Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Same-sex marriage in the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Map

The map labels much of the US as "Same sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships prohibited" but that clearly can't be right. Indiana, for example, prohibits same-sex marriage but not (as of this writing) civil unions and domestic partnerships; it just doesn't offer them statewide. Either the map needs to be fixed, or the label needs to be changed. 76.214.104.2 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture update

Hey, could someone with the appropriate tools update this picture on the Commons? I believe Kansas, Texas and Alaska have also passed constitutional amendments to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages. FoekeNoppert 14:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the local version to the article. Oddly enough, it has a completely different legend and information than the Commons version, and it also seems wrong. -- Beland 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mountain states.

I moved the reference to the mountain states back to where it belongs. Nevada, Utah, and Montana already have a Constitutional Amendment. Idaho, Arizona and Colorado have laws preventing same sex marriage. Idaho is on the verge of passing a Constitutional Amendment. Only Wyoming doesn't have either. Claiming that residents of these states generally support same sex marriage is clearly wrong.

Most states don't support same-sex marriage but many do have significant populations that support other measures equal to marriage. )(note its extending the protections of civil marriage not itself) The mountain states only had roughly 67 to 66 percent vote in favor of amendments while the south had as high as 86%. In the south no powerful elected leaders have supported same-sex marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or reciprocal beneficiary. Utah's governor supports reciprocal benefits, Salt Lake City's mayor supports same-sex marriage, Colorado's legislature is putting a domestic partnerhip question on the ballot, legislators in Arizona and Montana have introduced bills allowing domestic partnerships (which have failed). New Mexico's governor supports civil unions. Even the most conservative mountain state groups like Focus on the Family support reciprocal benefits. Idaho even defeated an attempt to pass an amendment in their legislature. The mountain states are no south. Yes. They vote Republican generally, but its much more libertarian, especially on gay rights, than the authoritative south. 144.35.254.12 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is about same-sex MARRIAGE, not civil unions. The statement would make sense on that Wiki article, not this one. If the people, in a popular vote, enact a Constitutional Amendment and/or a law, that would be a pretty good indicator if the populace "generally" supports a given issue. It should be reverted back to how it was. Idaho's DOMA will go to the voters in November ([[1]]) and it is likely to pass.

This article was merged with an article called "legal recongition of same-sex couples in the United States". The article does, indeed, encompass civil union, reciprocal benefits, domestic partnership, and same-sex marriage. And I agree about the vote point. For example Utah supported an amendment with 66% voting yes to ban the recognition of same-sex marriage; however the Salt Lake Tribune and LDS owned Deseret News (both daily newspapers) found in a poll they ran that most Utahns also support reciprocal benefits that would offer some of the protections of civil marriage which is why the governor does. While in the south the story remains much more simple with vast majorities against same-sex marriage and civil union, reciprocal benefits, and domestic partnership. That is why I am against the grouping. 71.213.46.53 18:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First, the article is NOT about reciprocal benefits. Secondly, there is a seperate Wiki article devoted to civil unions. Finally, I am not suggesting we group the mountain states w/ the southern ones. I am suggesting that if we mention anything about the mountain states and civil unions, there better be a reference to the fact that nearly everyone of them has specifically banned same-sex marriage; either by law or an Amendment. To do otherwise would be to have the article incomplete, inaccurate, and, possibly, an ommission based upon POV.

Reducing length

Once again, my edits have been reverted. I'll go through each change one step at a time and explain the reason for the deletion. The "Laws defining marriage" section is almost entirely repeated material (see Timeline section) or is nicely summarized in the table directly below it. I certainly think its not necessary to repeat information twice in the same article (especially one that is too long already). I therefore deleted all repeated information and moved non-repeated information to the appropriate section.SSouthern 23:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

External links too long

List is too long and is close to becoming a "me-too" repository of links WP:NOT. It should be broken off into a List of groups advocating or opposing same-sex marriage or junked entirely as being a repository of links and counter to WP policy. - Davodd 19:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, but since this list doesn't exist yet, should we be making:

Another concern... there will be striking overlap with List of gay-rights organizations, is this an issue? Spacefem (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Link

The link to "A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage" only goes to Andrew Sullivan's main page, not the specific commentary itself.

It used to go straight to it. May have been moved. Anyone have an updated link?

MPA

Can anyone provide updated info regarding the Marriage Protection Amendment? It's being voted on next week.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.216.252 (talk • contribs)

FMA Vote Neutrality

Quote: "On May 18 2006, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit states to recognize same-sex marriages. The measure passed by a party line vote. The measure was debated by the full United States Senate, but defeated in a 49-48 vote on June 7, 2006 [1]."

Wouldn't it be more accurate (and neutral) to post the actual vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rather than the fact that it was along party lines? --Tim4christ17 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence to be more specific (it was slightly confusing at the time). However, I don't see why you think it is not neutral to describe the vote as "along party lines". If this is correct (I've not checked it), then it is a simple fact. It is also relevant, in the sense that same-sex marriage is currently a political football in the U.S. Simply giving the vote tally would contain less information than what we have now.--Deville (Talk) 17:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is factual...my concerns are that a.) People may not know how many members from each party are on the committee, and b.) If we are going to point out that that vote was along party lines, why isn't it pointed out that the vote in the whole senate wasn't along party lines? Making the statement about only one of the two votes seems to imply that the other one was also along party lines. --Tim4christ17 08:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no problem with saying that the vote was not along party lines in the full Senate and that Republicans crossed the aisle to vote against it, or whatever you think is good. I didn't think about putting it in there now because it's pretty clear that if something fails in the full Senate, it's not possible for all Republicans to have voted for it since they have the majority. I do think that it makes sense to say the vote in committee was along party lines, since it is well-known that the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and thus have a majority on committees, and furthermore saying "along party lines" carries more information than just saying "it passed 10-8". --Deville (Talk) 00:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, because an amendment requires 2/3 of the Senate to pass, there could have been voting in the Senate along party lines and it would have still failed. I don't really see anything wrong with putting (10-8) or something after the comment that it passed the committee along party lines, assuming we discuss it at all; after all, this is an encyclopedia for all time, and the Republicans won't control the Senate for ever.

