Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

New Layout

So what happened to the old picture of the ceremony, etc? It looked really good, and the new map's colors are hard to read. Thanks. 68.60.76.178 (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have to agree too. The old one was more poignant and celebratory, and it didn't make it so political. Especially since marriage doesn't depend on the state recognizing it; people have them regardless (although I realize that that is what the article is primarily about). It still would look better with actual people, etc I feel. Yankhill (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I boldly put the wedding image back on top. Niew (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I think it looks great, and I hope many more feel so too. Thanks again. Yankhill (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I had to delete the incorrect part about Rhode Island. The other wiki page on Rhode Island is also wrong. The truth is Rhode Island does not recognize Massachusetts same-sex marriage or anywhere else's. The opinion of the Attorney General is just that, a stated opinion. The Rhode Island court has ruled NOT to recognize. So stop posting that it is recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodan812 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire

New Hampshire legislature just passed amended same-sex marriage bill, Gov. John Lynch is expected to sign later today!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUUXsl3sakXbS8W1AYb4xSxxEMIgD98JCGPG3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.217.136 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The bill has passed both houses of the NH legislature, and Governor John Lynch will sign it into law in EIGHT MINUTES at 5:15PM EDT!!! Update this page and the map!

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5526NV20090603 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.217.136 (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro Language

The movement to obtain marriages rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the early 1970s. The issue became a prominent one in U.S. politics in the 1990s, with New England being the center of same-sex marriage legalization in the United States. The issue remains politically divisive in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

I have an issue with this. The issue became prominent in the 1990's starting with a court case in Hawaii. The Mormon Church successfully beat that effort down after a court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, and then DOMA happened. Following this, Vermont approved civil unions in an effort to deflect national controversy. Ra-ra New England all you like, but the FACT is that HI was first, then VT, then various DP battles all over the country (including CO, CA, etc). Looking at a map, it is clear that following HI, the hot spots were northern New England, NYC, CA, and Chicago. Boulder, CO independently played a role. I think that even in a brief historical summary it is appropriate to give half a sentence to HI because the battle was fought there first. --nosig, read my IP, yo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.7.205 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Awkward wording, I agree. Someone just wanted to link to their new article, Same-sex marriage in New England. One of the major shortcomings of this article is that there is no history section. If there were one, it would start not with Hawaii, but with Minnesota in Baker v. Nelson. But about Hawaii, the court didn't rule "in favor" of it; it wasn't going to legalize it. It asked the legislature to produce a minimal rational basis for its discrimination, and it did (ignoring the DOMA for a minute). So did Alaska, in fact. Whether it started the movement is debatable, but that's where the state DOMAs came from. I don't think the 1990s are being linked to New England, rather the issue, and of its undisputed firsts in legalizing it. Fortuynist (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the importance of the history of the movement- being a historian myself and feel that a history section could be created by us- however, I do feel that the statement is correct. New England has primarily become the epicenter of the movement currently, especially after the enactment of Prop 8 in California removing the right in the state. Furthermore, no further action as taken place in the state of Hawaii. The state is still not even willing to pass civil unions or expand their limited domestic partnership benefits. So no, I have to concur with the opening paragraph and say that the movement as of 2009 is focused primarily in New England. And it is hoping to branch out from there in New York and New Jersey. Let's hope the strong anti-Prop 8 movement is able to reinstate marriage rights in California soon. Yankhill (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can there also be a sentence in the intro paragraph that reflects the fact that same-sex couples get married in their own private ceremonies regardless of whether the government recognizes it or not. Then also begin the importance of the government recognizing it, etc. I mean it could somehow be in other words like the difference between a couple's religious/personal marriage and their civil one in the eyes of the law.

I have friends, gay friends, who are younger and with the rhetoric, think they cannot have their own marriage ceremony. That somehow it is "illegal" to do this in your own way because the state does not recognize it. It's sad, really sad, and yes a little pathetic. And from personal experience, I have been to two marriages already that my state (Michigan) does not recognize, but it is recognized by the couple, family, and friends- and by the their community. Yankhill (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• States that formerly legalized same-sex marriage

I think the above heading, "States that formerly legalized same-sex marriage," can an appropriate bullet point in the opening header section, along side California's mentioning, etc. In my opinion, it is the socially responsible thing to do. People need to be educated and we shouldn't make it "difficult" in any way to find this out. Again, obviously in my opinion. Yankhill (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

wisconsin

hey wisconcin should be added to the list of ssm debated because the constitutional amendment banning it is being chalenged in court (it is true this wouldn't make it legal but yet but it is an argument and thus a debate) The truth maker (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion for the template is here, but I don't believe a court case verifies the threshold for inclusion. Fortuynist (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wisconsin

The new map revisions look great!

The map may need to be revised if Wisconsin legalizes limited domestic partnerships, as expected. Currently, Wisconsin is listed in dark red: constitution bans same-sex unions. Perhaps a more accurate description for most states' constitutional bans on same-sex marriage/civil unions would be "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and legal equivalents." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benrw (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The legality of the Wisconsin plan is questionable, and would likely be challenged in court if it passed. I have argued for this change to legal equivalents on the map's talk page, but there seems to be no consensus. When or if Wisconsin passes the plan, the discussion will be revived and there will be changed made. Fortuynist (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New Map?

