Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Marriage Equality

I disagree that "marriage equality" is a biased/POV term, although I might have agreed with that notion a year ago. There is an upward trend in the usage of the term as can be seen here: [1]. Even right-leaning news sources use the term, for example [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8].

I would like to understand the argument for "marriage equality" being a non-neutral term. - MrX 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've only read one, so sorry if it's not representative of the others, but the no.3 source has an author who is clearly writing in favour of SSM. Seeteet (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Fox news sources are all opinion pieces, the WSJ states "nationwide marriage equality, as proponents call the issue"... which shows the point. This is terminology basically used by one side of the discussion. Claims that this is "marriage equality", as opposed to everyone can equally marry someone of the opposite sex being "marriage equality", is a POV... one I happen to share, but it's not neutral language. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not an exclusive term. Marriage equality means that people have the (equal) right to marry irrespective of the gender of their partner. Limiting marriage only to different sex couples is inequality. - MrX 18:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's still a loaded POV term, irrespective of whether some think it should be seen in its literal meaning. "Equality" has been a loaded word for a long time. Seeteet (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I find your bare declaration unconvincing. - MrX 18:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Whenever anything is said concerning gay rights, the word "equality" is nearly always used. Hence, it's a loaded, political and biased word that shouldn't be used except through attribution on Wikipedia's articles concerning anything LGBT. Seeteet (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

yes, that is the spin that same-sex marriage proponents wish to put on that combination of words. That does not make it any more a neutral term to use than homosexual "marriage" would be. -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it that way, but we can agree to disagree. Just so I understand though, is it your position that the term is non-neutral in the current cultural context/usage, or simply that it is non-neutral, period, and therefore should never be used in Wikipedia (unless attributed)? - MrX 20:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

All language may change. You may want to note that there is nothing inherent in the term that means that it refers to the relationship of same-sex marriage to sex-mixing marriage; we recently had an editor on the same-sex marriage article suggest that the article should cover polygamy as well, since the term "marriage equality" currently redirects there and polygamy is a type of marriage that is currently not treated as equal to two-person-exclusive marriage. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) People who don't support SSM reject the notion that it is about equality. For them, it is corrupting an institution rather than granting equality of access to it. For Wikipedia to use the term strongly implies that we, as a project, support same-sex marriage because we would be adopting language used by the proponents and rejected by opponents. -Rrius (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would analyze the situation as Rrius states. There is no reason to insist the term 'marriage quality' be used. 'Same-sex marriage' is fine on Wikipedia. I don't mind and save myself the argument. Teammm ^talk
_email 21:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I don't intend to push the issue, as it's really not that important for Wikipedia's purpose. - MrX 21:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel like this was already discussed long ago, yes Marriage Equality is as much of a POV term as fag or homosexuial marriage is. per the reasons stated above I do not think placing it in the article is the right thing to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think your comparison is a bit exaggerated, but I get the point. I raised the issue because language does change, and this term is being used much more often than it has in the past. - MrX 21:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

France

To the right where it lists countries that perform and recognize same-sex marriages, it is missing France. Can someone add this please? I don't have source to cite. But anyone can Google it and it is a fact. Thank you 68.101.204.30 (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Brian

No it isn't, Brian. The legislature passed the bill, but it has been referred to the Constitutional Court. -Rrius (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a talk page about same sex marriage specifically in the United States. There is a general talk page on same sex marriage where this issue is discussed.108.15.91.73 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Minnesota

House just passed the bill. It'll get signed this week. Look out for that. 184.180.233.81 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Next week. It has not passed the Senate yet. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Senate meets tomorrow, so we'll just have to see. -Rrius (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Has just passed the Senate 37-30. Gov has already pledged to sign bill, so it is effectively a done deal. Will take effect on August 1, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.98.145 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

True. Minnesota can be added to the lead once the governor signs the bill planned for May 14 at 5pm. Teammm ^talk
_email 21:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, until the ink is dried we can not add Minnesota. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 May 2013

