Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Wikipedia discredits US Court decision

A sentence discredits a court for using a particular article disliked by LGBT. It says:

"It is the first court decision to cite the discredited "New Family Structure" research of Mark Regnerus.(ref)Bartlett, Tom (26 July 2012). "Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal's Audit Finds". Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 12 August 2012.(endref)(ref)Marrigan, Haurwitz, Tara, Ralph K.M (July 27, 2012). "UT researcher's study on children of gay parents should not have been published, audit says". statesman.com. Retrieved August 13, 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)(endref)

I tried to change the wording from the npov "discredited" to "criticized." This was reverted.

Basically the LGBT community does not like the conclusions of the article, as is their right, and has criticized it, as is their right.

The reference was in a refereed journal. Naturally, the referees are being attacked, since it did not favor SSM.

One criticism is that some of the referees did not favor gay marriage. Apparently, the critics want the referees stacked with people who favor gay marriage! This is not reasonable IMO and would be clearly pov.

A more substantive criticism was that two of the six referees were associated with the author. This is apparently not unheard of BTW.

However, most weren't and the article was printed in a refereed journal. The people who don't like it, are not themselves, referees, that I could tell. So the npov is missing from these articles. They are just people with a pov.

This leaves a Wikipedia article in the position of criticizing a court of law for using a refereed journal!

We are not supposed to engage in WP:OR research here. Our opinion does not count over that of 1) a refereed article and 2) a US Court decision. While, being extremely tolerant here, I can allow the word "criticized", using the word "discredited" is way over the top for a mere comment on a US Federal Court decision. Student7 (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the NPOV question: is the characterization of the Regnerus work in question as "discredited" a fair characterization of how it is generally viewed or does that characterization ignore the fact that others find this work creditable as a study of "gay parenting"?

Who is defending the quality and conclusions of the Regnerus study? Whose views are not being represented if we use the word "discredited"? You'll have to do better than saying the referees. There's a world of sociologists and statisticians out there.

You might find the discussion and cited materials here useful. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read the material. It makes valid points.

I happen to disagree with Roe v. Wade. This is a judgement that is "widely criticized." "Roe", meanwhile, has changed her mind. But in a Wikipedia article, I have two choices, I can either refer to the "widely criticized" Roe v Wade, or am even forced to say RvW, the law of the land. It's a law. The court used it. My objections and those of critics are irrelevant.

I suppose there are no "neutrals" here. Time magazine, the New Yorker, are all publications with a liberal pov. While I might quote them for some articles, not sure that applies to opposition to a refereed article. While both of those magazines (and probably the others) are carefully edited, neither of them begins to approach the degree of quality required for a "refereed" article.

"Discredited" is not quite right for an refereed article used by a US federal court. It is up to the next level of court to say that the article is "discredited." Or not, as the case may be. It is not up to Wikipedia editors (any longer) to make that decision. It is out of our hands. Student7 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Discredited" is the appropriate term for a study which failed both an internal and an external audit. (Among other issues, half of the reviewers had a conflict of interest, none had published anything in the field, the paper's definition of lesbian mothers and gay fathers was functionally useless, etc.) This seems more like sore-losing than a legitimate complaint about the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese's reasoning. "Discredited" doesn't refer to the court nor its decision, it refers to the study and its claims, rightfully so according to scientific peer-review. Courts do not conduct scientific study and therefore do not decide whether a study is discredited. Teammm ^TM 02:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Article title in lead sentence

Per WP:BEGINNING, "if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." Various attempts at the opening sentence here have been stilted or even ungrammatical in an apparent effort to shoehorn the exact page title into the opening sentence. We are free to say "In the United States, same-sex marriage is made of jelly beans" or "Same-sex marriage comes with a free side-order of nachos in the United States" rather than some of the awkward phrasing that has been used. (And per MOS:BOLDTITLE, "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it[...] If the article's exact title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"New" Lead

So,

Same-sex marriage is not recognized in most U.S. jurisdictions. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), approved by Congress in 1996, prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allows each U.S. state to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in another state. Since 2004, however, six states have legalized same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia, and two Native American tribal jurisdictions.

