Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Alabama Supreme Court orders marriages to stop

Get the popcorn, the AL Supreme Court just ordered a halt to same-sex marriages: Buzzfeed story and ruling. Order is page 133. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this directly contradict the federal court decision as applied to Mobile County, Alabama? S51438 (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so now we have to wait and see how many counties stop now, and how quickly the Federal District court and/or the Supremes respond. In theory, the state Supreme Court and the Federal Court are independent, so this may require the US Supreme Court to be settled. But at this point, that is merely speculation. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Supreme Court could issue a writ of mandamus, though it is impossible to determine who would ask for one. S51438 (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest reading up on what's in the decision. It has specific things to say about Mobile County, including a question to be answered by Judge Davis of Mobile by Thursday. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the back and forth we had over Alabama the last few months, I would like to suggest everyone hold off on changing status or, indeed, anything, until this is settled. And it will be, soon. Not even the most gay-bashing Christian on the Supreme Court is going to look kindly upon this sort of seditious behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mobile County has stopped issued all marriage licenses for the time being, but agree with waiting to see how things play out before making any changes. Baltimatt (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[1]

Yes, many of these traitors are going to pretend they can ignore the US Constitution. It's just the way it is. It does not change the fact that the US is not a Christian theocracy. I was really frustrated by the way Alabama was handled here the last several weeks. It would be a real shame if people start pretending that sedition by conservative Christians is tantamount to law in the US. We need to wait and see. As of right now, same sex marriage is still law in Alabama and it doesn't matter one whit what the Christian haters think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Get off your soapbox. Wikipedia is not a forum. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to be "that guy", but I have been arguing that we need to be more careful in how we handle Alabama for weeks now. It is clear that same-sex marriage was never accepted by a significant number of Alabama judges, it was never "fully licensed and recognized" throughout the state, and the legal issues were far from resolved. I don't chalk that up to Judge Granade's orders being unclear in any way, simply that the state Supreme Court and a number of probate judges are not prepared to comply with them. As of now, I don't see how we can continue to keep Alabama in the full marriage table, where it never belonged de facto. Hopefully the Southern District (or better yet, a higher court) will step in soon to clear this up, but we need to reflect the facts on the ground right now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that SSM can not be described as legal in Alabama at this point, though there are "window marriages" to consider. Granade's order, as she herself explained, is very limited, and no one is obliged to follow her interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, certainly not the Alabama Supreme Court. This is just how federalism works. There probably isn't a path to resolution any faster than the cases the U.S. Supreme Court already has on its calendar. See also this news article on another AL lawsuit:

Randall Marshall, legal director for the ACLU of Alabama, said a new lawsuit brought outside of Judge Granade's court would have to start from square one and would likely take months to resolve. "So it is highly unlikely that a new lawsuit would be resolved by the time the U.S. Supreme court rules at the end of June," he said.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the listing on Alabama just because of the Christian haters committing sedition. It's still legal, the State Supreme Court has no standing to override the Federal District Court and that's that.

I strongly urge we leave things alone. This may take until June, it may be settled quite quickly. Regardless, this is not a theocracy, Christians aren't above the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu, I'm not on a soapbox and I've had to fight with the abuse of the system here by conservative Christians for years and years. It one big reason I'm no longer an active editor.

This entire act of sedition is based entirely on the hatred of Christians for us gays. Period. There's nothing else to it but that. It's not 'being on a soapbox' to acknowledge that. You don't like it? Fine. I don't either. But I have just as much right to voice my opinion here as do you. Now, unless you want to get a drive-by administrator to stop me from stating that I think we should not make any changes to Alabama just because of the Christian haters (I understand xxx is always happy to hassle anyone who dares question the conservative line on gays) you're just going to have to live with the fact that some of us don't kowtow to hatred when it comes to the question of whether Wikipedia should list something which is a matter of fact. This one isn't even covered by the nonsensical 'facts don't matter' brigade who misuse that policy here all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I am really not interested in getting into it with you. Suffice to say I don't think your comments here are constructive and I don't think there is any sort of rational policy basis to your suggestions for improving the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus on these pages for the drastic changes that have been made to Alabama. Same-sex marriage is still legal and there are still same-sex married couples in AL. The tables and maps should be changed back unless a consensus for change can be attained! Difbobatl (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

We're not the ones who get to decide whether it is legal. The probate judges are facing conflicting judicial pronouncements, and it looks like they are not issuing same-sex marriage licenses at this point. You and I may think that the federal judge's ruling should override the Alabama Supreme Court's, but that doesn't seem to be what's in effect on the ground. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