On the other hand, votes in committees are often just procedural matters, so I'm not sure how noteworthy it is at all; by saying that the main Senate voted on it, we're already essentially saying that it was passed in committee. In fact, just about every piece of legislation eventually passed by Congress was earlier passed in committee, many on party line votes. I'm reasonably sure that the only reason the info on the committee vote is in this article at all is because the information was being updated while events were happening, but now I'm not sure that it bears mention. --Jfruh (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, FWIW. --Deville (Talk) 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I notice that the timeline lists specific dates that Gay marriage was either legalized or banned. Could someone add the dates (pre-timeline) that states like Iowa, which is not on the list, defined marriage? Whether it's in a single "before-this-date" category or separated doesn't really matter...but the dates of the legal definitions of marriage should be included for all 50 states, as well as the U.S. terroritories. --Tim4christ17 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good point and a needed addition. Many states that have added laws, for or against, aren't listed.

Washington State Court Case Update

Why is it taking so long for the ruling of this case? It has been already over a year since they have heard arguments. What is the cause for the delay? tdwuhs

My friend from Washington speculates, quite reasonably, that the court may be delaying the release of a decision until after the November elections. Supreme Court justices in that state are popularly elected, so the court tends to be a little more overtly political than high courts in many other states. If you email me, I'll be sure to let you know as soon as I hear anything (kdogg36@gmail.com). kdogg36 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Their supreme court ruled yesterday that the gay marriage ban stands.

Legal recognition of same-sex couples in the United States: Separate article?

Right now, Legal recognition of same-sex couples in the United States redirects to this page. Should this perhaps be a separate article? The article could be kept short, and merely be a run-down of what statuses are available to who in what states and/or other jurisdictions. It seems wrong redirect someone who is looking for information on a broader subject to this page --Jfruh (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

~~I don't think it's necessary since it could easily be covered in a small subsection of this article.

Timeline

I have relabled this section "Same-sex marriage state by state," because it's really not a timeline at all; the main organizing factor is by state. To that end, I'd also like to arrange the states alphabetically. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know. kdogg36 22:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

State by State content deletion

While I can appreciate that we should link to the main articles and not have all the data in this one, could someone please add a sentence-or-two summary in the sections that currently only have the link to their article? --Tim4christ17 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dual Stance of 'Focus on the Family'?

I noticed that the group 'Focus on the Family' is listed both as "support[ing] ... legislation that would give some of the same legal rights as marriage but not all" as well as "oppos[ing] giving a legal status to same-sex-marriages" in the section of the article titled "Groups supporting and opposing same-sex marriage". This is puzzling; don't these two views contradict each other? Thought I'd bring it up for discussion before changing anything. Edit: The article on Wikipedia about Focus on the Family says it opposes homosexuality, so it probably opposes giving a legel status to same-sex marriage. --Spinnick597 17 August 2006

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060219/21772.htm Focus opposes marriage but supports reciprocal benefits. Many see it has an attempt to hurt the domestic partnership ballot. Focus is worried Colorado will pass it since Utah only had 66% vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage and Colorado is seen has more liberal than Utah on gay rights. Focus was shocked with the Utah vote outcome in 2004, they had thought the interior west would be like the South on the issue with over 80% in favor of banning ssmarriage.. 71.219.74.123 02:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Case law

Is there any reason that the case law is about "rights regarding homosexuals" and not about same-sex marriage cases? It seems unnecessary to have cases like Lawrence v. Texas, which is about a criminal sodomy ban, referenced in the article about same-sex marriage.

I agree. There's far too much drift here away from SSM and towards gay rights in general. The article needs focus. --Jfruh (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm considering being bold and what-not and taking out the non-SSM case history, along with the "other actions" chart. The article is unwieldly. I'm also thinking of breaking out the Public opinion section and possibly the state-by-state action into separate articles. Opinions? Otto4711 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly with your second thought. This article has clearly become too long, and I think the most logical way to break it up is to move the state-by-state breakdown into a separate article, perhaps, "Same-sex marriage laws by state". -Kubigula (ave) 03:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mexico City Civil Unions

On the map of North American countries, it doesn't show Mexico City as a territory that has legalized civil unions, which it is. I would change it myself, but I don't know how to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.34.212.96 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 November 2006

The map doesn't show other cities that have different arrangements from the state they are in doesn't, either. It appears (based on the Mexico City page) that Mexico City is not the entirety of the Federal District, so that entire "state" does not have civil unions.

--Psiphiorg 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Who gives people the right to marry their own kind?

I my opion this is a violation to God and to the Family.

That is one of the primary arguments, however please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Additinally, does your government not promise a seperation of church and state? 24.86.58.173 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What weasel words?

I don't see the problem. Seems like a nicely written, well-balanced article to me. Is this an old tag that can be removed now? If not, where exactly is the problem? Textorus 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It would be nice if the individual who tagged this article would have specifically mentioned the problem. SSouthern 07:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

supporters and opposers

This sections needs to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb and given rigorous citations for any entries that are not blatantly obvious (Americans Against Same-Sex Homosexual Love is pretty self-evident), but Corretta Scott-King, any political parties, and most other groups need a citation. We're looking at a black eye if someone gets their nose out of joint because Wikipedia said things that were untrue about their stance on the issue, and citations to reliable sources are our best defense against that. -- nae'blis 22:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it really help the article very much? Maybe it shouldn't be listed at all.