Two states recognize same-sex marriages performed only in other jurisdictions. California, which briefly granted same-sex marriage in 2008, now only recognizes them on a conditional basis. Laws that would legalize same-sex marriage in Washington and Maryland were passed in 2012, but each will be subject to a referendum during the November 2012 elections, while Maine will also vote on an initiative to establish same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage has been legalized through court rulings and legislative action, but not via popular vote. Nine states prohibit same-sex marriage in statute and thirty prohibit it in their constitution. The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s, but became more prominent in U.S. politics in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court declared the state's prohibition to be unconstitutional in Baehr v. Lewin.

During the 21st century, public support for legalizing same-sex marriage has grown considerably, and various national polls now show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.

I agree with all your suggestions except taking Congress out. Teammm ^TM 01:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The bill was not enacted by Congress; it passed Congress but was enacted by Bill Clinton's signature (Congress can enact laws by veto override, of course). So the "by Congress" part should be removed. With the addition of the 2012 material, I think we can afford to summarize as During the 21st century, public support for legalizing same-sex marriage has grown considerably,.--Nat Gertler (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is to explain who created the law. Yes, the President signed it but Congress brought it to existence. I believe it should stay in as written now and I like your new sentence. Teammm ^TM 05:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why how-a-bill-becomes-a-law information is so specifically relevant to this article that it needs to be in the second sentence... much less in inaccurate form. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not "how-a-bill-becomes-a-law", it's which Congress approved it. As a reader, I'd like to know. Teammm ^TM 21:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And as I've taken all of your suggestions and compromised, it's awkward that this is not being accepted with equal deference as I've explained it. I think it's important information. Teammm ^TM 21:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I now propose:

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allows each U.S. state to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in another state. Teammm ^TM 21:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Through the wikilink, the text still seems to be suggesting that it was enacted by Congress. It was not. There is a whole bunch of legislative changes being discussed in the intro section; the details of passage are at best left to the body of the article... and really, if folks want more information on how DOMA was passed, they are more likely to click on the DOMA link than on the date. If it's awkward for you that I'm arguing against material that I think is both unneeded and misleading, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm just trying to work toward the quality of the article. (Oh, also I would suggest to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states rather than another state, which comes across as if each state can only bar the marriages from a single state.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You're choosing not to recognize I wrote both "approved" and "enacted". Those are the two choices. But you're right I can take out the link and place it in the DOMA article. Thanks. Teammm ^TM 22:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Also you should be editing the DOMA template since you feel so strongly that saying "enacted by Congress" is confusing or misleading. Teammm ^TM 22:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not "choose to ignore"; I did not see that you had gone back in and altered your earlier message in the discussion thread after I responded. But even there, the reference to Congress should be left out; it's a partial detail that ignores the involvement of the President in making this a law, and it's a level of depth that we do not need in the lead. --Nat Gertler (talk)

Ok, sweetie. Teammm ^TM 23:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Threshing out the lead sentence

There's been a lot of back and forth over the lead sentence, sometimes without edit summaries, so we should thresh it out here. A couple of guideline notes:

• The phrase "same-sex marriage in the United States" does not need to be in the sentence, as discussed in the previous talk page section.
• If the phrase is in the first sentence, it should be bolded, and there should be no wikilinks within the phrase (per WP:CONTEXTLINK, "Do not place a link within the bolded title, even if that seems to provide a graceful way to link to an appropriate context-setting topic.")

Having said that, I put forth the following beliefs on clarity:

• Every attempt to hold the phrase together either comes off of stilted or says something that does not actually mean the thing it's intended to say.
• The first sentence should state that SSM is not recognized in most US jurisdictions; the "most" will convey that there are exceptions. That covers the larger story.
• What is currently the second paragraph should be moved into the first paragraph, listing the exceptions.
• We should avoid saying SSM is "illegal", as that implies it's some sort of offense, rather than something that doesn't exist. There are no laws to arrest someone for same-sex marriage in the US. You can say you're married to someone of the same sex, it just isn't recognized by the law.

Additions? Disagreements? Let's thrash it out here a bit, instead of the in-article back-and-forth we've been seeing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It couldn't be worse than it is now. I thought you did fine yesterday. It looks like Teammm didn't note your comment above before editing it back and adding the wikilink.