And we are lying to Wikipedia's many readers if we continue to present the false information, in spite of just about every reliable source out there, that same-sex couples can obtain marriage licenses in Alabama at this point. That's really what it comes down to. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's lying to anybody to stick to settled law. The Christian haters in Alabama have committed sedition. No discussion needed. Why not stick to the facts? Leave Alabama where it belongs - with the states in which SSM is legal and recognized and add a note that seditious traitors are preventing people from exercising their rights? It's not my policy to just change things, but I am not happy about this pandering to the whims of hateful Christians here, one bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mate, just quit your ranting. You want the facts? The SCOAL has put a stop to marriages, be it out of hate, be it constitutional or not, religiously motivated, whatever. But as of right now, with the way things are in the state of Alabama, marriage licenses are not provided to same-sex couples. That's the long and short of it, really. I don't like it any more than you do. But there is little we can do aside from show things the way they are, without using weasel words like "traitor", "sedition", or "hateful" in the article. Kumorifox (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of a 'talk' page is to talk about controversial matters instead of just swooping in and changing things - which I could easily do. Instead, I'm talking. I'm not using 'weasel' words, I'm using the proper terms for people who do what the hate-driven Christians in Alabama have done.

I don't care what the State Supreme Court says, it's opinion is not valid under the Constitution of the US. If editors want to put some sort of qualification up for Alabama explaining the sedition, fine - but SSM is legal in that State. Oh, and, technically, nobody has put a stop to those marriages. The probate judges have ceased to do their jobs. The State Supreme Court has no authority to do what it did and it's orders are invalid. It's that simple. Wikipedia is also supposed to reflect reality, not just the viewpoints of editors who obviously don't like gays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Paranoia is a mark of the crackpot. The law is what judges say it is. It's not our job to interpret the law, or legal rulings. We can only report on how RS's interpret the situation. — kwami (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should re-add Alabama as a state with partial legality in the lede. Prcc27 (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. At the very least it should be listed along with Michigan. Kumorifox (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Michigan seems like the most comparable situation at this point. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever, mate. Obviously you don't seem to know that a number of editors here (myself included) are gay themselves. Kumorifox (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I could not care less who's gay here or not. I do care that the law of the land be recognized. All this nastiness about 'weasel words' and insisting that judicial overstep by judges makes law is wrong. Alabama is a state which is required to recognize SSM, it belongs in that category. I've no problem with adding a reference to the sedition. I do think people should stop basing their mis-information on such statements as 'judges make law'. That's just plain wrong. In the US, law is what the majority of Justices on the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution to mean. We need to put things back the way they were. If I don't here any rational arguments here today, I shall, with a note regarding the sedition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.41.217 (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for your claim that, post-Alabama Supreme Court's maneuver, same-sex marriage is legal in Alabama? Your statement about "what the majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution to mean" is pointless, as that majority has not ruled on the Alabama situation, nor have they made a blanket ruling that would require all states to grant SSM licenses. If you make your changes against the consensus seen here, expect your changes to be quickly reverted (and if you do so repeatedly, to possibly face blocking for edit warring.) Some Wikipedia policies and guidelines you might want to review include the one on on consensus, the one on edit warring, the one on making personal attacks, and the one on what we do and don't say about living people (before you use your edits to accuse people of crimes they've not been charged with.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. There is a difference between working with people here with whom one disagrees and threatening all sorts of unpleasantness as you are doing. It's one reason so many of us have left off editing here over the last few years, it's a real problem.

You've vented your spleen against me, you've not stated why we shouldn't list the legal status of SSM for Alabama correctly, with a short note that it's being blocked currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.119.124 (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What sort of proof?

The last time I went through the 'prove your position' mess with you, you rejected all (valid) cites and it ended up in one gosh-awful mess. So, before we get into that again, you tell me what sort of citation you will regard as valid for my contention that Federal Courts have jurisdiction over questions arising from the US Constitution and then I will provide the cite which meets your requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.119.124 (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everyone here is interested in listing the status in Alabama correctly; the question at hand is what can we show is correct up to the Wikipedia standards for a situation where there is conflict.

We'd be looking for reliable third-party sources from after the Alabama Supreme Court's maneuver stating that same-sex marriage is legal in Alabama. Not someone's theory of how the law should be applied, as clearly there are conflicting views on that. Not someone from one side in the conflict looking to make their case. Not a more general description about how federal law relates to state law, as applying that would be WP:SYNTH. If reliable sources are not making the assertion, we should not be either.