What is this thing? It's awful...

All the colors are too similar. They're all dark. Light gray and dark gray? That's really smart. Please restore the old map.

SAAER45 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's incredibly clever, considering that we only had to work with 3 colors. It was designed to fix the issue of colorblind users not being able to read the map. Plus, now it moves in a logical scale, from red (complete ban) to blue (complete legalization). You really can get the feeling of the laws at a glance without memorizing the color table. Fortuynist (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of the two shades of gray either, but the new map is the result of a very long discussion and four or five different proposals over at the discussion page for the map itself. The new map is the final consensus, and I think everyone involved over there agreed that it is an improvement on the old, randomly assigned color scheme while also fixing the issues faced by colorblind users when red and green are used in the same map. Newsboy85 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember the discussion on the need for a map for color blind users; however, I have to admit that I enjoy the old map better. I think it is good to keep this one up, but we can have the other perhaps and include a link to this one for color-blind users like a friend of mine.

Furthermore, the other one had a rhyme and reason to it as it went along the spectrum from one end to the other. Plus you could say it was all "gay friendly" as it basically was comprised of the colors found on the rainbow pride flag. I just like the old one for its better looks, but I do feel that a link should be included for this one for those that actually have red-green color blindness. Yankhill (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

California

Shouldn't California technically be striped with dark blue? It is banned constitutionally, but the marriages before the ban still stand so those same-sex marriages are recognized. From a legal perspective same-sex marriage is both recognized and unrecognized in California.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support and Opposition of S.S.M Unbalanced / Split into new article talk

I have placed the tag because there are two subsections for support of SSM: "Political parties expressing support for same-sex marriage" and "Elected officials supporting same-sex marriage" and some but not enough for Opposition. If those are included for support I feel that the same must be done for the Opposition to balance the article out between the two sides, the two subsections also stand out in the table of contents. Knowledgekid87 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, opposing SSM is the default among politicians nowadays, isn't it? There are reactionaries for every movement and every event in history. To cover them in same or greater detail than the actual movers of change is unexciting and unhelpful to readers. Niew (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the lists of supporters of same-sex marriage should be moved to separate article, as was done with Opponents and Traditional marriage movement

2.2 Political parties expressing support for same-sex marriage

2.2.1 National

2.2.2 State

2.3 Elected officials supporting same-sex marriage

2.3.1 Governors

2.3.2 US Senators

2.3.3 Members of the US House of Representatives

2.4 Persons supporting civil unions or domestic partnerships

--Dr.enh (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr.enh That would be a better idea yes, I can understand if its exciting to readers ro read about same sex marriage supporters and all Niew, but having them on the main page leaves the article unbalanced when it comes to a debate section. The same would have to go for opposition.Knowledgekid87 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea. Don't forget that support for SSM exists on a lower level than the state, with cities and towns passing resolutions and domestic partnership registries, and the support from the U.S. Conference of Mayors! You could do a little part on how in New York mayor Jason West started the movement that led to recognition of same-sex marriages performed abroad, and Gavin Newsom's pioneering 2004 weddings for California. Niew (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This also would make the debate section more broad on the S.S.M main page which is helpful. Knowledgekid87 20:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The main article already suffers from United States parochialism, not in its section about laws, but the giant Criticism (Debate/"Controversy") section with interracial marriage, U.S. supreme court possibly seeing sexual orientation as a suspect class, "judicial versus legislative", marriage privatization (a fringe idea even in the United States!), etc. Niew (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we rename Traditional marriage movement as "Debate about Same-sex marriage in the United States," and combine it with Support from this article

2.2 Political parties expressing support for same-sex marriage

2.2.1 National

2.2.2 State

2.3 Elected officials supporting same-sex marriage

2.3.1 Governors

2.3.2 US Senators

2.3.3 Members of the US House of Representatives

2.4 Persons supporting civil unions or domestic partnerships

Traditional marriage movement appears actually to be about Opposition to Same-sex marriage in the United States. The current title, "Traditional marriage movement," seems to be an invention of wikipedia , not a movement documented by a reliable source. The first source in the Traditional marriage movement is about Colorado Family Action. The second source links to an article that links to [marriagemovement.org] (a broken link to a campaign that no longer exists).

This change would combine two unbalanced articles: Traditional marriage movement and Same-sex marriage in the United States#Support into a single balanced article, "Debate about Same-sex marriage in the United States." --Dr.enh (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The owners of the article argued that their article had a "different scope" in the title renaming discussion I participated in with them in April, and would like duplicate articles. Niew (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the article has no owners. No one has responded yet to my observation that the "Traditional marriage movement," seems to be an invention of wikipedia, not a movement documented by a reliable source. Is anyone aware of a reliable source documenting a "Traditional marriage movement"? --Dr.enh (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that nobody has really cared about the NPOV issue reguarding the "Traditional marriage movement" topic as the tag has been in place since November 2008. Someone needs to take charge of this and to improve it so it falls within wikipedia's standards.Knowledgekid87 23:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is large enough, including details like the current state of same-sex marriage throughout the country, and it would easily withstand forking the majority of the "debate" section to its own article without sacrificing the quality. A summary can be left behind along with the "Main page" notice at the top of the section. Then, Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States can be merged into it, and the article (I suggest Same-sex marriage debate in the United States) can be balanced. I also think that the list of pro-SSM/SSU politicians should be forked off to a list and a summary of the most prominent or most active left in its place, along with the explanation (either there or in the opposition section) that the default position is anti-SSM. Arguments about undue balanceweight won't apply once the section isn't so large. - BalthCat (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record there is also a discussion going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traditional_marriage_movement about the issue.Knowledgekid87 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If the supporters of same-sex marriage have been removed, shouldn't the list of those opposed also be removed? The religious denominations opposing it remain in the article whereas the religious supporters have been removed. How is that fair? And if religious and conservative leaders remain, shouldn't religious leaders in support and progressive leaders be allowed to remain?--67.197.205.57 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Idea 2 for making a new article under debate