By "moved into the second graf", do you mean that grafs 1 & 2 should be combined as they are now, or that the exception info should precede the sentence about DOMA? I think providing detail about jurisdictions before shifting to the denial of federal recognition reads more smoothly. The material about jurisdictions is overly detailed as well. I'd drop the names of the tribes and find a way to say the issue is on the ballot in 4 states without worrying about initiative vs. referendum. I guess we're stuck with the CA exception. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I basically meant killing the space between the grafs. Not that there couldn't be some fine-tuning on that, but the federal rejection should be second sentence, count and list of jurisdictions should be third. I think the CA detail can be cut down to California, which formerly granted SSM, now only conditionally recognizes it, and leave the detail on that to the body (particularly since what's up top now isn't 100% correct... they recognize SSM from other jurisdictions after that date, just not -as- marriage, but they do give it legal credence... best to keep it simple but accurate, and leave the fine-tuning to below.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9, did NatGertler's comment not exist one half hour later than I made my edit today or am I mistaken? If it was here before then, I certainly didn't notice it. I take NatGertler's suggestions well. I think the first and second sentence are good the way they are right now. I agree with Nat's combining of some paragraphs and fine-tuning information. That would be a good idea. Teammm ^TM 18:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I said "your comment above" meaning this written hours earlier. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't "not note" it intentionally, I just didn't realize it was here. I would like to know if you all like this lead better:

Same-sex marriage is not recognized in most U.S. jurisdictions. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted by Congress in 1996, which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and allows each U.S. state to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in another state. Since 2004, however, six states have legalized same-sex marriage, including Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, as well as Washington, D.C., and two Native American tribal jurisdictions (Coquille and Suquamish).

Two states (Maryland and Rhode Island) recognize same-sex marriages performed only in other jurisdictions. California, which shortly granted same-sex marriage in 2008, now only recognizes them on a conditional basis. Laws that would legalize same-sex marriage in Washington and Maryland were passed in 2012, but each will be subject to a referendum during the November 2012 elections, while Maine will also vote on an initiative to establish same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage has been established through court rulings and legislative action, but not via popular vote. Nine states prohibit same-sex marriage in statute and thirty prohibit it in their constitution. The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s, but became more prominent in U.S. politics in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court declared the state's prohibition to be unconstitutional in Baehr v. Lewin.

Throughout the 2000s (decade), public support for legalizing same-sex marriage grew considerably, and various national polls now show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Teammm ^TM 18:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Much more than just the lead now. I would...

change "shortly" to "briefly" or "for a few months"

drop the names of the 2 tribes, excessive detail for a summary

Perhaps "Since 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) has prevented..." -- no need to mention Congress in this summary.

Six states. Since we're listing all 6 states, don't say "including"

Perhaps not Washington D.C., but the District of Columbia. Same thing, but isn't it distracting to name a city when the contrast we want is "something other than a state", namely DC and tribes?

This phrase "Same-sex marriage has been established through court rulings and legislative action, but not via " -- authorized? legalized? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not just here but in all other articles as well: it seems unnecessarily loquacious to say that Congress (legislature) passed something, unless there was a threat of veto, or overriding a veto. The federal (or state or provincial) government does things. Unless there is some overriding reason to bring in Congress/legislature/parliament, the action should be attributed to "the government" or "federal government." Else, it seems laudatory or blaming. Student7 (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is another case where we should avoid "legalize", as gay marriage is not otherwise "illegal" (as moonshine is) but rather unrecognized. In this particular wording, "legitimized" may actually be the proper word. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "legitimize" is a proper word. Most states, since 1973, and country, since 1996, do have laws prohibiting (ie. one man & one woman) it; therefore it's been "legalized" or "established". Teammm ^TM 23:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, they have laws prohibiting "state recognition" of same-sex marriage. No one faces criminal or civil penalties in the United States for being married to a person of the same sex; their marriage simply isn't recognized by the state. "Legitimize" is proper, basing it on the "accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements" usage of legitimate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, "legitimize" is not a proper term. Just because it comes from a thesaurus doesn't make it proper usage. You have an issue with language and trying to dig deep into it, making conclusions that are not only gratuitous but wrong. "Legalize" is the correct term. The laws do prohibit same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is the legal recognition of the same-sex union. It's one in the same. No one says same-sex marriage has been "legitimized". That would imply that it's not legitimate. There's an inherently negative undertone when someone reads 'the government legitimized gay relationships' and that's what the usage of that term will display. In fact, that's the talking point of many prejudiced people. I strongly oppose it's use in describing the legalization of same-sex marriage. Teammm ^TM 23:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Then we should search for some clearer third word. Despite your statement that most states prohibit SSM, looking over the various relevant state constitutional amendments, I only see one that speaks of whether they "prohibit" a marriage (Georgia); most are concerned with which marriages are "recognized" or "valid and recognized". --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Legalize" and "establish" are two completely adequate words. That's all I can say. Teammm ^TM 15:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not WikiMedia