24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC) The map and the text needs to be fixed as of today Minnesota has equality.Federal and immigration law still restrict civil rights for all US citizens.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You are a few hours too early. The bill will be signed at a ceremony that starts at 5 CDT. Also, this is not the place to discuss the image. To do so, click here. -Rrius (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange

When I see the map of the US, I see Minnesota is blue, but when I click on it, it is still light red. It happens both on my work and home computers, so I don't think it's a cookie issue. Anyone else having this issue? 68.109.200.178 (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That usually happens when pictures are updated. It should be fine now, I clared the cache on the Commons page CTF83! 10:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Research

Two editors, with differing povs, resolved a sentence which now reads: "It is the first court decision to cite the "New Family Structure" research of Mark Regnerus, which research has been discredited by the American Sociological Society."

We have a long term problem, it seems to me, with all "research" into matters on family type issues involving SSM. Unlike tracking individuals and finding out about them later on a single (maybe objective) issue, we instead have a (or multiple) researchers trying to track a "family," which in modern America does not often consist of the same two parents through a child's history. At least one criticism of the research is that some of the SSM existed for a short time. Well, so do non-SSM!

When I have asked in the past, editors replied that there was "all sorts" or history on such matters with lots of children. I am not at all sure about this. SSM would have (in the past) wound up with children (their own from a non-SSM). How does a researcher select children, track them through 18 years and then ask for a subjective evaluation? (This is a rhetorical question).

And establishing criteria for a non-SSM "sample" to compare winds up with similar problems. So that any research which doesn't produce the results that one side or the other is looking for is "suspect" and is "widely criticized."

There are too many subjective criteria, too few subjects (!) to track, too long a time to track, too little experience with SSM with children, no standard agreement on what constitutes a "family" for research purposes. Must it persist intact for a child's time at home? Then, is that a "typical" family?

Having said this, there should be no "higher" standard IMO for SSM research than there is for any other family research. If single teens can raise children in a family for 18 years, then a single LGBT should be able to as well. The basis of the criticism above was that some LGBTs weren't together or LGBT the whole time. Actually, I think the "T" allows for that, doesn't it? Student7 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I"m having a little trouble following your concern here, both due to some awkward language but more due to not seeing how the sentences I do seem to understand apply to the sentence being quoted. You're repeatedly referring to SSM, but the Regenerus study was not about same-sex marriage. I'm not sure how "Transgendered" applies to the question of whether someone had shifted their sexual orientation. And if what you're saying is about what standards the American Sociological Society should have for research, I'm not sure how raising that on a Wikipedia talk page is going to change that, nor serve the purpose of the talk page.

So if there's something about the article that you wish to see changed, you might to better by suggesting a specific change and saying why you want that change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how any research pertaining to "long term effects" of SSM can be conducted, using high standards, quite possibly higher than used for non-SSM. If research denying good effects of SSM is rejected, then all long term studies should be similarly rejected.

Or both should be accepted. Different standards should not be applied because someone essentially "doesn't like it" and dreams up a reason, which may, superficially, seem valid. But would render all other long studies on all marriage invalid as well.

There should be one standard. Not two. Student7 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Regnerus study" is not about same-sex marriage or effects of same-sex marriage, so I can't see the relevance of your comment? --В и к и T 20:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex divorce

I don't have time to tackle it at the moment, but this article could use a section on the troubles with same-sex divorce due to the varying ercognitions of sch marriages within the US. Here's a usefuk source.--Nat Gertler (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I made some additions to the US section of Divorce of same-sex couples. I believe what I added re DE and MN were innovations not found in earlier SSM legislation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The count of states is incorrect.

I can't edit this myself because I don't know which count is wrong. The first paragraph says twelve states allow SSM.

the second paragraph has the following line:

While several jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage through court rulings, legislative action, and popular vote,[3][4] nine states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute and 30 prohibit it in their constitutions.