Since there appears to be no consensus so far to merge the two sides of the debate into one article I propose an article called Support for Same Sex Marriage Under the support section. This would balance out the Traditional marriage movement article and just leave the main page here talking about the debate. Knowledgekid87 11:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wedding Picture

So after the user, Niew, reattached the photo of a same-sex wedding to the top, the picture of the ceremony was put to thumbnail size. I thought it was too difficult to make out the detail and to appreciate it well. So I made it back to a larger size, though not as large as it was previously before it was a thumbnail. Anyone think differently? And is there a way to possibly have it be this big but have a frame around it like the thumbnail did? Yankhill (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy answer first: put the |thumb| syntax in there next to the pixel size you want, and you'll get a frame with words underneath. Read Wikipedia:Extended image syntax.

Regarding size: there are a number of reasons why a 380px image doesn't suit everybody. The main one is that users with small window sizes will have the image take over their screen. Users with visual impairment who use large type sizes will have the image crowd the text into unreadability. One solution is to use the extended image syntax |thumb|upright=1.5| to get a larger image. The upright=x part can be increased, if desired. I think upright=2 is too large, but YMMV. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I set the picture to 250px as this is the size of the other pictures in the article anyways. Knowledgekid87 21:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining and fixing it. Yankhill (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Texas

A district court in Dallas just ruled that the state ban on gay marriage violates the US Constitution, which in theory legalizes same-sex marriage in the state. Not sure what's going on with that; presumably that decision will eventually be overturned, but for now Texas is at least "in flux". (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/100109dnmetgaymarriage.1d5a0d50d.html) —Verrai 03:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A district court means nothing (Kind of like indian tribes saying ok to gay marriage), if the court were more high up. or if a new law was passed it would be worth mention. - Knowledgekid87 7:06, 2 October 2009 (AT)

Legal issues

Greetings all. I and others I have debated with believe that a portion of this article should mention burden of proof- as many lawyers and legal analysts believe that U.S. law places the burden of proving no harm caused by same-sex marriage rests upon the proponents of same-sex marriage. Please help me to find the best place in the article to put this, and worded in a fair way. I believe the statement should include a link to the wiki page on burden of proof- pointing directly to the civil law section of that article. Thanks.

You can look at the debate I mentioned on the discussion page of Same-Sex marriage, but most of it deals with the appropriateness of addressing the concern (based primarily on U.S. law) in that article. (MatLocke (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

If you can show some reliable sources to give a sense of what exactly you are proposing on adding, then I will look into it. Without any reliable sources however, this would be original research, and thus not allowed. Artichoker^[talk] 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"as many lawyers and legal analysts believe..." - who are these lawyers and legal analysts?

"...that U.S. law places the burden of proving no harm caused by same-sex marriage rests upon the proponents of same-sex marriage" - this is a logical fallcy and placing the burden on the wrong side, akin to charging a man with 'beating his wife' and expecting him to 'disprove' it. Or perhaps a more relative, US-example, failing to grant African-Americans the right to vote unless they somehow proved it wouldn't harm the country. It's the anti-SSM proponents that must prove it'll do damage, not for the pro-SSM proponents to disprove unsubstantiated claims -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose this idea in principle, but I'm just not sure it's true that burden of proof is important in this case. In general, courts do not ask SSM proponents to provde that SSM is not harmful. Certainly, opponents of SSM believe it is harmful but this is not the issue that reaches the courts in the USA. Rather,the argument is about equal protection under the law -- does it apply in this case or not? Proponents of SSM must argue that it does apply and opponents that it does not apply. In general, opponents of SSM do not talk about harm but rather about the traditional definition of marriage. They also point out that States are allowed to regulate marriage. Proponents of SSM talk about equal protection and the fundamental right to marriage. So, at a legal level, no one is talking about the harm to society from SSM. In daily conversation, yes, but not in court. If I am incorrect, please show citations. Ednastvincent (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Maine

In my opinion, we as historians must also make known to the reader the "significant" happenings of the recent past that impacted the topic of this article (i.e. same-sex marriage in the United States). To do this, we must make the information easily obtainable (e.g. placing it near the top of the article). Consequently, I have taken the liberty of incorporating information regarding Maine's so-called People's Veto of the their state government's legalization of the state of Maine to recognize the marriage of a same-sex couple.