Under the various dates, events are breathlessly given, one at a time, like a newscaster. These should be summarized. "Idaho rejected SSM" or "Idaho passes SSM," and not (date) representative Jones submits bill to Idaho legislature. 2) Idaho committee pigeonholes it, 3) Legislature forces committee to choke up bill for floor vote, 3) Idaho Legislature passes it and sends it on to Senate, 4)Idaho Senate passes it and sends it on to Governor, who says "He'll take his time about it." 5) Idaho Governor vetoes SSM bill. 6) Idaho legislature overrides governor's veto. 7) Opponents claim to have collected sufficient signatures to get it onto the 2014 ballot. etc. etc.

This shouldn't be WikiMedia. We have one of those already. Either Idaho rejects it or accepts it. Either it's on the Idaho ballot or it isn't. This sounds like "News at 11." It should be consolidated so it sounds like an encyclopedia instead.

By this means, several fallacies may be revealed: Argument from repetition, Proof by verbosity. There is a suggestion, as well, of Retrospective determinism. Student7 (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point that this is a chronology and therefore follows a different style, though in this case the style wasn't quite right. I've moved the entire section to a new entry and done some reformatting: Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange revert

I reverted a deletion of a lawsuit entry in the 2012 section. Notably, the edit summary seemed a little angry:

"just another suit in a suit-happy country. Wait til there is a ruling, particularly on appeal or something. Just a piece of paper and WP:SPAM at this point"

The content was sourced and relevant for the section, so rolled back the deletion. Perhaps the editor can explain his or her objection the content. – MrX 02:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to think there's too much material in the chronology section. In this case, noting the initiation of the suit makes sense. I would suggest that this bit be removed when something more important like a decision in this case is handed down in future. And not until then. There actually are not so many suits in the chronology that adding this one bit is a problem, I don't think.

The chronology is overly detailed at points, but this is the only mention of this lawsuit and it's not comparable to the complaint in the previous section of this page about detailing every step in the consideration of a bill, which I agree is inappropriate. But details should be removed thoughtfully and with respect for the work of previous editors. For example, before removing detail about votes in a legislature, I'd want to be sure that detail is included in other entries where such detail is appropriate. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like you have forked it to another page, which is probably wise. – MrX 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Majority of Americans Now Support Legal Gay Marriage?"

"During the 21st century, public support for legalizing same-sex marriage has grown considerably, and various national polls conducted since 2011 show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage." This is no longer true as the latest Gallup Poll that tracks the issue indicates that 50% are in favor and 48% are opposed with a margin or error of +/- 3% (a statistical dead-heat). This shows that Americans are still evenly split on the issue. According to the available polls, a majority supported legal gay marriage only for about one year: 2011. Many articles on Wikipedia that reference Polls usually misinterpret them as one poll, or even a group of polls, do not necessarily prove anything and one should look at the polling methodology closely before stating opinions about conclusions about what the poll "proves" and then stating these conclusions as if their fact. I ask that the relevant sentence be reworded to take into consideration the current polls and my previously stated objection. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

One swallow does not make a summer. The entry reports a trend, not a single poll, and there is as yet no reason to believe that the trend -- thoroughly documented as of May 2012 -- has reversed. I recommend the graph here as an antidote to one-poll-tells-the-story thinking and the underlying data here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

By all means state that the trend is that more and more Americans are in support of legal gay marriage, that's fine. But stating as fact that a "majority of Americans support legal gay marriage" is just flat out not supported by the evidence. I know I may just be nitpicking. All the "thoroughly documented sources" are using just the same one or two polls as their reference, so each of them is not a true independent reference. I;d be happy with changing the sentence to "During the 21st century, public support for legalizing same-sex marriage has grown considerably,[14] and various national polls conducted in 2011 show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage"." As this would be completely true as all of the national polls in 2011 show a majority of support beyond the margin for errors. King of Nothing (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your concept that such claims can be torpedoed by a single poll which does not contradict it would make any such claim pointlessly contradictable. All I would need to do is to have a poll with a single participant; as it would have a huge margin of error, it would thus be a "statistical dead heat", and simply by being a poor poll would make zero overall claim possible based on better polls. That is not workable.