As for concern about what is driving away editors, you may want to consider that you baselessly claimed that your fellow editors "don't like gays", and that you proclaimed your intent to ignore the concerns of your fellow editors when you could not find consensus. You might find that the problem lies a little closer to home than you assumed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, then we are in agreement as to the nature of the citations. I must point out that I have not made one single, solitary change. As for the rest, yeah right. I might point out that after your whole wiki-lawyering against me the last time and all the blocks curtousey of dear xxx, the changes I proposed ended up being the ones still in the article. I'm not giving you the opportunity to make use of your superior ties and resources here to block me again by not changing things, you've demonstrated that if I put in the article that 2 +2 = 4, you'd throw the whole weight of drive by admins at me. You're not good at playing with others and your last comment makes it clear. So, I'll work on appropriate cites later today and we'll see how far we can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.119.124 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

May I request and recommend that, instead of using this page for your personal attacks against me, you instead post them on my talk page? --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to seek and obtain consensus here before making any changes, or they may be reverted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

So, you won't accept any evidence that Federal Law trumps State Law here, mis-using 'synth' to prevent it. In other words, there is no case to be made which you will accept. Is that correct?Pauci leonum (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by "case"? We go off what reliable sources report. Right now, they report that same-sex marriages are not licensed in Alabama. We describe the circumstances of the matter here, in a footnote on Template:Same-sex unions, and in great detail on Same-sex marriage in Alabama. The legal issues have yet to be worked out, which is the province of the court system, not of Wikipedia editors. Short of waving a magic wand and resolving the dispute or compelling Alabama's probate judges to ignore their supreme court, what do you seriously expect us to do in this situation? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to keep things clear, Pauci Leonum states indicates that he was the IP editor in this edit. As this message appears to be addressing me (I was the only one who had mentioned "synth"), I'm confused by the "there is no case to be made which you will accept" statement, as my last post stated "We'd be looking for reliable third-party sources from after the Alabama Supreme Court's maneuver stating that same-sex marriage is legal in Alabama", and the poster seems to have understood and concurred with that ("then we are in agreement as to the nature of the citations"). So it's clear what would make the case here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Now, this is how we can work together. This is what I think we should do. First, there's no argument that the Alabama Supreme Court has not committed an act of sedition. We can stop arguing that. They're traitors, also nothing we need to argue.

I think we need to make a small section for Alabama, stating that SSM is legal there, that several levels of state government are in open rebellion against the US Constitution and that the probate judges have decided to join the sedition. We can easily cite the relevant sections of the US Constitution, the oaths of office in Alabama to the US Constitution and pertinent decisions on that matter.

If, for some reason beyond my grasp, you don't care to use the proper terms for seditious acts, fine by me, but weasel words aren't acceptable. NPV is important - in all regards. So are the facts and I do believe we've finally reached the point at Wikipedia at which the 'facts don't matter' game has finally petered out. I appreciate being spoken to civilly. I've not called any editors here nasty names. It's not my fault Alabama has so many officials who are both traitors and willing to commit sedition.Pauci leonum (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree on the uses of the word "traitor" here, and I'm on the fence about "sedition". So don't say that there is "no argument." Judge Grenade did say that the Constitution requires probate judges in AL to license marriages, but also stated that, aside from the ones not mentioned in her ruling, none are legally bound by the ruling, and can refuse to license SSM but should expect costly litigation. I don't see the refusal of probate judges as betrayal, though it goes without saying that their actions infuriate me. Judge Grenade even refused to hold a probate judge in contempt of court when the judge was not listed in the lawsuit, despite the judge not abiding by the ruling. Once again, this is the law, no matter how infuriating. The lawsuit affected only the listed plaintiffs and defendants, which is why an amended complaint was issued listing all people wishing to avail of SSM in Alabama as a class of plaintiffs, and all current and future probate judges of Alabama as defendants. This is a case of the letter of the law taken to the extreme. Don't get me wrong, I see it as a bullying tactic on the side of the AL legislation and supreme court to delay marriage equality and to show their power over LGBT people, but I am not prepared to have them labelled as traitors in a Wikipedia article. Sedition, maybe, but even that is debatable. SCOTUS has not issued a ruling or opinion on the circumvention of a stay refusal, for one.
I would be more than happy to include a section that the SCOAL is circumventing SCOTUS by their actions, because they are, I agree on that fact. But I am unprepared to call it treason. If the legislators and judges of AL are to be called traitors, then so should the legislators and judges of all remaining states that refuse SSM, and more so in every state that still has a stay, since the laws have been declared unconstitutional but are still upheld. I think that NPV requires the reporting of the fact that AL is circumventing SCOTUS, but not label them as traitors. Kumorifox (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

An even in any claims of circumventing, we should rely on descriptors from reliable sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, this has gone way too far. I appreciate your desire to be diplomatic, but I am not prepared to make any concessions to appease someone who insists on uncivilly trampling WP:FORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH...

