not legal state-wide by any ruling, so it does not belong there. As for Kansas to stay, a judge did declare for the entire state of Kansas that its ban is unconstitutional. The administration is breaking the law and is essentially following the hypothetical scenario that the federal judge in Florida warned of, but fortunately didn't happen there. I would expect that Kansas will have more lawsuits filed against in for not following the law. Looks like we are in pretty good agreement to remove it, and I agree to make a separate chart for it. Who is up to do it? Gabe (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Brainboy109: I'd say we're not in "pretty good agreement" to remove Missouri only. A lot of us would like to remove both MO & KS. Please note that both states are already marked as "partial" states in the table so if we create a partial legality table, both states should be included. Furthermore, I think it's a little WP:POV to say the state is "breaking the law" when the ruling isn't binding on them. BTW, I know the table doesn't care about recognition but recognition is still banned in Kansas; the judge did not strike down the ban on recognition (Section 23-2508). Prcc27 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27: Yes, I went back and read through the ruling and can see why the state and other state officials, such as Governor Brownback, are not recognizing the licenses. And I can see how his ruling can easily be read to only be binding on a narrow list of defendants, and not the entire state or all county clerks. Well, the decision to keep Missouri and/or Kansas in the chart I will now say I am now impartial on. Gabe (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Update By my count, if I understand everyone's responses (some people fine tuned their initial replies), I see 6 votes for remove Missouri, 4 votes for remove Missouri AND Kansas, and 2 votes for Keep Missouri. It seems pretty clear (10 votes) that people want to remove Missouri. A pretty solid minority of responders (33%) want to remove Kansas as well. Does that qualify as 'rough consensus' per wikipedia policy? Thoughts on removing Missouri and doing another RFC vis a vis Kansas? Shoeless Ho (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If people are that intent on removing MO, then I'm saying remove KS as well. If, as one user pointed out above, the injunction in KS is binding only on the defendants, then the state itself does not have legal marriage, as the state or its equivalent was not among the defendants, only some of the state officials. Kumorifox (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Although RS are pretty clear cut that that is an erroneous interpretation of Kansas based on the Attorney General's deliberate obsfucation. Missouri should go, though. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dralwik: Why? Just because it was not a federal judge in Missouri? Kumorifox (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Missouri doesn't have an active ruling of state-wide jurisdiction, whereas Kansas does. The Kansas government is barring state-wide implementation, but at least we have a ruling in Kansas akin to Montana, South Carolina, etc. I am split on jettisoning Kansas from the list since the state legislature link at the top counts Kansas, but Missouri is too uncertain to include. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
That's map talk :-) And I agree to a certain extent, but Kansas is also misleading as the marriages there (according to the state, at least) are technically not in existence. If KS is recoloured or even striped, I'd agree to a non-dark blue Missouri. As for the table, if the KS government is limiting implementation whereas the MO government is not but the state is not fully bound by the judgement of the district court, I still say include both of them, or else make a new table or subsection for states with partial implementation, whether by choice (KS) or by legal position (MO). We can't very well say "The KS government are being stubborn" in a side note to show the discrepancy (like someone else pointed out), so let's make it abundantly clear in the table. Kumorifox (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I can get behind that. I mostly wanted to chime in against this idea that the ruling in Kansas was somehow less legally effective than the ones in Florida or Wisconsin or (etc.) I've reworded the post to be chart-specific. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and based on the consensus here and the significant time that has elapsed, I've split Kansas and Missouri into their own table. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! This looks much more acceptable now (to me, at least). Kumorifox (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

New tactics in Kansas

The three newest defendants in Marie v. Moser (Nick Jordan, Lisa Kaspar, and Mike Michael) have filed a motion to dismiss. Oddly, the motion is partially based on DOMA section 3 (of all things). The rest is based on the 11th Amendment, which (by my knowledge) the judge already precluded as a defence in his preliminary injunction. See here for the motion. Is this worthy of mentioning in the article (even if just for the sheer amount of ridiculous that this motion contains)? Kumorifox (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. But this is not a chat room. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I know it is not. I apologise for the writing style as if it was a chat room, but I wasn't sure whether or not this should be entered into the article, hence why I placed this on the talk page first. Kumorifox (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Even the filing of this brief is more detail than this entry requires. I noted the use of DOMA on Marie v. Moser. And I have to believe it's all a typo and they meant DOMA section two. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll know for the future now :-) Kumorifox (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Map Updates