Also, the claim that you've made in various ways on your edit summaries and on my talk page that we should not make statements that could later be not true simply doesn't hold up to the way this or any encyclopedia I've ever seen is written. I can show you encyclopedias that say that Russia is part of the USSR, or state the frequency of hurricanes, or all sorts of other facts that could be and in fact were subject to change, and state them in the present tense. And of all the encyclopedias, Wikipedia is the last one that would need it, as it's the encyclopedia that is intended to be changed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In the News nomination

For those of you who may be interested in an ITN nomination related to this article: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#LGBT-related_politics_from_US_elections. --Grotekennis (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We do not yet have marriage equality in Maine, Maryland and Washington

I'm quite eager to have it, but the fact remains that the ballot measures must be certified under state law before they can go into effect. In my state of Washington, for example, we will not have same-sex marriage until the Secretary of State formally certifies the vote on December 6, 2012. This is especially important because with our mail-in election, we still have tens of thousands of ballots still in transit, plus several counties that have not yet reported. Please change the article back until the election results have been certified. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In the other states, and with the Minnesota constitutional amendment, it may be okay to say the laws passed as long as it is worded properly (i.e., with the appropriate qualifiers). -Rrius (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We run in to this problem every year or two; I think that surely we can find a phrasing that acknowledges that there are states where it has passed but is not yet effective. (That said, Minnesota's vote was a reject-ban vote, not an allow vote.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I was loose with my words, having just thrown Minn. in as an afterthought. -Rrius (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

We can certainly say that the measure in Minnesota failed, but it is factually incorrect right now to say that there is marriage equality in Maine, Maryland and Washington. We could certainly say that ballot measures in these states appear to be passing, and give the dates when the elections will be certified. After they are certified as passed, then we can add them to the list of states having same-sex marriage. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

We needn't say anything this moment, but the point is that we don't have to wait until certification to say what happened as long as we have reliable sources for a projection. -Rrius (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the 10th annual Splitting Hairs Championship. Today's opening ceremonies will include the Parade of Wikilawyers, followed by the Choosing of the Weasel Words, and the ever-popular 3RR Tightrope Walk. Let the games... begin! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was extremely helpful. And clever. -Rrius (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This year we're expecting a nice turnout. The players aren't on the level of the California Games of 2008, but, since there are four different states this time, I think a lot of sports fans are going to travel from some pretty far-flung articles. I'm excited! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 06:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I just wanted to say that it shouldn't be an issue to update the voter referendums as being passed in Maryland, Maine, and Washington, with reliable sources, while holding off declaring that same-sex marriage is legal. I agree with Rrius and Roscelese. Feels good to be a full citizen in my state. Teammm ^talk
_email 06:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the first three or four editors above. I'm more interested in accuracy than "hair-splitting." The media doesn't care about such niceties. This encyclopedia is necessarily dependent upon the media for information, but we don't have to report it in the same sloppy fashion. :::Where constitutional amendments were passed, that can certainly be reported when verified by appropriate authority. A enabling statute must then be passed by the legislature in order to activate that part of the constitution. It won't be legal until the legislation is signed by the governor along with an activation date, which is often "July 1" of next year, but could be sooner. So whatever stage it is in should be made clear.

In some states, it's possible that activation may not require a new legislative act, merely certification by appropriate authority. We need knowledgeable editors to track this. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Maps

Changes to geographical mapping of laws that are in effect is being discussed at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg and at Talk:Same-sex_marriage#Map_colour_changes. Student7 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

30 states claim

"nine states prohibit same-sex marriage in statute and 30 prohibit it in their constitutions"

This statement has multiple problems. One is that the amendments don't generally prohibit same-sex marriage; they prohibit state recognition of same-sex marriage. (If you want to understand the difference, realize that DOMA prohibits federal recognition of SSM, but that doesn't mean that the many marriages done in the various states aren't marriages or are causes for arrest or sanction.) And even within that, the 30 state count is wrong. California constitutionally requires the recognition of some same-sex marriages, per the state Supreme Court, and the Hawaii amendment doesn't prohibit anything, it merely permits the legislature to pass legislation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