I think that it's somewhat interesting, but there appear to be at least two inaccuracies. In addition to the questionable listing of the "KKK" as an organization opposed to same-sex marriage, I notice that one of the other organizations listed is one called "Sam." I have no idea if that's a legitimate organization or just an instance of vandalism; its citation is actually an article about the Southern Baptist Convention. I know very little about citation coding, so I don't want to mess with this list myself... NathanDahlin 04:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

KKK?

Is it really necessary to include the KKK among opposers of gay marriage? It just seems like a blatant attempt to demonize opposition to gay marriage User: Saget53 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a rather shameless attempt to discredit those who oppose gay marriage legalization and therefore is not NPOV. It's also totally inaccurate as there is no such thing as a single, national Klan organization anymore. Check out the ADL and SPLC sites for further information.

I'm sure there are small groups that still use the name and likely oppose gay marriage, but do we really need to include every fringe group in the list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, it's not like these christian groups are much different from the KKK.66.191.19.42 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Such a statement is obviously POV and does not belong on Wikipedia. Frankly, it's also an absurd notion to suggest that a denomination with a doctrine opposed to same-sex marriage is somehow as infamous as the Klan.

I don't know who wrote the comment before me, but in the future, sign it. The KKK is against homosexual-marriage, hence the statement is accurate. The communist party is listed as supporting it, so it is only fair. The communist party is extreme as well as the KKK. (69.140.166.42 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

I can't address the other users comments, but I think you're missing the point. There is no such thing as a single, national Klan anymore. There hasn't been for decades. There are, however, a few tiny groups that have the name somewhere in their title. If a sourced reference to their opposition to same-sex marriage was included, that would be a fine addition. Just saying "the Klan" is inaccurate. Your comparison to the Communist Party USA doesn't really work as said national party still exists; the Klan doesn't. 68.113.47.82 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do States Have a Compelling Interest?

I've briefly perused the article and thought of adding some info, but feel it should be discussed first. It has been pointed out to me by my best friend's attorney that any State with a ban on gay marriage will, should it ever be challenged in the courts, have to demostrate that it has a compelling interest in banning same-sex marriage. To argue that it has will be very difficult for any State. I realize that to include this tidbit of info could be considered unsourced POV.--Clay 15:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be original research, actually. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so it would be inappropriate to add "what if?"-type information to the page. When a law is challenged, then it would be appropriate to add information about what actually did happen, but it is not Wikipedia's place to predict the future. --ΨΦorg 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. According to my best friend's attorney it isn't a matter of IF, but HOW a state can possibly demonstrate that it has a compelling interest to ban same-sex marriage. From a legal POV no state can justify that it has a compelling interest. He said that the only way a state could conceiveably win is if the Judge(s) had a track for conservative judgments. Although Nebraska, in 2005, has beaten the odds that such a challenge would present. --Clay 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The legal issues are more complicated than that. If the ban on same sex marriage is a part of the state constitution, then a state court does not have the power to overturn the ban. The extent to which the U.S. Constitution could be used to invalidate such a ban in federal court would ultimately wind up with the Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee that they would apply a "compelling interest" analysis. The bottom line is that the legal issues are very much undecided and probably will be for many years.--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the legal issues are complicated. Some state courts have applied "strict scrutiny" (from which the compelling interest requirement derives) when considering challenges. Some state courts have ruled that the opposite-sex requirements didn't meet even more differential standards (rational basis). Some states also entertain standards of review between those two extremes. And, a state court may strike down a state's constitutional provision because it runs afoul of the federal constitution (hasn't happened in this context). Any/all of which could certainly be discussed here without straying into Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The arguments made and the decisions issued are facts, not speculation. Wonderbreadsf 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Color Usage?

In the sidebar outlining different levels of recognition of gay unions around the world, the colors seem to come from the rainbow flag. Unfortunately, there is also an implicit reference here to a rising level of threat corresponding to a rising level of recognition (like say the Security threat levels issued by the US Govt), where nationwide legality is coded red "or high threat" down through orange and yellow, and the regions still undergoing debate are coded green. I think the symbolism of red-yellow-green is strong enough that either different colors be used, or that their order is made arbitrary (rather than descending). Yes, I also realize they are the colors of the natural light spectrum :), but we've already adopted that symbology to correspond with threat levels, whether at traffic intersections or war-rooms. --Ajasen 09:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They're also the color of the Rainbow flag, which is a gay pride flag, which is what the reference is to here. If anything, the NPOV is in the opposite direction of the one you assume. --Jfruh (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, more likely, someone thought 'Since this is about gay things, let's put the gay pride colours on it!' when they were bored. 24.86.58.173 05:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

States recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriage

Recently, Attorneys General in New Jersey and Rhode Island have decided to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other places (New Jersey will recognize them as performed anywhere in the world, and Rhode Island will recognize them as performed in Massachusetts). I don't know how to work them into the article (and I frankly don't have the time right now), but it would be significant to make those changes. --Zz414 14:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

California

Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article:

The California Senate ... [is] the first legislative body in the nation to approve same-sex marriage without a court order. [2]

—User:Christopher Mann McKay 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

While it is of historic insterest, because the law was ultimately vetoed by the goveronor, the vote ultimately had no lasting effect. Probably better treated on the Same-Sex Marriage in California page. --Jfruh (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware there is a Same-sex marriage in California article until now. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In the multi-state chart, California should be listed as purple and yellow, as Washington State is. California does indeed have a domestic partnership statute approximating marriage, but it also has at least two statutes (Cal. Fam. Code §§ 300 and 308.5) and arguably three (§ 301) banning same-sex marriage. Xrlq (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links?