Any disagreement can, of course, be written here or can manifest itself in a removal of my addition. Yankhill (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how Maine is that significant except as part of the right-wing narrative that gay marriage is anti-populist, and I don't think that that's an interpretation that Wikipedia should promote. It is too early after the event to have dispassionate historical perspective. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion, Maine is vitally significant just like including the story of California and Prop 8 is also significant to the narrative. And though I respect the opinion of Ssahsahnatye that he or she feels that it is too early to have a "dispassionate historical perspective," it is not too early for me. That being said, it is often a debate within us, historians, as to when to include an item into a narrative of history. There perhaps rests the difference in our arguments. I believe that it is not too soon, and instead that it is vital include such facts (i.e. the efforts of the people of Maine) into the narrative.

It is a public fact that the legislature of Maine passed a law to recognize same-sex marriage ceremonies and the governor of Maine signed it into law. That shows the outcome of many peoples' efforts to get that into law. However, the People's Veto of that law also shows the outcomes of many peoples' efforts to oppose it.

At least two things from these facts can be applied to this discussion. One, if the efforts of mass amounts of people are recognized in the opening language of this article by mentioning the efforts of people in California and with Prop8, then why not also mention Maine? Maine is the second state to legalize same-sex marriage (either by court ruling or through the legislative process) yet to have it removed by a referendum of voters. If we can have California included, why not Maine too?

Second, and I mean no offense by this, if we are seeking "dispassionate historical perspective," then why would Ssahsahnatye use such language as, and perhaps come off as worrying about, the inclusion of Maine's story as a "right-wing narrative that gay marriage is anti-populist." Such language by Ssahsahnatye, in my opinion, shows a lack of dispassionate historical perspective, at least in this debate. This webpage and article begs for impartiality of the pro same-sex marriage movement, and we- in my opinion- should guarantee that we give it to visitors of this page. In my opinion, the inclusion of the efforts of the people of Maine to get the law legalized and then the repeal of it by voters should both be included- just like it is included in the article in regards to the efforts of people in California.

So I ask to all again, what reasons do we have for not including the story of the people of Maine as it pertains to the passing of and veto of governmental recognition of same-sex marriages? Yankhill (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum, just leave the info on Maine as is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Main section

Whether same-sex marriage remains politically divisive in the rest of the world is not germane to this entry. The subject is same-sex marriage in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.226.38 (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Opposition

Shouldnt this be about opposition in general to SSM and where people who oppose SSM stand on the matter? All I see is two people's opinions (Maggie Gallagher, David Blankenhorn) about SSM under opposition. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island

it is mentioned that rhode island recognizes other states marriages but if so it is the wrong shade of gray on the map The truth maker (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I question, however, whether Rhode Island should be listed as a state that recognizes same-sex marriages at this point. The Supreme Court decision seems to contradict the Attorney General's opinions. I would take it off the list of "recognizing" states.

On the contrary... could RI be such a tiny state that its status may have been overlooked?

http://www.marriageequalityri.org/www/learn/marriage_faq/

http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/ri-marriage-guide.pdf

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/
Native94080 (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Coquille Indian Tribe marriages legal?

"In Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and the Coquille Indian Trive marriages for same-sex couples are legal and currently performed"

^ This is kind of confusing as oregon does not count SSM as legal, should a footnote be placed someplace here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why, as we're not making any statement about OR; tribes have a federally-recognized right to grant marriages, and as with the marriages from any jurisdiction, they are recognized wherever SSM is recognized. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there evidence that they are recognized or legal anywhere other than the tribe itsself though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Various states and DC have passed laws explicitly stating that they recognize SSM from other jurisdictions. Indian tribe marriages have long been accepted as having the concept of comity applied to them. There is not a specific case where a Coquille SSM has been accepted by a court in New York, say, but the same is likely true of New York accepting marriage from any other state, as the court case that established recognition of SSM came from a Canadian marriage. There is no visible reason to presume an exception for Indian tribal marriages when no such exception normally exists for marriages. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, as noted in the ruling that caused New York to recognize SSMs, Thus, if a marriage is valid in the place where it was entered, "it is to be recognized as such in the courts of this State, unless contrary to the prohibitions of natural law or the express prohibitions of a statute" - notice no exception being mentioned for the Coquille. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

U are putting a small tribe on equal footing with a state CTJF83 chat 05:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am noticing that the tribe is a jurisdiction within the United States which allows same-sex marriage, which would appear to be what that section of the article is listing. This section is not previously limited to mentioning only states, as witness the inclusion of the Washington, DC. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In case u don't live in America, DC is the capital and its own district, not some Indian tribe. CTJF83 chat 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, DC is its own jurisdiction, and the Coquille is its own jurisdiction. It is indeed within the United States, and indeed has its own right to make its own law as recognized by US government. An "Indian tribe" is not some group of folks playing make-believe, it is a jurisdiction with its own proper government, with a government-to-government relationship with the US federal government. A little under 2 million people are governed by these groups. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, Indian tribes are responsible for their own marriage laws, and are not subject to the marriage laws of the state or states where the tribe is located. That, say Oregon, where Coquille land is, doesn't recognize the tribe's same-sex marriages is no different from Oregon not recognizing a Massachusetts same-sex marriage. What is important is not whether the tribe is a state or how big it is, but whether it has the power to regulate marriage. It does, so it counts. -Rrius (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus to add Coquille Tribe