We should provide information based on reliable secondary sources, not our subjective interpretations of those sources (or worse, primary sources like constitutional and case law, as Pauci Leonum suggests). That is our role. We are not activists, we are not attorneys, we are not analysts, we are not even academics. As I said, I understand your conciliatory tack, but this is a slippery slope and this particular discussion has long since gone off the rails. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu1, I have made no changes. I've satisfied NatGertler's concern's about 'outing', I've even come back with a username to make it easier to work with me. If you really want to press all those charges you listed against me, please, do. Otherwise, why don't we all just accept that we're in it together and work to produce the best article possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current state of the article as it presents the legal situation in Alabama, pending further developments. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Having a username is nice. Now try signing your posts. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A reasonable request - I wasn't signed in on this computer. Am now.Pauci leonum (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu1, You've made it quite clear that you are satisfied with the article. I believe I've made it quite clear that I am not. The question, now, is how to proceed. Normally, I'd 'be bold', but you've already made it clear your thumb is on the revert button and you've made it quite clear you'd be happy to see me blocked. Charming. What to do, what to do. I've got a suggestion. I'll post a suggested revision here (be a while, I'm rather busy today) and we can all go over it and then reach consensus. Or, at least, try. I'm not going to be bullied by you.Pauci leonum (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please understand that Kudzu1 is not alone in questioning the edits you propose, based at least on the language you have been using here on the Talk page. And thanks for signing your post. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

At absolutely no time did I threaten you with any sort of admin action. I warned you not to make controversial changes without consensus -- because yes, I will revert you, unless one of the other editors who have been trying in vain to reason with you beats me to it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Saying that we should pay attention to WP:V,WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, etc., is not "pressing charges", it is doing what it takes to make and maintain a good article. You may wish to review those articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a talk page. Not the article. I haven't even corrected a few typos in the article yet. I've reviewed those recommendations, thank you. It still seems to me that you're trying to use WP:SYNTH to prevent any possible change whatsoever. You've set a condition which can not be met, yet which has no bearing on the facts of the matter. The reliably sourced and notable statements of many secondary sources on the matter as 'fact' is a red-flag on Wikipedia. You've now succeeded fully in taking every single minute of time I might have had to contribute. Congratulations. How much more are you going to Wikilawyer and 'concern' an editor who has not even made one edit yet? It's beginning to appear you'll do so until you succeed in getting me blocked.Pauci leonum (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, Pauci Leonum, your behavior here seems very, very similar to behavior that got you in trouble when you edited as User:Panthera germanicus: [2] Anyone is welcome to contribute within the bounds of Wikipedia's rules, but I think you ought to consider learning from your past missteps. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe you actually wrote this here, on a talk page. What are you trying to accomplish by this?Pauci leonum (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Again: I think you ought to consider learning from your past missteps. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"You've set a condition which can not be met" - the condition given, that we're repeating the specific information from reliable sources, is not some freakish high bar; it's pretty much the default Wikipedia condition. That's not a bug, that's a feature, it's in the DNA of the project. Wikipedia is supposed to be an accumulation of what reliable sources are saying, not a platform for new analysis. If you'd like to change that, you'd have to do it at one of the places where policy is hashed out, not on the Talk page of a single article. You seem to have a statement in mind that you want to make that would not meet that condition. I encourage you to make it, on one of the many other websites for which it would be appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I seem to have a statement in mind? You encourage me to go somewhere else? OK, that's three editors today who have gone out of their way to try to prevent me from editing here. And I've not even made one single, solitary edit to the article yet! If this doesn't stop, I'm going to conflict resolution. This is plain and simple harassment. I'd say 'please stop it', but it just gets worse with every passing hour, so what's the point? Why don't you wait until I actually edit something in the article and see whether it might not be an improvement or worthwhile contribution? At what point do I have to yell for help before this stops?Pauci leonum (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Crying "harassment" and playing the victim when you come onto the Talk page in a huff, soapboxing unapologetically and threatening to make sweeping changes to the article against consensus, because other editors challenge your claims, remind you of Wikipedia policy, and ask you to seek consensus before implementing controversial changes is not very impressive. Another one for you to take a gander at: WP:AGF. As I said, anyone is welcome to contribute, but you are being very abrasive and openly contemptuous toward Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and community standards. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll second Kudzu1's comment. Pauci, please keep in mind that most people's main concern here (and Wikipedia in general) is to be accurate, and that we're all trying our best. Editors occasionally disagree, but most often, that's simply because the issue is complicated. I think most of us are on your side in the sense that we would like to see Alabama and all 49 other states in the marriage equality column, but it's a messy situation. Yes a federal judge has ruled in favor of marriage, but the state supreme court has ordered probate judges to stop issuing marriage certificates and they did. If they hadn't it might be a different story. I argued strongly in favor of adding Alabama to the list of legal states, but this latest turn of events warrants at least a temporary removal.

A lot of the problem with the tables are the labels we have given them. Legal, partially legal, stayed rulings, date enacted, date effective, etc. By their nature tables are supposed to be quick ways to put things into certain categories. The problem is that not every state fits perfectly. We could fix this by creating a lot more tables, but that defeats the purpose of tables being a quick 'at a glance' tool. I do like the recent relabeling of the middle table to "legally complicated."