Looks like the external links are totally one-sided now and therefore is not NPOV [3]. That wasn't always the case. Why was this changed? 68.113.47.82 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Iowa Court Decision

This is probably noteable- http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070830/NEWS/70830044/1001/BUSINESS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.26.177 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Debate" section

I believe that the debate over same-sex marriage needs to be elaborated in terms of the rationale offered by each party to the debate, rather than their affiation to conservative or liberal publications or institutions, in order to stay within the bounds of NPOV. It is not neutral to imply that there is a monolithic "liberal" or "conservative" stance on this issue. Naturezak (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Where's the NPOV?

The section on "groups supporting and opposing same-sex marriage" contains what appears to be every pro-same-sex-marriage organization known to mankind, but very scant attention is paid to the section on organizations opposing same-sex marriage. I attempted to add some organizations to the list to make this section somewhat more even-handed, but my edits have been removed for some reason. This seems to be an NPOV problem.

24.97.136.210 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually many organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are listed (I count at least 21 in the article). Your edits were removed because you weren't bothering to link to organization's wiki pages, you were just creating a link farm to POV websites. It's best to attempt to link to an org's wiki page, and then add a cite to their position on the matter if necessary. Cheers! Newtman (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. I'd be happy to link to the organizations' wiki pages if they had any. Also, I count 64 organizations and individuals listed on the pro-same-sex-marriage side -- three times as many as you counted on the opposing side. Seems a bit uneven to me.

24.97.136.210 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Iowa should still be in yellow on the map

The Supreme Court decision does not go into effect until April 24. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestlefun17 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Vermont

Make Vermont PURPLE on the map!! Blaze33541 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Overreferencing?

In the last section of the article, there are three links supporting the statement that Bush supports civil unions. After I fixed the mangled templates to view the articles, it appears that all three reference the same interview on Good Morning America. Since I am not a regular editor of this page or of related topics, I decided to just leave a note on the talk page pointing out that three links is probably overkill, and since this covers an event that happened over four years ago, these articles are not likely to disappear behind a pay firewall. Perhaps the regular editors can choose which of the three to retain, and jettison the other two as redundant. Horologium (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I added the three Bush reference links after I noticed Bush's name had repeatedly been removed by misguided editors. Yes, it's a kind of overkill, but for this politically charged issue I figured 3 reliable references might be enough to deter future edits of that kind; so far, it seems to have worked.Textorus (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

the effective date of CA's legalization of gay marriage is incorrect

on the right-hand side of the article, there is a separate box that talks about the types of gay marriages/unions/arrangements in different states/countries.

It says "United States (MA, CA eff. 6/14/2008)"

the effective date should be 5/14/2008, not 6/14/2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.114.88 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've been informed that it starts 30 days from now. i feel dumb :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.114.88 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Like here in Philippines whose laws and Rules of Court were borrowed from CA Rules of Federal Service, the edit here, must be vague for a layman. So, all decisions of court, here and CA are final after 30 days, if there is not appeal filed. So, the 4-3 ruling is split decision and many things can happen. It has no effect but mere euphoria for all those who were relieved or had respite of the tense legal status. - --Florentino floro (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So I added this:

Ruling not final until after 30 days and if there is not appeal or motion

Lest non-lawyers readers be misled, the court decision 4-3, is not yet final, since it is highly divided, and one vote can change. So, under CA rules, an appeal or motion can be filed withing 30 days to stay it, and after May 15, as of now, no marriage can still be held pending the finality. Besides the November ballot might reverse or avoid this ruling by Constitutional amendment. I am a lawyer/judge, and our Philippine laws were copied from California federal rules of service. I repeat, just one vote can can change the 4-3 judgment. So I added this: Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that reversed interracial marriages ban, the Republican-dominated California Supreme Court, (in a 4-3 ruling, penned by Chief Justice Ronald George) struck down California's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar voter-approved 2000 law (passed with 61%). The judgment is not final, for the ruling can be reconsidered upon filing of appeal or motion within 30 days, as the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, inter aila, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. If the court denies the plea, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days. The 2006 census figures indicate that, California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households.news.yahoo.com, California's top court legalizes gay marriage Same-sex marriage opponents announced, however, that they gathered 1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to define marriage as between a man and woman, to effectively annul the decision.nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling --Florentino floro (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of holding the number of same-sex couples in contrast with the ballot signatures? More people than just those in same-sex couples favor same-sex marriage. --Jfruh (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this Field poll, which would put a last nail to the coffin of those who oppose this ruling. I am wondering, why all these and reports would deal on ballot. Why don't they appeal the CA ruling to the USA S.C. Court, anyway, it is split judgment of 4-3. Like in the Money Laundering twin decisions the other day, the USA S.C. reversed the district court. 9-0 and 5-4, I added this here:[4].latimes.com, California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage A Field poll in late May, however reported that "51% of registered voters in the state favored the right of same-sex couples to marry, with 42 percent opposed.".nytimes.com, Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriages--Florentino floro (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Supporters and Opponents

I just removed the lists of supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage. In a comment above, it was noted that the lists were interesting. Even if they are, it is not clear that they are encyclopedic. A description of the types of organizations and people that take each side might have value as may a discussion which churches solemnize same-sex marriages. -Rrius (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

History of 2004 marriages

Am I missing it, or does this article completely ignore the actions of Portland OR and San Francisco city halls in solemnizing same-sex marriages in 2004? It seems like this is a crucial piece of the history of this subject. Msalt (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of Supporters and Opponents

I just reinstated the lists of supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage. I believe that they are both appropriate and encyclopedic. If anyone does not agree that these lists should be present (or thinks that there is an effective way to summarize them), let's discuss the issue rather than simply removing entire sections of the article.