I am pulling a consensus to add or not add the trible to the page here, please put an Add or Do not Add and explain your reasoning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral I currently dont stand either way however, the Coquille Tribe might do better in its newly created article than on the main page here referenced with the states, it is a unique issue on to include tribes or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Add While the Coquille should have their own article (although their mention on the Native American SSM article may be sufficient), that's not instead of this article; each of the other jurisdictions mentioned have their own page as well. This is an article not of SSM of the states, but in the United States, and should reflect all jurisdictions within the United States. It has not been otherwise limited to States, as witness the inclusion of DC, or the inclusion of San Francisco marriages in the timeline. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Add This article should reflect all jurisdictions in the United States. --Dr.enh (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Don't add It shouldn't carry the same weight as a state or DC CTJF83 chat 08:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Add Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tribe is in the United States, isn't it? [by which I am genuinely asking whether it is wholly encompassed in the US.] I'm not sure what is wrong with a sovereign tribe being included alongside a non-sovereign city granted home rule by Congress. It would probably make sense to have one section about tribes saying this one has it and the rest don't. -Rrius (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Don't add Technically, indian tribes are sovereign nations, so to analogize tribal law to that of another us jurisdiction (e.g. state, territory, the District of Columbia) is inaccurate. The interplay between tribal and federal or state law isn't the same as that of the interplay between sister states or between a state and the federal gov't. In addition, there are extra requirements to be married under tribal law. Under Coquille Tribal Regulation 740.100, in order for a same-sex marriage to be performed, one of the spouses must be a tribal member. And not just anyone can become a member of an indian tribe, correct? There has to be some connection, other than a geographic (e.g. Your house is there) or temporal (e.g. you've been there for a certain time period) one. Because of this , I say don't add. If the final vote on this issue is towards inclusion, then I'd add mention of the Coquille Tribe's law as a separate discussion from that of CT, DC, IA, etc. (given the different requirements for marriage under tribal law and that, generally speaking, an indian tribe is legally different than any other US jurisdiction).Ronnotronald (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thats a good point Iowa has only a 3 day waiting requirement, so not just Iowans can get married here. CTJF83 chat 19:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • We included MA when their law had different limitations than are common elsewhere (when they were unwilling to marry non-residents unless they came from a state where SSM was already legal.) An Indian tribe is not "legally different from any other US jurisdiction", it is the same as many other US jurisdictions - the other Indian tribes, and those total well more people than are in places with jurisdictions like DC's. If we want to divide it into states, tribes, districts, and territories, we can. As to how "sovereign" the nations are, please realize that there is at least a debate about whether the same term can be applied to the states of the union. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I know nothing about tribes, but i don't understand how you can compare it to a state. CTJF83 chat 20:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Presumably you don't understand because you don't know much about tribes. Tribes have their own government with a direct relationship with the federal government (as states do, as opposed to smaller jurisdictions like counties and towns). They may be within a state, but they are not subject inherently to the state's constitutions. They have federally-recognized powers to govern, including the power to grant marriages to their members. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (a federal government organization) notes that there are 1.9 million folks in these jurisdictions. The areas involved can be bigger than a state - the Navajo Nation is 26110 square miles, making it about the size of New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Connecticut combined (or 10 Delawares plus a Rhode Island!) These are not some insignificant part of America, and their powers are in many ways like those of state governments. - Nat Gertler (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Part of the problem I have with adding them is they only grant marriages to other tribe members, not just anyone that meets a states residency requirements. At the very least, they should have a different section, if they are even included, CTJF83 chat 21:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
            • No, they don't just grant marriages to other tribe members, they grant marriages where at least one of the people is a tribe member; the one reported Coquille SSM is between a member and a non-member. And how the Coquille limitation based on membership requirements is so vital a distinction from the former Massachusetts limitation based on residency requirements (or whatever they call themselves) that one qualifies for this article and one not eludes me. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
              • The MA restriction isn't an apples-to-apples comparison with that of the Coquille. In MA, the restriction wasn't a permanent bar against obtaining a marriage license, as a couple could get married in MA if they wanted to become residents or intended to become residents. The Coquille restriction though is finite, as one of the parties to the marriage must be member of the tribe. As I understand it, the only way to become a member of the tribe is to be born with Coquille blood, correct? That's a finite criterion; you either have it at birth or you don't. Now, if I'm wrong, please correct me. I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that comparing the laws of indian tribes against those of states/DC isn't an on-point comparison. If the Coquille recognition is included in this article, it should be done in a separate reference.Ronnotronald (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Yes, and I'm missing how that distinction somehow separates them from this article, which is not Infinite same-sex marriage in the United States (and if it were, every state listed would be disqualified because I don't think there's a one which will let brothers marry.) As for whether blood is the only way to join the Coquilles, I am uncertain; I do not know the policy regarding various forms of adoption. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • I drew the distinction between the now-defunct MA prohibition and the in-place Coquille prohibition to point out that I didn't agree with your logic for inclusion of the Coquille, not as a reason for exclusion from the article. My reason for exclusion from the article is because I don't think the tribal recognition issue is as cut and dry as the issue of recognition in the states/DC. The point I have been trying to make from the beginning is that comparing tribal law to laws of the states isn't an equal comparison. The interaction of tribal law with federal and state law is different in very crucial ways than that of the interaction of state law with federal law and the law of sister states. As I've said before, if the Coquille marriage recognition is included, it should have an explanation (however brief) to highlight the differences between having an indian tribe recognize same-sex marriage and having a state/DC recognize it. Further, I'm confused by your 'infinite same-sex marriage' remark. No one is suggesting that the bounds of same-sex marriage are limitless; consanguinity and bigamy/polygamy will still render a marriage void from its inception.Ronnotronald (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
                    • So the federal government not recognizing same-sex marriages from tribal jurisdictions is so different from them not recognizing same-sex marriages from state jurisdictions, that, despite the tribal marriages being same-sex marriages in the United States, they still don't qualify for the article Same-sex marriage in the United States? - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
                      • Tribal law is subject to unique treatment under federal law. Treatment that at times is wholly different from the treatment given to states. So while the primary reason for disregarding marriages performed by the Coquille Tribe would presumably be the same (namely, DOMA), there could be additional reasons too. As for inclusion in this article, I've been swayed and now believe that we should add Coquille recognition to this article. One thing I remain firm on though is that the unique legal status/requirements that go along with this tribe's sanctioning of same-sex marriage. Do you agree with that?Ronnotronald (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
                        • I've got no problem with mentioning that at least one member of the couple must be a member of the tribe, if it's done down in the heart of the article, where the details of the situations in other jurisdictions are discussed. I think that adding it to the intro summary would have the effect of painting the marriage as something unreal or lesser, when of course all jurisdictions have their limits on marriage. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry to burst your bubble, but states are sovereign too, thus the analogy is perfectly sound. In fact, the analogy makes far more sense than comparing tribes to states because on matters of domestic relations, the federal government has no sovereignty, no power, no nothing. All DOMA does is define the words "marriage" and "spouse" wherever they appear in federal statutes and tell states that they don't have to recognize same-sex relationships performed in other jurisdictions. That is a far cry from regulating marriage, which is entirely the province of states (and tribes). Of course, on some matters, state law and tribal law are different in how they relate to federal law, but as far as recognition of same-sex marriage goes, it's not. Because of DOMA, the federal government won't provide benefits to tribal same-sex marriage or state ones. In addition, states won't have to recognize them (whether from other states or other nations. Finally, to address another point, nothing in DOMA prevents tribes from solemnizing same-sex marriages anymore than it prevents states or DC from doing so. DOMA simply doesn't work that way. Tribes have their own sovereign rights to regulate marriage, so it is not something granted by the federal government, and therefore cannot be subject to how "marriage" is defined in federal statutes. -Rrius (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I wasn't implying states don't possess a degree of sovereignty, the ability of a state to govern its own affairs is a central tenet to our form of government. All I was saying is that the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed by an indian tribe might have some additional issues that would need to be addressed. As for your DOMA argument, I disagree with you on a number of levels and I'd be more than happy to go into them with you offline or another forum, as I don't think they would be germane to the argument at hand.Ronnotronald (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The relevant DOMA provision says,