Don't get so upset when people don't agree with you. I don't like the recent re-ordering of the main table alphabetically, but I'm not married to it, so I move on. The law is complicated. If it were clear cut, we wouldn't need lawyers, judges, and trials. I am convinced that Alabama's Supreme Court will be overruled, in June's SCOTUS ruling, if not sooner, but in the meantime "legally complicated" seems to fit perfectly. Shoeless Ho (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Shoeless Ho, I do appreciate your measured tones. All the time I would have liked to have invested in the article has been taken up defending myself. Maybe, soon, I can actually contribute something.Pauci leonum (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Just a heads up, possible change of position by Friday read more. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the commonwealth government announced it would not stand in the way of a suit, but it's a long way from marriage happening on the ground. Just chill and when it is actually happening it can be updated. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Dated info in politicians/media figures section

I question the relevance of the Sarah Palin quote from 2008. Info about whether her runningmate John McCain, or subsequent prez/VP candidates Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan, support(ed) gay marriage is not included; why is Palin so important? Also, the quotes from Limbaugh/Beck are from like five years ago. No one even cares about Glenn Beck anymore. Can we not find any, more contemporary quotes from media figures? --SchutteGod (not logged in) 174.68.103.237 (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because "no one even cares about Glenn Beck anymore" does not mean he did not say this. He is a prime example of the attitude at the time. If we start making everything contemporary, then a lot of Wikipedia pages need to be updated when it comes to quotations. I agree on the McCain/Romney/Ryan inclusions, however, their statements are just as valid for inclusion as Palin's. And with the eye on WP:NPOV I say they should be included, so as not to just point the finger at Palin. Kumorifox (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of the section is to reflect attitudes of public figures "at the time"; it's to reflect attitudes that exist now. Sarah Palin while she was running for VP the better part of a decade ago isn't it. --SchutteGod (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Guam

Time to keep eyes on Guam. It looks like a court case is pending there. [3] Kumorifox (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Not only is the case not pending, it hasn't even been filed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Case filed, Aguero v. Calvo. [4] Kumorifox (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the Guam recognize SSM? Why it is light blue on the map?? M.Karelin (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Guam recognises, but does not perform, according to its statutes. It was discussed on the map's talk page. Kumorifox (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Then why in the article we have such a sentence: Three territories (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) do not have any law prohibiting or recognizing same-sex marriage.[d] Even with no prohibition, none of these territories license same-sex marriage or recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. It should be changed then. M.Karelin (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no good evidence that Guam recognizes marriages from other jurisdictions in fact. Reading and interpreting statutes is something courts do. Many states, starting with MA and VT, didn't mention sex in their statutes but still in practice only licensed and recognized opposite-sex marriages. Anyone have a source for what Guam actually does? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Second thought. I've just seen some interesting evidence. In the lawsuit filed today seeking a marriage license, the plaintiffs (in their statement of facts) say: "While Kate and Lo could travel thousands of miles to another state where same-sex marriage is recognized to get married, such travel would be costly...." There's no reason they would mention that if Guam didn't recognize marriages from other jurisdictions. There's no advantage in bringing it up unless they expect the defense to do say: "go get a license somewhere else". Here's their complaint. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand they say near the end of their brief: "GovGuam will incur little to no burden in allowing same-sex couples to marry and in recognizing the valid marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions on the same terms as different-sex couples". Which implies that Guam does not do so now. And they go one in their "prayer for relief" to ask the court to stop enforcement of any Guam laws that exclude same-sex couples from marriage or "bar recognition of valid marriage of same-sex couples entered into in another jurisdiction". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't get to that part. There was a reference in the map talk page discussion that suggested (but apparently did not prove) a same-sex couple was married in NY and was recognised as such. I must have misinterpreted that then. In that case, the map should be changed back, maybe even have Guam changed to red. Kumorifox (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If this is the discussion in question File_talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.svg#Guam, I don't see anything about a NY couple. There's a ref to a story about the marriage license denial that mentions a couple married in Washington state, after which the reporter, citing no source, asserts that Guam recognizes SSMs from other jurisdictions. I didn't think it credible and today's lawsuit doesn't change that. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, meant WA, said NY by mistake. And in that case, the original story is clearly not credible and Guam should actually be coloured red. Kumorifox (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

And I think it's worth noting that the Associated Press version of the story about license denial reads like a rewrite of the story I cited above, but drops the line about recognition. here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done: Reliable sources report that the Guamanian attorney general ordered same-sex marriage licenses to be processed and issued effective immediately, and Guam has been added to the table and otherwise received the obligatory updates. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The reliable source cited says that the AG's order is not being followed. All reports say so. Once again, WP reports wishful thinking, rather than fact. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

All sources say the AG gave an order, but it is not being followed and the department of public health has said no. Also, until there are licenses licensed I do not think we should treat Guam as if its legal. Their governor is not backing the AG's order either. As of now it is not legal in Guam. Don't let the catchy news headlines fool you. The articles say otherwise. [5], [6], [7] Gabe (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the territory is not observing the AG's order, so it should not be listed as legal. As for the map, my mistake for initially bringing up making it medium blue; it should be medium red, as Guam falls under the 9th CoA, and therefore is prohibiting marriage contrary to Circuit precedent. Kumorifox (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We have to follow what reliable sources say. That being said, it looks like a lot of them have retreated from or are hedging on their initial reports last night, which were pretty unambiguous that same-sex marriage was declared legal in Guam. That was before the governor and the health official weighed in, and I don't know why the presumption on the part of the AP, BuzzFeed, USA Today, and other credible outlets with generally strong legal reporting was that the matter was closed, especially after the Alabama fiasco.