Either the nine or the 30 is wrong - because adding 12 to them will get 51 states. I also think that if you say twelve and nine, you should spell out thirty to be consistent. 72.74.136.148 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Jon Welch

The count of nine prohibiting by statute does seem that it will soon be incorrect. By my count, there are only six left in this category: Hawaii, Wyoming, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. This is likely a result of the recent changes to the law in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware. However, Delaware's change is not effective until July 1, and Rhode Island and Minnesota's laws change Aug. 1. The difference lies in the exact wording - those three states have legalized SSM, as the first paragraph states, but they still prohibit it by statute until the legalization goes into effect. Luckily, the problem will soon go away as the laws enter into force. At the moment, there are 30 constitutional bans, six statute bans, nine with legal SSM, three with legalization not yet in effect, one with just unions but no ban and one with no law at all, making 50.

As for the numbers, I'd actually argue to use the numeral for 12, per AP style, for the sake of consistency, but I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy is. AP calls for spelling out one through nine and numerals for 10 and up. Newsboy85 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines on this are at WP:NUMERAL, and they give us flexibility in this case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My edit was rejected incorrectly! The number of states banning SSM by statute are 6, not 9, cause 3 of such states already passed SSM legislation. If in mentioned 3 states (recently passed SSM legislation) the ban was contitutional, it wouldn't be possible to pass such laws. Hence, the quantity of states whith constitutional ban is 30 and states with statute ban is now 6. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The recently passed laws in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware have not yet gone into effect. While SSM will be legal in these states soon, as legalization measures have been passed, it is still prohibited by statute at this time. Newsboy85 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For a summary of the current status by state, this Washington Post article may be of interest. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

State population data

The population figures for each state are unnecessary detail IMHO. The only info that is of interest is the percentage of the US population that lives in jurisdictions where SSM is legal. One number. The table that presents this in gross detail says that figure is 18.1%. The figure 17.95% appears much earlier in the entry, inelegantly wedged into a sentence and also unsourced. I suggest dropping the detail from the table and getting a source for this phrase: "representing a total of 17.95% of the US population". It could use a rewrite as well. And do we really need a calculation to 2 decimal places?

HRC said 18% here when the last significant step occurred (Minnesota). You'll also find loose references to "a fifth of all Americans" or the very sloppy "a fifth of all lesbians and gays" as if the author were taking into account the geographic distribution of the lesbian and gay community, which is likely not the case. Richard Socarides in the New Yorker last month used the figure 22%, but was including Illinois! Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The state population figures provide at least two uses. One is that, being as the states are ordered in terms of legalization, they provide information on how legal access has been spreading in terms of the population, rather than just providing the snapshot that a single figure provides. The other is that, while we currently have a good source citing a percentage, that has not always been the case; with the relatively high state of flux of the situation, this method allows us to keep an up-to-date image of the situation without counting on having some external source citing it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Remove - I agree I feel that the state population data is misleading and confusing. 18.1% of the population supports SSM? 18.1% of the population has access to it? (This may not be true in all places as each town/city has their own laws an example being no SSM allowed in churches but elsewhere okay). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere does it claim that this is support for SSM. The category is legalization of SSM. And if you can point to a town or city that bars SSM in a state that allows it, please do; registration of marriage is generally a state activity. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Nat. The 18% info doesn't need to be removed, just written better. Teammm ^talk
_email 22:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I still feel uneasy about throwing in population and percentage numbers, I understand where you are comming from if you want to say that X of the population has access to same sex marriage. Another concern however would be not everyone is counted in the census and the information has no reliable source to back it up while it may be true statement (WP:V).