SCBC (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing the section and putting a note on the talk page is a time-honored way of starting the discussion. Getting down to it, how exactly are the lists beneficial? They can never be exhaustive, so what criteria is used to pick who makes each list? Even if there is a point to the list, why shouldn't it be spun-out into a separate article? As it stands, the list is 45% of the article text. Some of these are essentially duplicative. How many (insert name of state) Family Policy Councils need to be mentioned? How many churches and groups with names of churches need to be included. Why is it not sufficient to state that many churches and religious organizations, such as A, B, and C, and public figures such as X, Y, and Z, oppose same-sex marriage. By the same token, the support paragraph need only say that gay rights and other civil rights and public figures support it. -Rrius (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the viewpoint that organizations like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association's support of SSM is notable, though I do not favor a seperate section for organizations that support/oppose SSM, because in the list style we have now, there is no consistent criteria for notability. Only the big names associated with changes in popular opinion/legislation should be included.

Furthermore, they need to be properly integrated into the article, the churches if there is a part explaining religious opposition to SSM, the medical organizations are pretty versatile if you take things from their rationale, and civil rights groups could be included in a section having to do with important court cases they were a part of. ⁽Дҭї₎ 04:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States --> Same-sex unions in the United States

I moved Same-sex marriage in the United States to Same-sex unions in the United States in that the article should touch an all topics of same-sex unions in the United States, and not just same sex-marriage. Other forms of same-sex unions include, Same-sex Civil Unions and Same-sex Domestic Partnerships. Please help and change any former statements that need to be updated to fit with the change. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this necessary? There are separate pages for Civil unions in the United States and Domestic partnership in the United States. Why should there not be a separate page for Same-sex marriage in the United States? Frankly, a move should have been discussed first for an article of this significance. -Rrius (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the page back to Same-sex marriage in the United States per Rrius. Дҭї 09:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i could not find those pages, but thank you for showing them to me... But there should still be a "Same-sex unions in the United States" article.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of "gay marriage" in the lead

Yesterday, the first sentence of the lead read as follows:

Same-sex marriage, also referred to as gay marriage, is a marriage between two persons of the same sex.

Cooljunio removed "also referred to as gay marriage" with the following edit summary:

removed " also referred to as gay marriage" ", it can also be reffered to a million others things. the press refers to it as Same-sex marriage

I restored the original citing the use of gay marriage in thousands of online news articles including those from mainstream papers. Cooljunio restored his edit saying, "Revert to previous version by ClueBot. Same-sex marriage article does not include the 'gay marriage' and 'gay marriage' does not fall under world view and nutrality."

The term "gay marriage" may not be considered politically correct by some. This is a bit odd to me because "gay rights" seems to pass without notice. In any event, "gay marriage" is used extensively in common conversation and debate, I would argue far more often than "same-sex marriage". As it is commonly used, including in impartial news sources, it should be included in the lead as an alternative name.

The fact that a term is not repeated in the article is not relevant. Many alternative names noted in leads across Wikipedia are not used in the rest of the article.

Moreover, the term is used in the article. It is used in the Wikinews box, the external references, and footnotes. It is also, I would imagine, used extensively in the articles and pages linked to from the footnotes.

To exclude the term, rather than including it, is POV of a certain political viewpoint. For these reasons, I am once again reverting the change. -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be "gay" to be in same-sex marriage, if two heterosexual men or two men who do not classify them selves with a sexual orientation were to merry it would not be a "gay" marriage, because they do not self-identify as "gay". Same-sex is the only name that is 100% certified to describe a marriage between to people of the same-sex. And if you include "also referred to as gay marriage", I will include 100s of other things that it's "also referred to as", such as man on man marriage, woman on woman marriage, anti-god marriage, the devils marriage, Greece style marriages, queer marriage, fag marriage, California style marriage. Because those statements do fall under your logic of "also referred to as". And like i said, the same-sex marriage article doesn't even say "gay marriage", it just says same-sex marriage.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize what I say. If you want to add "commonly" to the article, fine. If you want to write about how "gay marriage" is technically inaccurate, great. The fact is, however, "gay marriage" is an exceedingly common way of describing the union. Of course, any such new sections must be verified by reliable sources. Out in Middle America, "gay marriage" is the way it is described in normal speech. That the newspapers I mentioned in my edit summary use the phrase suggests that the usage is widespread. "Same-sex marriage" is more common among activists, academics, and people in the LGBT community. The fact that you and some others think "gay marriage" is politically incorrect or inaccurate is not what matters. What matters is that "gay marriage" is commonly used, if not more so than "same-sex marriage". Your counter examples do not work because none of those terms is a commonly used alternative to "same-sex marriage". They are strictly POV and intended to be pejorative. "Gay marriage" is generally used neutrally. Most people are not aware that anyone in the LGBT community is offended by it and are probably not aware of any other name for it. If you want to advocate the position that "gay marriage" is offensive, Wikipedia is not the place for it: it is an encyclopedia. -Rrius (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Though you will simply dismiss my comment as POV no doubt, after careful consideration of everything said here by both of you, I believe Cooljuno411 is correct and you, Rrius, are wrong, pretty much on all points expressed. However, I have no dog in this hunt so do as you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13Gregor (talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage recognized, but not performed

As the months go by and more and more states recognize same-sex unions, the idea of an accurate color-coded map is becoming trickier and trickier--perhaps impossible.