“ In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. ”

Exactly what act, ruling, regulation or administrative interpretation empowers tribes to regulate marriage using the word "marriage" or "spouse"? I would love to hear your argument, and it is relevant here. Either tribes have a right to regulate marriage, as states do, or they don't. Your DOMA argument would hold that the answer is no, therefore it is relevant here. -Rrius (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted what my DOMA argument is. The DOMA argument I was referring to has absolutely nothing to do with whether DOMA treats tribes differently in their ability to regulate marriage. My issue with your comments on DOMA isn't about the law's effect vis-a-vis state vs. tribal regulation of marriage. Rather, my issue is with your conclusion that DOMA doesn't legislate family law and that is not relevant to the discussion of whether the Coquille should be included in this article.

As for the issue at hand, my knowledge of tribal law is far from robust, so perhaps a simple question could clear all this up. Is there clear authority citing to the proposition that an issue of tribal self-government would be looked at in the same way as that of a similar issue that originated in a state? In other words, is there authority stating that when an issue of tribal sovereignty is before a court, a different examination is required? My original reasoning for wanting to separate the mention of the Coquille recognition was predicated on an assumption that different standards might exist for the examination of tribal laws in federal courts. If that's not the case, then there's no need to separate the mention of the Coquille's marriage recognition from that of CT, DC, et. al.Ronnotronald (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, you misinterpret my argument on DOMA. I never argued that it "doesn't legislate family law". That is such a broad statement, and bears no relation to what I said. What I did say was that it does two things: says that "marriage" and "spouse" refer only to opposite-sex marriage and permits states refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. That is specific and not so much an argument as a restatement of the statute. As a result of how the federal statute works, whether entities other than states can regulate marriages is entirely dependent on two things: whether the jurisdiction to regulate marriage is dependent on federal law and, if so, whether that statute uses the words "marriage" or "spouse" in the grant. In other words, the tribe is only prevented from solemnizing such marriages if its right to regulate marriage is granted by a federal statute saying, "The Coquille are authorized to regulate marriage." If, instead, their jurisdiction is inherent (because they are, you know, sovereign) or if the statute says, "The Coquille are authorized to regulate domestic relations law," then they have every right to. DOMA can create weird situations, but it is a simple law and relatively predictable.