For now, I've hidden Guam's entry in the table and changed back the text elsewhere. If Guam signals that it will implement the attorney general's order, it can be readded, but I agree that if Guam won't move forward immediately or give a timetable for doing so, it should not be listed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

how has SSM become legal?

A proper answer to this question be:

In most states where SSM is legal, that has come as the result of a federal court decision. In x states, it's been because of a state court ruling. X states have legalized SSM by enacting legislation and X by popular referendum.

Please rewrite. I think this really gets complicated if u want to do it well. NJ for example was a governor's decision not to appeal a state court. Saying it was a state court decision really doesn't tell the story.

Saying just 3 by referenda as a standalone fact, underscored by "only", as one editor wants to do, is both inadequate and tendentious. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm the editor trying (in good faith) to include a statement about how many states have passed SSM laws solely on the results of popular referenda. I believe this is a salient and illuminating fact. I also appreciate your feedback about the two sentences as being tendentious (specifically the modifier "only"). Not my intent. Yours is the first feedback that makes sense. Most of the others have rejected the statement of fact (derived directly from the nearly adjacent table in the same article) as unsourced. Even though the paragraph immediately preceding my input is also unsourced. I referenced the source, and the article was still deleted.

The fact is, the three paragraphs preceding my input are all interpreting the very same table and summarizing a specific point in words. From a "parallelism" argument, that is all my input is doing. Is my summation as relevant as the others? I think so. The lead paragraph in the "State Law" section (the section we are discussing) reads as follows:

"Prior to 2004, same-sex marriage was not performed in any U.S. jurisdiction. It has since been legalized in different jurisdictions through legislation, court rulings,[31] tribal council rulings,[32] and popular vote in statewide referenda.[33][34]"

So the lead paragraph introduces the "contentious" element. My concluding entry is the only back-up in the entire section to that lead-in. My entry is congruent. Now to eliminate the contention, I propose the following (eliminating the offending "only"):

Three states have approved same-sex marriage by direct referendum: Maine, Maryland, and Washington. Maine is the only state to approve same-sex marriage without prior legislative enactment. Refer to table below.

Puuloa (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The section that this is being added to deals largely with the status of the law in states. It is unclear to me why this one method of getting the law in place (out of the four listed, three of which apply at the state level) needs a separate count solely for it, or why the specific order of events in Maine deserves some special call out here when there are many states where the specifics are unique. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, the lead paragraph specifically defines state referenda as source of law. My edit speaks directly to this introduction. Direct vote is a bedrock element of democratic process, arguably the most fundamental element. My edit reveals the status/utility of that process in the implementation of SSM. Can you provide any state with a unique condition in such a critical arena? Uniqueness is not the issue. AGAIN: the lead paragraph in the in the section specifically introduces state referenda. Until my edit, nothing was mentioned in reference to that lead-in element of the first paragraph. Why include it in the first paragraph if it does not apply? --Puuloa (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Dropping only just removes the red flag.

The lead paragraph does not introduce the contentious element. It mentions a variety of means. Four of them. What's contentious is singling out only one of those means as you did. You enlarge upon just one because of your opinion about a "bedrock element". But judicial review is a bedrock element. Federalism is a bedrock element, etc. In the history of the legalization of SSM, no one method is privileged. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Direct referendum is not a particularly more legitimate or vital process in a representative democracy than the others; of the three methods applicable to the states, it is probably the one least used in creating law. And I fail see anything particularly "critical" about the uniqueness of Maine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I surrender. You have defended the fort. It's your encyclopedia, not "ours." Best of luck and enjoy your life. Puuloa (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I meant to add that Maine's situation isn't even unique for a jurisdiction, as at least one of the tribal groups passed theirs via referendum. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Good grief! Puuloa (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the map outdated ?

I guess the map in the Public opinion section is outdated, I mean the colores must be updated (after the recent polls with 63% YES). So, who will handle this issue? :)) M.Karelin (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not polls, poll, as in a single poll done by CNN that involved 1,200 people. While it is a highlight, I wouldn't read too much into it as there is bound to be an average percentage with the combined polls. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone with editing privileges needs to update the Alabama situation to reflect the federal court ruling on May 21, 2015. Even given the contentiousness around this article, that ought not to be controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Alaska stay denied - Same-sex marriage gets a green light from SCOTUS

The Court has refused to stay the district court's ruling. The state can now be painted dark blue. https://www.scribd.com/doc/243367900/Alaska-Marriage-Stay-Denied — Preceding unsigned comment added by S51438 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the decision expected tomorrow?