They don't prevent people from going to another jurisdiction and getting married, but it does prohibit it in the state. Perhaps you don't realize that it is an offense for an official to issue a license to a same-sex couple or for an officiant to celebrate a civil marriage between a same-sex couple or both. As for the other point, Hawaii shouldn't be counted (or should be noted separately), but California really just needs a footnote to explain that while it generally prohibits, it does not prohibit marriages conducted during the 2008 window. -Rrius (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the offenses are of a general nature, punishing facilitation of any marriage that is prohibited or where the couple are not qualified under the statute. While the constitutional provisions don't require those to be offenses, they effectively push SSM within their scope. Also, they actually tend to say things like "valid or recognized", which creates unambiguous prohibition. -Rrius (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just run through the 10 marriage-only bans, and eight use "valid or recognized", Nevada uses "recognized or given effect", and Tennessee says no recognition in one sentence, and says, "Any policy or law or judicial interpretation, purporting to define marriage as anything other than the historical institution and legal contract between one man and one woman is contrary to the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable in Tennessee." I could check through the other 20 (it is 20, and Hawaii is not included in either it or the 10), but I have a feeling I'll find the same thing. -Rrius (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Marriage is a social institution that predates legislation and exists beyond its boundaries, with or without licenses. The granting of license is a form of state recognition, which is why that is barred. The California is more than a footnote, and it recognizes as marriage not only those performed within the sate during the window but marriages legally entered into in any jurisdiction prior to that 2008 date. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You aren't making a terribly compelling argument. Your first sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Civil marriage, which is the only kind we are talking about, is not an institution that predates legislation, but even if it were, that would be irrelevant. Legislation need not predate a thing to control it. Also, for the most part jurisdictions can't prohibit anything beyond their borders, but it would be idiotic to claim that means a state can't prohibit something. By your logic, state prohibitions between certain degrees of consanguinity aren't actually prohibitions. What the hell are they then? Suggestions? You obviously think you are coming from somewhere brilliant, but you are either doing a particularly shitty job of communicating that brilliance, or you don't know what you are talking about. As for California, it very much depends upon context. California needn't by fully explained in the body text every time the ban issue comes up. -Rrius (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried to tell him this a little while ago. Just saying. Officials can face misdemeanor charges. Regardless, the statutes do "prohibit" otherwise they would be pointless. Teammm ^talk
_email 21:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do prohibit - they prohibit state recognition and validation of marriages. But if two people stand up in a church, have a priest declare them wife-and-wife, and go off to live together in marital bliss, they have not violated anything so long at they are not making some legal application. And if a gay married couple passes through one of these states, they are neitehr arrested nor divorced, and they still have a marriage when they come through the other side. The term "recognized" is in just about every one of these amendments; I'm not sure why there's an insistence on avoiding that accurate language. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, are you saying that a marriage performed in a state where SSM is not recognized is legal in another state where it is? The problem would be, it seems to me, that there is no civil recording of it in case of divorce, custody proceedings, and inheritance, for example.