New York, New Hampshire and New Jersey are great examples, since, legally, they all "recognize" same-sex marriages, in one way or another, from other states. But, while New York recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages as full-fledged marriages, NH and NJ recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as civil unions.

I think the later should clearly be delineated, while the former may NOT need any illustration on the map. It is likely that most states with civil union statues, if there were legal issues or legislative changes, would recognize same-sex marriages as civil unions. Connecticut is an interesting example of what could happen, because their civil union law does not specifically recognize same-sex marriages, but they also have a statute (passed at the same time as the civil union law) that bans same-sex marriage.

Like I said, this is a VERY tricky thing to illustrate. At this point, it almost seems necessary to have a separate Wikipedia article for Same-Sex Unions in the Northeast, although it would still seem difficult to visually illustrate the complexity involved with recognition of same-sex unions. Things will be come more complex if the Illinois legislature passes their proposed civil union law (which seems likely either later this or next year), which would not only also be open to opposite-sex couples, but would also recognize gay marriages as civil unions.

As California shows, much of the progression of this involves layering over layering of new rights. Can it all really be added to the map?

Benrw 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's quite a job to effectively display all the piecemeal legislation for and against same-sex unions across 50 states, in a way that a reader can easily comprehend. Maybe the solution is to do what HRC has done on their website here and create separate maps, that could possibly display side by side on articles where they are needed.Textorus (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the initial comment about New York's recognition of foreign same-sex marriages not needing to be included, but the New Hampshire and New Jersey recognition of foreign same-sex marriages needing inclusion. New York's recognition is weird and worthy of mention. NJ and NH are what you would expect.

In any event, this discussion does not belong here; it belongs at Image talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. -Rrius (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

Resolved

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"Stay denied" :
- {{cite web |url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR31-08.PDF |title=California Supreme Court Denies Rehearing and Stay in Marriage Cases |date=2008-06-04 |accessdate=2008-06-04}}
- In addition, a Field Poll conducted in late May reported that "51% of registered voters in the state favored the right of same-sex couples to marry, with 42% opposed.".<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/05stay.html?ref=us nytimes.com, Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriages]

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The second one was the result of a <ref name=...> with the "/" left out. I have fixed it. -Rrius (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Native American Tribes

While I believe the Cherokee nation baned same-sex marriage I heard recently that a smaller tribe of Native Americans legalized them. Does anyone know more about which tribe this was, whether it actually uses the word marriage for the unions, and what the ramifications of tribal sovereignty mean for federal recognition? 24.210.40.166 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gay marriage listings

I have started a discussion here, that needs more input, regarding removing the Coquille Indian Tribe (Oregon) as a place where marriage is legal. It is not a state, and is giving undue weight to the tribe, and regarding it on the same level as a state or country. CTJF83Talk 23:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Constitution

The US constitution says states must give full faith & credit to each other's legal decisions. A natural interpretation of this would be that all states must recognize such marriages celebrated in any of them. I can't see any mention of this issue in the article. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See the Defense of Marriage Act. -Rrius (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good article. It should be summarized in this 1. Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut

Looks like it's time to add Connecticut as a state recognizing same-sex marriage: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27117467/ Kier07 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that, I would change CT to purple on the map but don't know how to. Blaze33541 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Religions and same-sex marriages

I'd like to know more about the practice of religious same-sex marriages in the USA. Civil weddings and religious weddings are two separate beasts, one might argue, and thus the religious nature of marriages ought to be examined. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This would be a place to start: Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. It might be useful for someone to pull US-related info from it for this article or a sub-article, but I'm not volunteering. -Rrius (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8 effect dispute

This article claims that marriage in California ended on Nov. 4. But provides no certification from the state that this is the case. As of 2:55 p.m. California time, according to the NoOnProp8.com site: "Roughly 400,000 votes separate yes from no on Prop 8 – out of 10 million votes tallied. Based on turnout estimates reported yesterday, we expect that there are more than 3 million and possibly as many as 4 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted."[5] Also if it does pass - it will have to be put into law by state action - which has not yet happened. And if that does, it may be stayed by a lawsuit: http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/legal-groups-file-lawsuit.html

- Davodd (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article claims that same sex marriage in California is legal yet clearly, both by the constitution and by the California Family Code, it is not, according to official sources:

(NOTE: See the recent ruling of the CA Supreme Court, which was apparently directed towards at least the latter of these two references.)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310

FAMILY CODE SECTION 300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman

SECTION 308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

You might argue that the recent CA Supreme Court decision affected one or both of these, but if so, why are they still in the code?

That, however, is the least of the two arguments, for check here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?waisdocid=82496212180+0+0+0&waisaction=retrieve

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This is a fairly straightforward answer to the argument that any gender requirements for marriage are unconstitutional in California, since, CLEARLY, the Constitution does in fact require that "marriage" requires one man and one woman.

Now it is being argued that this somehow denies some classes "equal rights", however, there is nothing here or, for that matter, in the previously cited sections of the California Family Code which denies anyone any right. Any eligible woman is free to marry any eligible man, any eligible man is free to marry any eligible woman, regardless of race, ethnicity, economic status, sexual preference, etc. All persons have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT. Any argument to the contrary that is based on behavior or choice is disingenuous at best. And tinkering with this, despite what opponents claim, opens up a pandora's box of issues which will only lead to trouble, much like the recent CA Supreme Court decision needlessly created tens of thousands of so-called "marriages" which now clearly are not valid or recognized in California when they should have waited for the outcome of Prop 8 on November 4, 2008 before rushing to judgment.