If you think that the census, which is our source, isn't a reliable source on population data within the US, you are going to have to raise that one on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard; it is used as the source of population data for just about every article on a US location. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much wrong with having those figures there. It gives an indication on how many people have access to marriage, which is useful. As for the detail on 17.95 or 18.1; now that seems unnecessary detail. Why not round up to 18%? L.tak (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What about states that allow out of state marriages? People can get married here in MA that are from lets say New Mexico but are not residents. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the info is still instructive and useful: it shows which % of the population has access to the marriage in their home state, and it indicates where same sex marriages have legal effect on a state level. If people feel it can be misused, we may have to add a comment regarding out of state marriages (which is anyway a good point, as many Europeans are not fully aware of this; an out of country marriage is in many countries there not possible) L.tak (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

but the out of state situation is basically moot anyway, as people who go out of state to get married then return to a non-SSM state do not effectively carry their marriage back with them,; it is not recognized as a marriage in the state where they are living. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if that was addressed to me..., but just in case it is: I may have posed it differently, but full agree... L.tak (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where the population is germane at all. We don't "count" support for six year statute of limitations for burglary, or spending over $10,000 per pupil for education, or for term for governor. In fact, we don't count population at all for any specific law for tort or felony. Why is SSM an exception? It is WP:TRIVIA at best, unless there is a WP:RS somewhere that says that large state (small states?) support or fail to support SSM marriage. I am not aware of any such claim.

Since there is no relevance, it should be removed. This "almanac" data requires maintenance with each census and annual estimated census. That alone has been a good reason not to repeat material that is documented elsewhere and therefore requires maintenance in one less article. Student7 (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources most certainly do bother to see what portion of the population have same-sex marriage rights available. Here it is at CNN. ABC news, here's USA Today running an AP piece counting percent with access to civil union rights, the New York Times counts something similar. I find a ton of gay media pointing to it, and here's the Baptist Press weighing it against the population of a state considering adding same-sex marriage]. Measuring the number of people is a much better recognition of the impact of these laws than measuring the number of jurisdictions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion about including the number, other than to say that people seem to be interested in knowing what it is. Considering that SOTUS may invoke a "7 state decision", and since there are 7 states that confer the rights of marriage without calling it marriage, it seemed reasonable to add a table with those states, so I did so. The states conferring the rights of marriage with and without the name is roughly 2/5 of the country in count and population. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What we are missing, which is actually germane to the article, is the number of marriages that were contracted using these laws during some 12-month period, if available. I suppose this could then be stated as a percentage of people living in the state/"eligible". Otherwise state population is irrelevant. Student7 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Why 12-months? Better would be the cumulative number of same-sex marriages/partnerships. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove - it contributes nothing. I especially don't get why SSM data is now being combined with civil union-by-state data. What is this supposed to signify again? That 30% of Americans now "live under" gay marriage? Does not sound like a noteworthy or necessary factoid at all, just useless trivia. Also, if we're trying to pinpoint the exact percentage of the US that "lives under" this New Gay Order, why are we leaving out the Indian tribes? Those are also part of the United States, aren't they? If the 38.7% (or whatever the figure is now) omits the .1% in the Indian tribes, it's almost like we're misleading our readership. :P But seriously, take it out. It's beyond silly. --SchutteGod (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

SOTUS?

What is SOTUS? Not in article. I get "State of the Union Speech" when looking it up. I can guess "Statues of the United States" but that would not account why "seven states" is important. Student7 (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

SCOTUS typo? For the Supreme Court of the United States. CTF83! 23:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

-_- Teammm ^talk
_email 02:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

california is premature...