Not a correction, just an acknowledgment of the hard work on the part of whoever keeps the map of same-sex marriage status up to date. I'm extremely impressed by your efforts to keep this current as I come back to the article to read about the changing legal landscape. Lots of appreciation to the editors who make it happen. 209.6.37.213 (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Alabama

@Kumorifox: You shouldn't revert me because of a discussion on another page. This needs to be discussed here, and a reliable source needs to be provided! The Human Rights Campaign still counts Alabama as a same-sex marriage ban state (but IMHO the Human Rights Campaign aren't a reliable source...) [9] Prcc27 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen someone adding them as a state that issues licenses, which is not true as best as I can tell. Today's ruling was not on the issuing of a license, it was on the recognition of an out-of-state marriage. There looks to be plans to appeal, this may well get stayed, and there I see no sign that Alabama currently intends to actually issue licenses. Does anyone have any source to contradict that? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Both the recognition and issuance provisions were struck by the judge. I believe the ruling came down after county clerks' offices in the state closed, and I think they'll stay closed until Monday, the next business day, although Reuters says some could be open tomorrow: [10] In short, yes, I have sources: [11] [12] [13] -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I look at all those sources, and I see no statement from the state that they actually plan to issue said licenses. I do see statements that they are asking for a stay. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
States don't issue licenses. Counties issue licenses. Furthermore, reliable sources are reporting that unless a stay is issued, couples are set to be licensed as soon as tomorrow. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please wait until Monday to see what really happens before changing anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.159.163.24 (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is precisely the reason so many of us have stopped even trying to edit Wikipedia. All these absurd attacks, all this exploitation of reasonable structures and guidelines to push an agenda, goodness! Instead of making absurd claims, one need only read what the judge actually wrote. It doesn't matter whether Alabama is appealing, it doesn't matter what a non-governmental body of probate judges said - all that matter is that now, right this moment, the decision was not stayed and Alabama is an equal-marriage rights state, both for those who wish to marry in the state and for those who are legally married in another jurisdiction. Of course they're fighting it tooth and nail. But then, so are the conservative Christians editing here. With the exact same invalid arguments. People waging these nonsensical discussions are doing nothing good for Wikipedia in the end. This is not under contention. Again, this is precisely what is costing Wikipedia good editors. Not that I was ever that good. I'm gone, how many others have left? Oh, right, one could look that up here, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.193.128 (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a rather odd set of assumptions. I'm the person raising a concern about claiming that Alabama issues licenses, and I'm neither conservative nor Christian, nor, as I suspect your underlying assumption is, an opponent of legalization of same-sex marriage. I am a person, however, who has seen no sign yet that Alabama has issued any licenses or has announced plans of implementing what the judge has demanded - usually by now we've seen some high government official discussing how the change is being handled. I see an Alabama judges group saying that the order does not require the issuing of such licenses. We are in a time where state governments seem ever happier to at least make noises that they are going to defy the federal government - admittedly, Alabama is not Arizona when it comes to such things. It does actually kinda matter whether Alabama thinks Alabama is a equal-marriage-rights state. I would be very happy to see that licenses are being issued on Monday, but not very surprised to see it not happen. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Some perspective as history repeats itself in some measure: Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia April 10, 1967. A probate judge in Calhoun County, Alabama, refused a marriage license to an interracial couple (one of them an Army Sgt.) on November 10, 1970. The Nixon administration (AG John Mitchell!) sued the judge and won in U.S. Dist Ct. Northern AL, United States v. Brittain, December 8, 1970. That court ordered "the Attorney General of the State of Alabama to advise the Judges of Probate of the several counties of Alabama of the invalidity" of the state's anti-miscegenation statute. That's the case the plaintiffs cited at length today. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't Alabama go from the marriage table to the stay table...? Prcc27 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It's there now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If things keep heating up in Alabama, we are going to need a new color for Sedition

Kansas is already there. Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This article may be too long