Furthermore, it is now clear, both in the California Constitution, and in the California Family Code as the state now presents these legal entities, that no union that involves other than one man and one woman is recognized or valid as a marriage in California. Again, word it however you prefer but these are the essential facts. Also, remember that all men and all women, regardless of personal choices such as sexual preference, are treated equally by all referenced sections of CA law.

Finally, since California law clearly states that the legislature may not overturn the will of the people expressed through the initiative process, it is obvious that this same prohibition applies to the California Courts as well, though I wholly expect those courts to carelessly disregard this simple and obvious fact. I am relatively certain they will force this matter into the U.S. Supreme Court and in so doing they will only add to their atrocious record of being the most overturned courts in the U.S. if not also in the world.

IN SUMMARY: The page needs to be updated to correct the claim that same sex "marriage" is legal or recognized in California, as evidenced by the cited sections of the California Family Code, the California Constitution. It has been widely reported that same sex couples have still come forward asking to be married, and have been turned away, since the passage of Prop 8.

While there are those who are determined to avoid accepting, admitting or publicizing this current state of reality, apparently on the grounds they can't or won't accept it and are determined that it be changed or whatever, I believe that, at least until the will of the people is overturned again by the courts, if that indeed does happen, WIKIPEDIA should strive to accurately present what IS, not what some who have the power to edit, to deny edits or to roll back edits wish would come to be.

13Gregor (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8

The No on Proposition 8 people have conceded: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=93497470583

The New York Times [6], LA Times [7], and San Francisco Chronicle [8] are now reporting Prop 8's defeat as a fact. It seems that Wikipedia should do the same, with a note regarding when it will take effect. Can we remove the protection on this page, or does someone disagree? -- Beland (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not a concession, it's an acknowledgement of the failure of their campaign. Proposition proponents and opponents can't concede to the other party. Also, Propostion 8's success, not defeat, is a now a fact. This bare fact can be reported here, but it is still not written into state law nor has it taken effect. It's quite possible that the proposition will never have its intended effect. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it has already had its intended effect in many counties, including Los Angeles, San Diego, and even San Francisco, where licenses have already stopped being issued to same-sex couples. Gambit2392 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision is based on the Constitution

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. Reference: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18 (Jaschu (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaschu (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears you already are aware that Prop 8 is both in the Constitution and has clearly taken effect. Though news accounts make it clear many refuse to accept this reality, and while it is a safe bet the courts will continue to sail into lunatic waters with a probable move to rule the California Constitution unconstitutional, it is also a reasonable bet that the USSC will eventually put things right and the CA SC will be informed that the CA prohibition on the legislature attempting to usurp the expressed will of the people, without their express prior consent, applies equally to them as well. To quote Gavin Newsom, same sex "marriage" is not recognized or valid in CA "whether you like it or not". I find it hard to pity those who, by their own rash choice, were foolish enough to get "married" in CA after the rash CA SC decision in May and who subsequently woke up on Nov 5, 2008, NOT MARRIED.

13Gregor (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Legality

Same sex-marriage is not legal in California anymore, so change the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.231.149 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is legal, though it may not be in the near future, which is what you may be confused about. The picture will be changed when the constitution is changed. Occu͡pax (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage will remain legal as guaranteed by the California Constitution Article 1 Section 7b which reads: "(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 PaxPaladin (talk) 27:36, 12 November 2008

The argument presented by PaxPaladin is in error as it suggests that Prop 8 or Prop 22 somehow excluded some group or took away their right - an unfortunately all too common false argument presented admittedly pretty much universally despite it's blatant falsehood. Choice is not a valid basis for creation of a right, civil or otherwise. Any man, be he homo or heterosexual has exactly the same right to marry as any other man. The same goes for any woman. Now they may not CHOOSE to exercise that right, but any claim that they don't have it is, simply, a lie.

And it seems Occupax spoke without first doing his homework, because well before 12 Nov 2008 at 23:46 the CA Constitution was changed to reflect what is shown below. Further evidence that the state does not recognize same-sex unions as "marriage" and does not allow same sex couples to get "married" is evidenced by the fact that, since the election, same-sex couples seeking to marry have been turned away.

So please see these references for yourself to validate this, check with your appropriate local CA government office and, as suggested, change the picture to reflect the facts! Plus, please update any other pages that refer to same-sex marriage as legal, valid, recognized, etc. in CA to reflect current law and reality per the official CA state websites:

(NOTE: See the recent ruling of the CA Supreme Court, which was apparently directed towards at least the latter of these two references.)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310

FAMILY CODE SECTION 300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman

SECTION 308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

You might argue that the recent CA Supreme Court decision affected one or both of these, but if so, why are they still in the code? Clearly the results of the Nov 4, 2008 election have overturned the recent ruling of the CA Supreme Court.

That, however, is the least of the two arguments, for check here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?waisdocid=82496212180+0+0+0&waisaction=retrieve

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Clearly the arguments by those who demand same sex "marriage" based on denial of rights or constitutionality grounds come from someone who is unable to accept reality, for the California Constitution and, for that matter the CA Family Code (section 300 and 308.5) clearly all say that all men and women, regarless of SEXUAL PREFERENCE, i.e. PERSONAL CHOICE, have exactly the same right to marry, nothing more, nothing less.

13Gregor (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs more history, less legality debate/controversy

This article needs more history about same-sex marriage in the United States, and the case law section is a good place to start finding it. Fortuynist (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

More neutral reference?