Every news article I've read has suggested that the ruling only opens the door to California's same-sex marriage. This means that the SCOTUS decision does not instantly allow marriage in california and thus all california related changes should be reverted back for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.122.244 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"California Governor Jerry Brown said counties will begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses as soon as an appeals court implements today’s ruling." here. That's the state executive announcing the schedule for resumption. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a better case for saying that Same-sex marriage went into effect in California in 2008 with a 5 year lapse while Prop 8 was challenged. I've updated the list to reflect the full history. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing I'm confused about with California is it says its not in effect yet it has the tiny cross on the side of it. So should that be removed ? because i haven't found anywhere were it has said it had a date when it would be in effect. So is it automatically back in effect now that prop 8 was shut down or is there some sort of date when marriage will resume in California ? because if there is not the tiny cross should be removed. Bleach143 (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleach143 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait until the first marriage license is granted or the judiciary explicitly lifts it. In this newsy world both those events would be picked up immediately… L.tak (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

California recognized same-sex marriage in 2008. Several thousand couples got married then. They've been married ever since, and California has recognized their marriages the entire time. The performing of same-sex marriages was suspended when prop 8 was approved until the SCOTUS decision today. Their decision invalidated Prop 8, so it is fair to say that same-sex marriage in California started in 2008. I don't know where the July date came from for the resumption of marriages. Perhaps that should be removed until it is cited. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As of this moment, same-sex couples can not marry in California. The short-hand phrase "SSM is legal" confuses whether certain SSMs are recognized vs. whether you can get a license and marry as a same-sex couple. The latter is the more commonly understood meaning, so when we open by saying where SSM is legal, we should be applying that only to places where a SSM can now marry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gavin Newsom has said it may take 30 days to start SSMs again in CA. The Gov said it has to wait for a court to lift the stay. Either way, it's legal not now. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So if it is not legal then why is it colored blue? The whole thing is very confusing to readers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

California is in the same situation as other states that recently passed SSM. It is legal, but not yet in effect. The map should include an asterisk for CA. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I updated the map to reflect what is happening. BTW, the opening paragraph says that "... have legalized same-sex marriage." California did this in 2008, and the marriages performed in California have remained recognized by the state ever since then. It would be inaccurate to say that California has not legalized same-sex marriage. California is a complicated story. We can't make the reality any simpler than it is by editing this article. We can, however, add verbiage that explains the situation for California. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal and in effect are two separate concepts. The precedent we go by on Wikipedia is to list states that have legalized it even if they are not in effect yet. However, it is not clear if marriages will be available statewide. The map should not be changed until we are sure. MKleid (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that it is technically *not* legal in California yet. the courts have not agreed to make it legal, until both the governor and the appeals court officially implement it. Thus, it is not only not in effect yet, but because the appeals court hasn't given the go-ahead, it is not legal either. Hence the fact that the court case "opens the door" to same sex marriage in california. I think we should revert to 12 states.173.72.122.244 (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

True MKleid (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to be annoying but i was reading on an artical that said that supports of prop 8 said the legalization only applied to san fancisco and not all of the state. is that true ? because up till then all ive read and heard is that it would apply for the entire state. Bleach143 (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The consensus of experts is what determines the material that appears on Wikipedia, not our own legal research. This page isn't even supposed to be a forum to discuss it. 74.107.112.196 (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Quoting the LATimes "There is likely to be further litigation in California too. The effect of the Supreme Court's ruling is to reinstate the district court decision striking down Proposition 8. Gov. Jerry Brown has already ordered county clerks in the state to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as the federal appeals court lifts its stay." "But there are legal questions about the scope of Walker's decision and who is bound by it. The next move to watch is whether the proponents of Proposition 8 try to litigate their view that Walker lacked the authority to issue a statewide ruling. Likewise, some clerks who oppose marriage equality may balk at the governor's order and trigger a lawsuit from a couple that wishes to marry and cannot obtain a license. Proposition 8 is most likely gone for good, but it may take some time to sort that out." http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-schacter-scotus-marriage-rulings-20130627,0,3260475.story 80.13.109.43 (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Prop. 8 ruling, in lay person's terms Here's why the U.S. Supreme Court refused to decide the issues in the California same-sex marriage case. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-segall-prop8-explainer-20130627,0,851968.story 80.13.109.43 (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Same sex marriages are underway in California: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/us/couples-in-california-marriage-case-lose-no-time.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.68.68.142 (talk • contribs)