Today SCOTUS published 2 decision (including landmark King v. Burwell about Obamacare), but Obergefell is not among them. I looked in SCOTUS's official web site and found out that tomorrow is last day for publishing opinions, but they also have 29th of June for conference day. So, have anyone an information about exact day of decision publication (??) - would it be tomorrow or on 29th?? M.Karelin (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUSBlog said in their live feed today that Friday and Monday will both be opinion days. It could be either day. There are 5 opinions left. Folks seem to think SSM will be on Monday (but then again they thought King would be tomorrow). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Any opinion can be published on any opinion day. Additionally, it's very possible that the court will add a third opinion day. I wouldn't say it's too likely because they have only 5 opinions left, but if they really need some extra time to write up the decisions on SSM, they could throw a decision day on next Thursday, for instance. That's not out of the question since SSM was only argued in April, very late in the term. Personally, I expect SSM on their last decision day. ~ Rob^Talk 19:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Guam's population doesn't count?

Why is the population of Guam not included in the total for Americans living in states/territories allowing same-sex marriage (i.e.: "165,124 (not included in population total)" on the first table)? People in Guam are clearly Americans, and it's not like it is impossible for us count the populations of the territories, given that they too responded to the 2010 Census and are treated statistically by the Census Bureau for purposes of estimating population change between censuses? - S201676 (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Because the source we're using for population says "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico" so our census data does't include Guam. Prcc27 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Presumably we could make use of a more comprehensive source so that a less pathetic answer than that can be given? The CIA World Factbook entry for Guam somehow manages to have a inter-census population estimate? - S201676 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nationwide or worldwide

See the following sentence: "the United States became the twenty-first country to recognize same-sex marriage worldwide"

This is ambiguous. If we say nationwide, it makes it seem as though it is the "21st country in the nation" which makes no sense, but if we make it say worldwide, while it should be pretty clear what it means, it might be construed as to refer to recognition within the United States of same-sex marriage elsewhere. Comments? Dustin (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Globally or worldwide sound the best. I see what you're saying about a possible misconception, but I don't know if that is really a problem. Not sure if there's an actual conflict where US wouldn't recognize same-sex marriages abroad. The only time a marriage is not recognized by U.S. is when it is against U.S. law. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend just removing worldwide. "The United States became the twenty-first country to recognize same-sex marriage" has an unambiguous meaning, which seems to be the intended meaning. ~ Rob^Talk 21:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Rob. Much cleaner. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@70.36.233.104: Maybe you didn't notice, but I applied the suggested change to the article. Dustin (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Decision is out

5-4 ruling, states must license same-sex marriages - http://www.theguardian.com/law/live/2015/jun/26/supreme-court-rules-same-sex-marriage - htonl (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a broad ruling, and undoubtedly, many states and counties will either announce their compliance; others will insist on plaintiffs bringing a court case, in which judges will likely defer automatically to what is now a controlling federal court opinion applicable to the entire United States. I'm on the fence whether to update the article to reflect the specific bans struck down by the Supreme Court or simply to note that the institution of marriage was opened to same-sex couples by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015. Thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

For all legal purposes, the institution of marriage is now open to all same-sex couples. If individual towns, counties, or states decide to fight it to the bitter end in the sense that they force someone to bring a lawsuit, that's just them putting on a show. As far as the judicial system goes, what the Supreme Court says is law. Legally speaking, all same-sex couples can be married. It's just a matter of whether local and state governments comply immediately or take time. I'd go with the latter. ~ Rob^Talk 14:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, unless one of our resident legal eagles tells us otherwise. For all intents and purposes, the Kennedy ruling in Obergefell settles this one. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The ruling finally settles the issue. The pre-Obergefell status quo is no longer relevant, and the lead should be modeled on those of other articles about countries that have recognized same-sex marriage (e.g., Canada, Iceland). It should note that the U.S. became the 18th country to recognize same-sex marriage on June 26, 2015, and briefly state the circumstances around that recognition. All of the stuff about which states recognized what before this decision should be moved to the body of the article SS451 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be accurate; the US government was recognizing same-sex marriages before this. They just weren't compelling the states to grant it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• According to this AP article, "The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration." —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a 5-4 decision. Who were the four against it? Titus III (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The usual suspects: The Chief, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. ~ Rob^Talk 15:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody have any credible sources on whether this decision would apply to the unincorporated territories? Those US citizens have dutifully been tracked on the maps; presumably the status of marriage equality there is still an open question? -VJ (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