Is there a more reliable reference that has gay marriage legal in Aruba and The Netherlands Antilles? Currently the ONLY reference is a gay news site (News website that deals with ONLY gay and bi topics as opposed to all) and what they say can be twisted around in any shape or form. I also want to add that both the topics Same-sex marriage in Aruba and Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands Antilles have that gay news site as a sole reference. Knowledgekid87 14:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

365gay.com (which is run by Logo which is owned by Viacom) citations are used by a number of Wikipedia articles; please "See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources." —EqualRights (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

googling produces a few others, such as [9] & [10], but the 365gay one is perfectly adequate. —EqualRights (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes a gay news website any less reliable about gay topics than a general news website, all other things being equal? Do we reject content from journals of biology for articles about biology in favor of general science journals? To remove the 365Gay reference, you must prove 365Gay an unreliable source by itself. Fortuynist (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Vermont

Vermont has legalized gay marriage through the legislature with veto override, the first to do so. The map needs to be updated if anyone can! -- 128.227.167.146 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Recognition in DC!

The DC city council just voted to recognize same-sex marriages (April 7, 2009): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/04/07/ST2009040702401.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.65.188 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, same sex marriages performed in other states. Czolgolz (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut

someone should make Connecticut all purple.....Same-sex marriage is legalized there, so there is no need for the purple-green mixture-only purple. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.77.37 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - that purple/green mix actually means that same-sex marriages are legalized and that civil unions give similar rights to marriage. Flying Toaster 18:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just color in states by broadest category available. It would make the map much less busy to look at. Regardless, the legality of civil unions should be considered questionable now in CT. Why should gay couples get TWO options of legal relationship recognition and straight couples only ONE? I'm guessing that the CT state legislature just hasn't bothered updating the law. Perhaps civil unions are still technically on the books, but I'm sure no one seeks them anymore. Perhaps someone who lives in CT could clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestlefun17 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Since purple is for full marriage rights it looks way better on the map to have it purple. It should definitely be changed. Plus the marriage and unions granting similar rights is redundant.Blaze33541 (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The map is going to change its way of representing things to make itself clearer to red-green colorblind users. Suggest improvements to the map on its own talk page. Fortuynist (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Colorado Now Has Domestic Partnerships

The map should now have blue stripes on Colorado. (http://www.365gay.com/news/colorado-governor-signs-partner-bill/) Cestlefun17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

Ya, I'm trying to find someone that can edit .svg files, and update it. CTJF83Talk 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Either Vermont and Iowa should be in yellow, or both should be in full purple

Vermont is either yellow/green until September 1 and Iowa in yellow until April 27 or both are now full purple. Vermont will not have civil unions and same-sex marriage simultaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestlefun17 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Map is wrong on Utah

Utah courts have ruled that Utah's amendment doesn't ban domestic partnerships. Salt Lake City and County currently have them. Utah's Governor has even indicated that he believes the amendment doesn't even ban civil unions since they aren't the same as marriage but courts would need to decide. Please fix this. 97.117.125.64 (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? CTJF83Talk 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] 97.117.125.64 (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not sure how you'd color UT. Perhaps orange since domestic partnerships have already been found to be allowed by the courts, and civil unions are thought by many including the governor to be allowed as well under the amendment. And maybe a speck of green for Salt Lake City and County for its current domestic partnership registry? 97.117.125.64 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the multicolored states are confusing as heck. I'm for simplification. Czolgolz (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya, we do the state as a whole, so no specks for cities or counties. CTJF83Talk 15:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well for the state as a whole UT does not ban domestic partnerships. And those links prove it with court rulings. So its still wrong. 97.117.119.102 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEGAL IN MAINE!

http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=Gov+News&id=72146&v=Article-2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.12.25 (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am getting so spoiled by this, nearly every week now a new state has joined the right rank and ended the discrimination. Anyway it is time for Maine to become PURPLE on the map.Blaze33541 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wyoming...?

The Wikipedia page is saying on the side bar that same-sex marriages abroad are recognized in Wyoming? Should the map reflect that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.157.113 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no law that prohibits private businesses or the government to recognize same-sex marriages abroad in Wyoming (which is unique among anti-same-sex-marriage laws), but it currently isn't being done, and is open to a future court challenge. I have removed it from the sidebar. Fortuynist (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Request: Addition of religious groups to supporting organizations

The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations and the United Church of Christ both have released resolutions in favor of same sex marriage. Thanks! References: http://www.uua.org/justice/statements/statements/14251.shtml and http://www.ucc.org/assets/pdfs/2005-EQUAL-MARRIAGE-RIGHTS-FOR-ALL.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.83.72 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is listed at List_of_supporters_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Organizations_and_religious_denominations. This page contains only a few organizations on each side, as to not clog up the page. CTJF83 22:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We should dump the list of group links now, since both lists essentially have their own articles; we don't have some reliable source telling us which groups qualify for this article and which only qualify for the specific articles on the sides. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup. We can link the lists, it's not necessary to reproduce them. Particularly because of the possible undue weight or OR issue that Nat Gertler cites, about how they would be chosen. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it makes sense to only "list a few organizations on each side," but as it is right now it gives the appearance that there are no churches in support. I am adding the supporting churches that are major-media-sourced. If managing the lists so that they are balanced, representative and not out-of-hand is too much, then they should just go. --joeOnSunset (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd support Nat Gertler's suggestion that we remove these lists and just link to the entries that present lists of supporting and opposing orgs. A partial list is less than helpful, while a characterization of the types of orgs with a link to the list, if done well, should prove stable. I don't see any opposition to that. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd support it too, because the lists need so much work as they are. For example, one list currently includes local organizations, the small size of which means there are similar groups in all 50 states. It seems like groups of that size wouldn't merit inclusion in such a summary-type list. I know that those would be really controversial edits though. --joeOnSunset (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

DONE. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)