9th Circuit Stay is lifted

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CCsQqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Flocal%2Flanow%2Fla-me-ln-prop-8-gay-marriage-20130628%2C0%2C1889039.story&ei=rg_OUbacIqKMiALE0IEw&usg=AFQjCNFBinizhFn5z9sn8XoZyZ3tZ0kHNA&sig2=5Ynq6yU5KYm-NWFZmlBufA — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonJack (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

marriage is/marriages are

Currently, the opening line says that "Same-sex marriage is legally recognized" by the federal government. I altered that to "Same-sex marriages are legally recognized", because talking about it in the singular, as a social construct, makes it sound as if there is a separate category, "same-sex marriage", that exists under the law. This is not the case; there is one category in federal law, and it's "marriage". It might be even better to phrase it as "marriages between two people of the same sex are". --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I dunno...to me "same-sex marriage" is one thing, just like "opposite-sex marriage" is also one thing. Plus the title of the page doesn't have the S on marriage. CTF83! 10:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the opening sentence should be reworded altogether so as to better encapsulate the situation. Perhaps something like, "In the United States, legal recognition of same-sex marriage varies by jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions, including the federal government, fully recognize such marriages, while others recognize them as some other sort of union, such as a civil union. Most jurisdictions however ban same-sex marriage." Though I support SSM, it feels a bit odd that the legal status of SSM in 70% of the states is not reflected in the lead-off sentence.

Incidentally, it seems to me that what is now the last paragraph of the lead should immediately follow the first sentence (whatever form it takes). The DOMA bit should be its own paragraph, and the states-where-legal and states-where banned passages could either be one paragraph (they are sufficiently related) or stand as separate paragraphs. I say this because the history seems a better introduction to a summary of the topic than a list of states and other jurisdictions that recognize it. -Rrius (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How about Same-sex marriages are recognized by the federal government of the United States, but are not recognized by the state government in states where 70% of U.S. citizens reside." That shows the balance. May need to adjust the figures for the states where the recognition is only scheduled. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I have two very different problems: (1) Ignoring the other 30% is problematic, and I think we should mention the third form of recognition. (2) This perceived need to mention the federal government in the first sentence makes it excessively difficult to write a proper introductory sentence.

So how about "In the United States, same-sex marriages are fully recognized in some states, recognized as other types of unions in other states, but banned in most states."

As for the federal issue, there is no compelling reason to mention the federal government in the first sentence. I propose removing it and expanding the explanation of the federal role at the beginning of the DOMA discussion:

In the United States, same-sex marriages are fully recognized in some states, recognized as other types of unions in other states, but banned in most states. 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 same-sex marriage has grown considerably, and national polls conducted since 2011 show that its legalization is supported by a majority of Americans. On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. President to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage. On November 6, 2012, Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first states to legalize same-sex marriage through popular vote.

As of July 2013, thirteen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), the District of Columbia, and five Native American tribes have legalized same-sex marriage through court rulings, legislative action, and popular vote. Six states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute, and 29 prohibit it in their constitutions.

The federal government is not responsible for marriage law, but many federal laws create rights and responsibilities based on marital status. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states. Section 3 of DOMA prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages until that provision was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor.