Frankly, your reasoning is far from robust here. You are saying we should not include the tribe because it might be looked at differently under DOMA. That is faulty for two reasons. First, the federal government doesn't recognize state marriages, so what difference would there be? None of the marriages listed on in this article exist under federal law. Second, the burden is on you to show that DOMA somehow matters. I have yet to see a source that says DOMA has any other effect than to prevent the federal government from recognizing them. -Rrius (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just found this article (see page 529). -Rrius (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the article, it definitely cleared up some of the questions I had. I reread your posts and see what you're saying. You've misquoted me though, as I never said we shouldn't include the Coquille because of how their marriages might be interpreted under DOMA. On the contrary, you were the one who introduced DOMA into the discussion. I only started talking about DOMA when I disagreed with some of the points I thought you made (which I now see you haven't). Honestly, we're in agreement here on the original issue, I've already said that I have no problem including the Coquille. As for the other issues that have been brought up, there's mischaracterization/misquoting on both sides and I wonder if we're not actually on the same side of this argument as well. I'll take a look at your comments again and try to provide a more substantive response this evening, but for now, this is just my gut instinct on the state of this argument.Ronnotronald (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool beans. -Rrius (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Add. While the legal status of tribal sovereignty is complicated, colloquially the tribal nations are "in the US" (and they really are not so fully independent as, y'know, Canada or France, which are uncomplicatedly different countries from the US). Details definitely belong in an independent article, or a section of a relevant article, but as a summary mention, it should also go here. LotLE×talk 22:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Add: the marriages are more than merely symbolic since 1) they offer real tribal benefits and 2) tribal marriages are recognised in other jurisdictions. Ronline ✉ 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda

Like it or not, SSM is considered a huge part of the the homosexual agenda (by those who believe in it). There has been no actual discussion of it's inclusion that I could find, just people claiming that including it is POV in edit summaries. With so much linking the two, it seems that NOT including it is the POV. If anybody has a real, logical reason for not including it, I'd love to see it. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Homosexual agenda" is a pejorative term that really doesn't make sense as a "see also" here. If mentioning the concept in the discussion regarding conservative opposition makes sense, put it there. Otherwise, it really doesn't fit as the target article is about the term and opposition to gay rights, not same-sex marriage as such. -Rrius (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

See the first paragraph though- it references directly to SSM PeshawarPat (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it does or does not, the term is clearly POV and has no place in the article. The term is used by opponents to refer to anything about homosexuality they dislike, and as such, it has no place in the article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PeshawarPat: Your POV edits, which clashes with many other editors here in Wikipedia, belongs to websites such as this website: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality
Native94080 (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

In the current editing conflict, I've seen folks on both sides accuse others of vandalism. I would like to remind folks that as per Wikipedia policy, "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". I'd appreciate it if we could keep the tone a bit calmer. - Nat Gertler (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing George source

I'm about to replace a reference with a fact tag, and it needs a longer explanation than can fit in the edit summary to avoid a reversion war. The line is "Some opponents to same-sex marriage argue that judicial rulings such as the California Supreme Court's decision in the In re Marriage Cases has amounted to unconstitutional judicial activism." And the reference is this. The problem with this citation on this line are several:

1. The piece does not make any claim about what "Some opponents argue", it's just what George argues - if the line were to be kept in, then he should be cited, under the WP:WEASEL concerns. (Proper sourcing for this line would be a reliable source that described this argument to a mass of people, rather than just individuals.)
2. George makes no claim in this piece that the California ruling or any other state-level ruling is unconstitutional. His discussion of constitutionality refer only to federal cases and the federal constitution... a different constitution than at work in the state cases.

As such, I'm rming the reference and hanging a "Citation needed" tag on it. -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Tax and Revenue implications of allowing Same Sex Marriages

If at all possible could the tax and revenue implications of allowing same sex marriage be outlined?

I know that both state and federal governments would lose a tremendous amount of revenue because of joint tax filing, inheritance tax from the death of a same sex spouse, health benefits, et al.

Gay men and women are the highest earners as a group in American today, I wonder if all the Social Security from men that died with AIDS need to be paid to their spouse would we ever have has a surplus in 2000?

Are the moral and ethical attacks on homosexual just a way to make it ok to steal from them legally?

Does anyone have statically accurate information on the fiscal aspects of these arguments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.78.10 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As your concerns are specifically with the US, a more appropriate article for them to be covered in is Same-sex marriage in the United States. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP makes a good point, but I think it would be hard for him to find these statistics because the department of statistics in every state, county and local municipal juridictions within all fifty U.S states do not keep stats based on sexuality. The choices on a death certificate, for example, would be single, married, divorced, widowed/widower. In terms of sex, it would be male, female, etc.Malke2010 05:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

But even if all of the roughly half-million AIDS deaths through 2000 in the US were gay males, and even if they all had surviving spouses, with a year 2000 surplus of $230 billion, wiping out that surplus in that year would've meant paying each spouse over $400,000 in spousal benefits in that year. If that were what Social Security paid out, well, we'd see a lot more mysterious deaths, I can tell you that. Add in that AIDS tended to hit the younger crowd and that gay men are less likely to be raising children, and you've eliminated a lot of the eligibility for widower benefits. - Nat Gertler (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you

I would argue based on the data you presented (thank you) that the deaths in the 80's and 90's up to 2000 where mostly 30/40/50 y.o. gay men (assume all where gay men of course that was not the case) thus they had paid in a long time. Taking .5 million people (very sad) at a ss tax max of 5k per year for only 10 years is 250 million. So that is money that "freed up" since their were no spouse to collect it. As a side note correct me if I am wrong the social security trust fund became assesable for government use (regan) right around the time AIDS appeared?