AP article at [8]. Puerto Rico is bound by the decision. Don't know about other territories. Cinteotl (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The residents of American Samoa are not citizens, and do not have the full protection of the Constitution. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to them. Unless AM volunteers to sign on to SSM, it might require a separate SCOTUS court case, since there is no circuit court of appeals for AM. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I really am struggling to understand why the main map still has KS, LA & MS colored. Correct me if I am wrong, but their defiance of the Supreme Courts ruling doesn't mean anything. All 50 states must now respect the decision, thus all should be colored dark blue, no? 4jonah (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. However, LA is waiting to issue until SCOTUS issues their mandate, which is 25 days from the ruling, so light blue is the right colour for it. MS is still stayed under the 5th CCoA, and it is unknown how the 5th will act, whether it will lift the stay and abide by SCOTUS immediately, or issue its own mandate. KS was already a patchwork of counties issuing or not, and there has not been any news about new counties issuing, so purple is still the best colour for it until we hear more. Kumorifox (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to explain the issue a bit more, the Supreme Court's decision is not immediately in effect. They offer a chance for anyone to request that they reconsider (especially third parties). It's not required, but it's a courtesy they usually offer for all opinions. Most states have started issuing immediately because it's recognized that issuing same-sex marriage licenses is inevitable for them at this point, but the few that have chosen not to yet are not violating the Supreme Court's decision because it is not yet in effect. ~ Rob^Talk 19:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer(s), but just to confirm, these states WILL have to acquiesce at some point, right? They cannot keep this up forever...4jonah (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Protect the articles

This article was vandalized once today, and Obergefell v. Hodges is under heavy attack now. Please somone arrange for semi-protection of both articles. M.Karelin (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Obergefell vandalism was largely one very persistent IP. At least one IP (12.180.133.18) is making an effort to be constructive. Pending changes maybe, but I'm not yet sure semi-protection is warranted after one super-vandal. Dustin (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should neutralize the article. I feel it is in a way supporting same sex marriage Mikhail.bulgakov (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Obergefell legal grounding.

The leading paragraph on the recent SCOTUS case seems to misstate the the Constitutional grounds cited in the Obergefell opinion. It states that the court accepted marriage equality on the ground of Equal Protection (14th Am.) In close reading of the opinion one finds that the primary ground cited is substantive Due Process (14th Am.), with Equal Protection as a secondary ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.170.65 (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No original research. We have to go by what reliable sources say rather than making our own interpretations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

State Law Chart

Could we remove the state law chart, or replace it with a historical version (labeled as such) from before Obergefell? The changes on this one (not to mention the footnotes) are out of control and really not helping the article. Difbobatl (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Map

Where is there consensus to remove the map? Is it really that much trouble to maintain it just a bit longer? Dustin (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

As has been shown by numerous people (and backed up by sources), there is no need for it any more. SSM is legal nationwide. Difbobatl (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no discussion on this talk page establishing consensus, so the article should be reverted to the status quo. Dustin (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It has only been four days since the ruling, and this map has been updated for years. It's ridiculous that Wikipedia should't just wait the slightest bit longer. Dustin (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And regardless of the de jure state of matters, SSM is still de facto not legal in certain territories and parts of Kansas, even if that may soon change. As a result, the map is still useful, so removing it now is premature. Dustin (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point, any difference in "de jure" and "de facto" is willful violation of the law and due process. This is happening in drips and drabs and there is no point in trying to crystallize it on a map when the map will pretty much always be wrong. 72.162.1.252 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Even if you assume they are all blantantly violating the law, it apparently does not apply to American Samoa, and the map serves the purpose of presenting to readers the real state of affairs, not just what is "official". Dustin (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I see the potential for maybe three different colors: dark blue for compliance with the ruling, a second color for not yet complying but will eventually have to, and a third color for American Samoa which does not appear to have a legal requirement to comply. Dustin (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I support this with it labeled related to recognition. 72.162.1.252 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The map is useful so then readers know where same-sex marriage isn't fully legal. The map shouldn't have been removed! Prcc27 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point. IT IS FULLY LEGAL! 72.162.1.252 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

At this point, all the map is doing is tracking recognition of SSM, so it should be labeled as such... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Umm.. some territories haven't issued any same-sex marriage licenses yet. Prcc27 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• It's time for the map and its tome of footnotes to go. We've had enough time to bask in the sea of blue. LA and KS will get their acts together soon enough, and the territories... well, they're territories, mention them in the text. The celebration is over, the rainbows have been swept up... time to move on. This map is wholly irrelevant. Njsustain (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No the map needs to stay there until every single state has recognized the same-sex marriage ruling and is complying with the ruling in its entirety. Kansas apparently is purple and Puerto Rico is light blue. This map is actually something I refer to in order to see the current situation that is going on so it's important to me at least to leave it up there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.213.230 (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)