This article is likely to shrink substantially by late June. We can expect the litigation section to disappear. And not all that much should happen in the meantime, though Alabama has been a surprise. I wouldn't worry much about length. In the meantime, if it's quiet, I try some trimming on a case by case basis. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be valuable to preserve much of the detail as a "History of same-sex marriage in the United States" article. 209.6.114.98 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Soon or late (I guess maximum in 6 months) this article will be much-much shorter (after all litigations will over). So lets just wait half year. M.Karelin (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree this is getting too long. There is no need to wait until after the Supreme Court rules, some of the information here is excess and can be found on their respective sub-articles. I will do trimming as I see appropriate. Like do we really need the 3rd paragraph in the intro? That is rather outdated from when rulings were all stayed except for single exceptions. Can we delete that? Gabe (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree to deleting the 3rd paragraph. Not worth mentioning in this entry's summary. I'd also remove the long outdated "Public Opinion" section, leaving just the pointer to the entry that covers the subject properly. Objections? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I would offer to make shorter the paragraph about Alabama in "January" (2015) section. It is too long. M.Karelin (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I shortened the Alabama graf. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Do we really need all the info about litigation and the cases? We already have Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States, Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state, and Timeline of same-sex marriage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
And Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States. There is no reason for the extensive history - specifically in the past two years. S51438 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Not on this page. It might be helpful to have a Litigation of same-sex marriage in the United States page, but then again, that would necessarily duplicate quite a bit of material from Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised by some of these statements. There is no duplication whatsoever between the litigation section of this entry and the entry for Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state. Litigation on the one hand and the content or former content of statutes and constitutions on the other. No overlap whatsoever. One may be more or less interested in one subject or the other, but I just don't get the idea of duplication at all.
Nor does Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States cover the litigation terrain well. It has a section called "Lawsuits seeking to overturn statutory bans" which I don't think makes sense in an entry about legislation, is labelled confusing, and is far far from comprehensive. As for the timeline, as I explain below it is limited in what it tries to accomplish precisely because it's a timeline.
Finally, there's no where else on WP you can get a snapshot of the current state of litigation across courts and states. It's possible the litigation section could be its own WP entry, but since it's due to shrink over time anyway--unless everyone is mistake about what the spring will bring--I don't see that as vital. I think what we have now under Litigation is actually superior to most other sources you'll find on the web, which usually require you to look up a state, while here we have tried--using headings, and bold text, and indents--to make it easy to get an overview of material that is otherwise scattered across WP entries for specific cases, or Same-sex marriage in XXX, or LGBT rights in XXX. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree in keeping the litigation here, as creating a separate page for it would be far too temporary. But with that, we should shorten excess information under each case. We should simply say how it was ruled, if there is an appeal, and other simple details. Indepth details can be read on other pages, like if the case has its own page or Same-sex marriage page for that state, etc. I shorted a couple already. Those are taking up a large part of the page that can easily be shortened. Gabe (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

History section

I have just tagged the section as not properly summarizing the main timeline article. What we should do is condense the section into an overall summary of SSM in the USA that leads into rather than duplicating the main article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you've completely misunderstood the relationship between the Timeline and this narrative. The timeline has only major events and covers them in very succinct statements with just the minimum detail necessary. The narrative, on the other hand, is the place where we provide the detail and a far larger number of events. The narrative isn't summarizing the timeline at all. It's expanding on the timeline.
That in fact is why the cross-reference to the Timeline at the start of the narrative is
See also: Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States
and not
Main article: Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States
. And the tag that complains that the narrative duplicates info found elsewhere is similarly ill-advised. Of course it duplicates...and expands and elaborates...for people who want more than a timeline, which is by its very nature a terse treatment of historical info. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The narrative shouldn't expand on the timeline, the history section should be a summary not in format that is in prose and not a on such and such date X occurred in every sentence/paragraph. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It needs re-writing for sure. But first we need to get facts in sequence. The rest of what you say I don't understand. The whole point of a timeline is to be a bullet-point-like summation while a comparable prose treatment could allow for quotes and comments from participants assessing the state of SSM developments at various points, etc.
Maybe you just want a summary version of the history of SSM in the U.S. here? Like an executive summary in a few paragraphs? That would work here, but I'd want to see it cross-ref'd to
Main article: History of same-sex marriage in the United States
. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that's fine. The goal here is condensing and removing a lot of the extraneous details to daughter articles, because this page is enormous and doesn't really work well as a concise summary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Done.Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Michigan window marriages

The ruling in Caspar v. Snyder was dated January 15 and stayed for 21 days. Snyder sought no further stay from any court and announced the state would not appeal on February 4, which just happened to be day 21. So the preliminary injunction took effect on schedule. All the reports of Snyder's statement took the form "Michigan will recognize" but that clearly meant "will now recognize". There was no suggestion of delay or wiggle room. What more do we need? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States/Archive_12&oldid=1137171602"