Understood, but this article is not a place to make arguments; that falls under original research. This is the place to reflect arguments made elsewhere. And it would be hard to make much of a case for there being a strong government decision based on $250 million over 10 years; while that may sound like a lot of money, that's practically indetectable on a government level. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(Help) :NatGertler as I am a new user I actually found that data I was looking for at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5559&type=0 and would like to enter it properly into the page I am not sure how to - please delete this entry if you can help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilano (talk • contribs) 07:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, good source! Let me make a first stab at entering the key findings, and then you can address where you think my summary comes up short. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Section added. There's some cool little bits in the CBO report (like the shifting of adoptive or stepchildren onto a working parent's health plan), but I kept it pretty summaryish. Be bold and expand on parts you think are important. Please don't delete your material from this page, as the record of relevant discussion should be kept. - Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I've set up automated archiving via MiszaBot on this page, moving any discussion that hasn't been active for 60 days onto archive pages. (This page already has archive pages, this just saves us from having to move things manually.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Maryland now recognizes Same-Sex Marriages

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/02/md-attorney-general-says-state-can-recognize-out-of-jurisdiction-same-sex-marriages/
Native94080 (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, he just said they could recognize such marriages. No such recognition is taking place, yet, although this does make the road smoother. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See [1] [2] Ron 1987 00:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Finding further Sun references, I stand corrected. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The opinion acts as a guide to judges, etc. The legislature, judiciary or governor may act to recognise out-of-state gay marriages. The governor could simply order the state government to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PLehany (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Native American" versus "Indian"

One recent editor tried to change a sentence in the lede to "Same-sex marriages are currently granted by five of the 50 states, one American Indian tribe, and one federal district:" instead of "...one Native American tribe...". While I don't know the reason this editor was making this change (there are both reasonable and unreasonable reasons for doing so), I realized that there is actually a strong case for making a fairly similar change. After all, what we're discussing here isn't people, but legal jurisdictions. The proper federal government term under which the Coquille are granted jurisdiction are as an "Indian tribe". So just as we're discussing Washington, DC as a "federal district" rather than as a city, it may be more appropriate in this situation to refer to the jurisdiction as "Indian tribe". Thoughts? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you strongly think that then go ahead. Personally though I think its fine the way it has been for the last month or so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine either way. CTJF83 chat 21:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hokay, have done so! --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Edit request from Ssgames, 25 June 2011

Same-sex marriages may be performed and recognized legally in New York State. The State Senate passed the bill at 10:30 tonight. Reported by NY1 cable news in New York via live coverage of the Senate proceedings in Albany. Licenses will be issued to same-sex couples 30 days after the governor signs the bill, which he has pledged to do. Same-sex marriages in other states are already recognized in New York.

Please update the map graphic, the timeline, and the text where applicable.

Ssgames (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

2 of your requests were completed before you wrote this request. The graphic should wait until the bill is signed into law. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

marking as answered per reasons above. Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything new related to New York in the article. I don't see anything new on the Timeline either. How do I sign this correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.85.82 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Well, now I see it, so you can just ignore my last post..98.206.85.82 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Same-sex marriage in New York was legalized on July 24, 2011, 30 days after Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill doing so into law." Why is something that's going to happen in the future written about in the past tense? 128.36.183.104 (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Rhode Island?

In the article is the statement, "States that recognize same-sex marriage but do not grant same-sex marriage licenses include Rhode Island, and Maryland.[3][4][5]" However, RI is not in the info box on the right side. user:mnw2000 12:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

error in count of states

The opening paragraph says there are seven states and lists 6. In adding new york it went from 5 to 7. 74.104.179.52 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Jon W

This looks correct now. It says 5 and names 5. DC is not a state and NY will only issue licenses to same-sex couples in late July.

BTW, people seem to think that means July 24, but I'd like to see that from an official source, just in case there's some trick to the way the days are counted. Many news sources just say late July. I think they are being careful as well. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Request: New York is the 6th state to allow same-sex marriage

Voted on June 24th, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.128.42 (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Already reflected in the article. It's just not listed on the states that currently offer same-sex marriage, because it's not July 24 yet. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence

71.232.17.194 (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC) The sentence "In all six states, same-sex marriage has been legalized through legislation or court ruling.[11]" is incorrect. NY being the change. Please fix..

The law isn't in effect until July 24th. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but perhaps some wordsmithing would help here. Perhaps NY should be mentioned? e.g. "In all six states, same-sex marriage has been legalized through legislation or court ruling; on July 24, 2011, when same-sex marriage is set to become legal in New York, ...." Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from DuctTapeJedi, 26 June 2011

I would like to note that as of recent times, New York has passed same-sex marriage. The article has yet to be update this historic right...

DuctTapeJedi (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Legalization of same-sex marriage in New York is set to take effect on July 24, 2011." NYyankees51 (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)