Just for the ease of discussion, there are countries where a heterosexual religious ceremony must be repeated civilly to be valid (legal). No civil marriage, no civil "rights", in the strictest sense. Not sure how this operates outside that country, but I assume if there is no validity inside the country, there is no validity outside either. Student7 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I don't know that there's been a test case of applying the common law marriage status (which some but not all states have) to a same-sex marriage that was socially entered into out of state. That's really how that would have to play in court, as a marriage entered into without recognition of the state in which the couple was in would not get the full-faith-and-credit treatment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. First (and again), this is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. More importantly, the word you came here bitching about was "prohibited", not "illegal". So stop trying to avoid being wrong by moving the goal posts. Finally, Same-sex marriage, by which we mean civil marriage, is prohibited in jurisdictions with "valid or recognized" bans. Trying to make some asinine argument about how individuals aren't prohibited from going out of state for a marriage shows you don't know what you're talking about. Civil marriage is a contract with three parties: two individuals and the government. The constitutional and statutory bans operate to prohibit same-sex marriages within their jurisdictions by prohibiting the government from contracting or recognizing marriages between people of the same sex. You don't seem to have understood last time, but here is what your argument amounts to: City A bans ownership of a handgun without a permit, but residents of City B can buy a handgun in City B without a permit and keep it in City B, so City A doesn't really ban ownership of a handgun without a permit. That is fatuous and a waste of everyone's time. -Rrius (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Are we having fun yet? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Are we trying to make a point? -Rrius (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes: The point is to settle down and keep it civil, because we all knew this was coming. You don't have to play if you're not enjoying it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I am well settled, and I don't really care that you think calling an argument ridiculous or fatuous is uncivil. I am perfectly at liberty to call Nat's points fatuous or time wasting. It is clear: A constitutional provision or state statute declaring that marriages between people of the same sex are not recognized or valid in the state prohibits same-sex marriage in the state. The government cannot offer marriage contracts to same-sex couples, and governments cannot recognize same-sex marriage contracted elsewhere. The arguments marshaled to the contrary by NatGertler are manifestly ridiculous and show a nearly complete lack of understanding of what civil marriage is, how civil marriage differs from religious marriage (or simply saying "hey, we're married") and how these same-sex marriage bans work. -Rrius (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your points. It was a friendly warning, trying to inject some levity. I much prefer humor to warnings and blocking people. I am serious about the civility, though, so please just tone it down. Nobody else is insulting anyone. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I didn't insult anyone. If you make it a policy to block people for words directed at arguments, not people, then that is at the very least unfortunate. Also, your "friendly warnings" should be more clear than cryptic snarkiness like "are we having fun yet?" If you genuinely think that was in any way calculated to to do anything other than annoy, then that is is more unfortunate than the other. -Rrius (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't honestly believe that you think a rational person would see your "Are we having fun?" and (1) understand the point you were trying to make (or even be certain it was directed at one person and not the whole discussion) and (2) not find it annoying, even insulting, rather than friendly. If your goal is, as you assert, to deal with what you perceive as incivility in a friendly way, then you should seriously reconsider your approach, because it managed to neither deal with anything nor be friendly. But given your "nevertheless", it seems you are instead the sort who feels you get to lecture everyone else on how they comport themselves and fling about threats, but has no need to consider his own behaviour. "Unfortunate" was an understatement. -Rrius (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

My intent was to remind you that a) this sort of conflict was predictable well in advance, and b) since it was so predictable, if you're not having fun, you shouldn't be getting so bent out of shape. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Next time you call someone ridiculous, I'll just post a template warning on your talk page instead of treating you like an equal. (And you did say he was being ridiculous, not his argument; its right there. Have a look. This isn't my first time seeing that excuse, believe you me.) I'm not the enemy here, I'm just a guy who made the mistake of trying to joke with you like a fellow adult instead of calling you out like an administrator. I assure you it will never happen again. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 06:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not call him ridiculous. I said he was being ridiculous. Those are two different things, especially when it is blindingly obvious from the context that I am talking about how he is arguing. In any event, I don't consider you an enemy, but to the extent "Are we having fun yet?" is a joke, it is a nasty and patronizing one at my expense. And it was in no way something anyone (aside from you, apparently) would consider "treating me like an equal". As you well know, that construction is used to address children. In person and with a certain tone, that construction can be used teasingly among friends. But this is the internet, where you cannot assume your reader knows the tone you intend. And I have never met you, not even in the way people can be said to have met on Wikipedia.

So how about this. I will undertake to evaluate how I deal with stupid arguments from other editors if you endeavor to take a serious look at the jokey warnings you give, considering especially whether they are actually calculated to get their messages across and whether the joke is (a) funny and (b) perhaps meaner than you intend. Do we have a deal? -Rrius (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot bother to be civil, please find something else to do to calm down until you can. If it upsets you that I am trying to be precise in wording, well, welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, I do know the difference between civil, religious, and social marriage, which is why I know that the prohibition of granting a civil marriage is not a prohibition of marriage. I also know that failing to recognize something is not a prohibition. If ferrets are prohibited in a state, then you are not allowed to drive through the state with the ferret, and the ferret does not reappear when you hit the next state. And yet if you pass through a state with one of these constitutional amendments, when you get through to the other side, your marriage is still there. It just hasn't been recognized or granted validity by the state while you're there. Which is why the terminology actually used by the amendments is preferable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Aside from this sentence, I will ignore your little attempt at baiting. You may think you are being precise, but you are not. No one anywhere is trying to say religious marriage (or social marriage, which I think you made up) is banned in any US state. If you think the word "civil" needs to be added in some strategic location in the article, then suggest that instead of what you have been. Though everyone else seems to understand without it. Also, it is not a question of "failing to recognize"; it is a prohibition on the government of the jurisdiction to recognize as a civil marriage a same-sex civil marriage performed in another jurisdiction. The word "recognize" is being used in its legal context. Normally, a civil marriage performed in one jurisdiction is recognized as a marriage in another jurisdiction as a matter of comity So in the context of these legal bans, recognition is exactly parallel to validity, which applies to civil marriages contracted in the jurisdiction itself. So a prohibition on recognition and validity of same-sex civil marriage is, within the jurisdiction, a blanket prohibition of same-sex civil marriage. To deny that is to deny reality, not to be accurate. So if your real problem is that you want to specify the word "civil" somewhere in the article, then let's have and end to the sophistry and discuss that instead. -Rrius (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "my" real problem (not that I'd use that term, I think that the sentence has a problem) is that the amendments and their effect are better described by using the words in the amendments. I think that makes it clearer what the effects of the prohibition are and carries less suggestion of effects that are not actually the case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Biden gets no credit here

I cannot right now digest the info into a readable paragraph, but VP Biden was the first to fully support gay marriage, 3 days before President Obama had his emergency interview. It's weird that the focus is usually on Obama, but his interview was only after Biden forced his hand ("Who do you love?", for which he later apologized to the President). Also the Obama paragraph is all over the place, 2012 -> 1996 -> 2008 -> 2009 -> 2008 -> 2010 - 2012. There is no narrative there, he supports it but he didn't but he always did? Chrono-illogical. I'm hoping somebody with a brain that is working better than mine is right now will fix this section... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say maybe a sentence on Biden is all that is necessary. Yes he was first, but he has no power to sign laws or the such, and to actually make laws, like Obama does. CTF83! 01:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

U.S. States that Ban Same Sex Marriage by Statute

The second paragraph of this article says that "nine states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute and 30 prohibit it in their constitutions" but I only count 7 on the map that are light pink. Is this an out-of-date statement? Adamlance (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Template for Illinois

The article has been protected against well-meaning newbies from updating for Illinois legislation. Is there any way to enter a template from Wikipedia:Current event templates or something similar, that will activate (be readable) on the day the legislation (or whatever) takes affect? This, of course, won't stop newbies, but might slow down regular editors. Regular editors could "tweak," what would essentially be "proposed" wording, some of which (a name in a list) would not be subject to real editing, but some of which might. Student7 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Legislation passed 26-12 in Rhode Island Senate. News to publish soon. Just saying. Teammm ^talk
_email 21:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Rhode Island Snapshot

Handled. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Opposition groups?

Couldn't the information in these paragraphs be put into the "opposition" section for more cohesion?

It doesn't make sense to have a separate Opposition Groups section when you only have one Support and Opposition section.

It would be redundant to have a Support groups and Support section............ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.170.105 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Polls and secondary sources

An edit was just rejected because it cited poll results directly from the polling organization (Fox News). However, our polling results are mostly sourced to the polling organizations (ABC and that Washington Post for ABC/Washington Post polls; Gallup for Gallup polls). Such sources are quite handy on polls, as they tend to have the fuller poll results. Citing an organization on their claimed poll results would seem to be similar to citing them on their opinion... but in any case, if we're to reject this one sources simply on its primary nature, we should be consistent. Otherwise, it creates the appearance that we're cherry-picking polls. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I updated the Fox poll info and re-wrote it to reflect that paragraph's theme, which is not the absolute level of opinion at any point but how public opinion has been changing over time. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The ABC-Post poll was cited by a secondary sources (TPM). In my mind, that should be the minimal threshold of inclusion for this type of politicized topic. I have no objections to re-adding the Fox News poll, provided that we can find at least one corroborating source. My concern is that their poll results seem to be very different from other recent polls, such that I am skeptical as to their validity. - MrX 15:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

See http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/03/composite-polling-confirms-same-sex-marriage-support/ Quote: "The closest gap in any poll was in a recent Fox News survey that found that 49 percent of people supported same-sex marriages, while 46 percent opposed them..... Even in the Fox News poll, long-term changes in public opinion were apparent. In 2004, only 20 percent of people polled by Fox supported same-sex marriages."

See http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/25/why-do-polls-show-support-for-gay-marriage-when-state-election-results-reveal-otherwise/ Quote "Indeed, rarely have polls from all sides of the political spectrum lined up so tightly with even the Fox Poll out a few days ago indicating that more Americans support same sex marriage than those who oppose it." links to the Fox poll in question. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm content with your last edit. - MrX 16:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)