In addition to the bolded changes and obvious reorganizing, I've moved the phrase outlining how legalization has occurred to the sentence about states where SSM is legal and away from the sentence about ones where it is not. -Rrius (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no compelling reason to mention the recognition by the United States government of same-sex marriage in the first sentence of same-sex marriage in the United States??? I really do not see that logic. It is not true that "the United States government is not responsible for marriage law", the US government very much involves itself in marriage law, both in terms of what marriages it will recognize and what the impact of that recognition will be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't the lead say how many states in each category? CTF83! 03:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In part because the numbers change and in part because New Mexico (and previously Rhode Island) is hard to classify. Also, the numbers are in the article, and the lead is meant as a summary. It may be that people have felt going into that level of detail in the lead is unnecessary. -Rrius (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the article is about same-sex marriage in the United States, not in federal law. If you can't follow the logic of having the lead be about the article's topic rather than obsessing about federal law because the words "United States" appear in the article's title, then I don't know how to help you. Marriage law, i.e., the law of who is allowed to marry, is a creature of state law, not federal law. The fact that some federal laws extend spousal benefits and duties and in rare cases (most notably sham marriages in immigration contexts) chooses which marriages it will recognize does not mean it is involved in marriage law. In other words, the question of whether the federal government will recognize a marriage as genuine for the purposes of granting a green card is a question of immigration law, not marriage law. The federal government does not perform any marriage, it does not make any marriage, same-sex or not, valid, so it is not the important actor in regard to this article's subject. The states are by far the most important part of this. At best, a sentence could follow my proposed first sentence saying, "Validly contracted same-sex marriages are recognized under federal law."

Even if you continue to disagree about the relative importance of states, which actually have marriage statutes, as against the federal government, could you at least comment on the reorganization? -Rrius (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Noting the federal law is indeed being about the topic, as the topic is same-sex marriage in the United States, and federal law applies very much to the treatment of same-sex marriage in the United States. That marriage law, which has to do with what is recognized as a marriage, does not involve federal law was made quite an untrue claim under DOMA. Citing various examples where federal law very directly applies doesn't serve to make your case, it serves to disprove it, and the opening sentence that you yourself propose makes it all about the recognition and not the granting or performing of SSM. According to our own article on marriage law, "Marriage law refers to the legal requirements which determine the validity of a marriage", and most notably through DOMA, the US government has clearly involved itself in judging for its own purposes the validity of marriages, and continues to dictate to the states which marriages they must recognize, and which are optional. Additionally, I think the "banned in most states" gives a far too fuzzy read of the matter, as "most" can be 51% or 98%, and can give a rougher still sense of how it applies to the people of the United States, who are not evenly distributed throughout the states. I don't think I agree that the history of the conflict over SSM deserves the first paragraph more than the current status information; "this is what it is" seems more vital immediate information than "This is how we got here". If the history is moved there (and probably even if it's not), that history should include note of when state-legal SSMs first started (it seems a more vital fact in the historic flow than the date of the three popular-vote states). I don't think "first sitting president" information deserves to be in the lede, although it certainly belongs below. --N

California voters voted 2 years after Prop 8

They had a clear choice for Governor and Atty General with loud and clear positions not defending Prop 8. This edit does not mention the choices voters made 2 years later. Javaweb (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Can you provide a reliable source that indicates that Prop 8 was a deciding factor in the voters' choice of a governor and attorney general? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It could have been, if there was a majority that felt strongly that Prop 8 should be defended. These are two votes that determined the outcome of Prop 8 and they are not mentioned in the article. Their positions were covered in the statewide-broadcast debates. The problem with this part of the article is it doesn't mention that the elected states officials that refused to defend the proposition were elected on that platform and were keeping their promises to voters. --Javaweb (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Again, we can't discuss this in the article unless we have a reliable source that talks about it. Simple speculation by users about why the voters went a certain way doesn't belong in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Bans"

In many instances in this article it is worded that states' constitutions or statutes "ban" same-sex marriages, this is not so. In contrast, Polygamy is banned in all American political jurisdictions, if one married two or more consenting adults in any state they would very likely end up in jail and or prison. However two consenting adults of the same gender may legally marry in all American political jurisdictions, albeit many states and other jurisdictions are "prohibited by their constitutions or statutes from recognizing" said marriages. A minor distinction I know, but I still feel it to be an important one as per the objectivity and cogency of this article. 99.251.163.236 (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I see your point about the distinction between a ceremony and/or living arrangement that incurs punishment vs. one that is not recognized, but I disagree that under current law, same-sex couples can "legally marry" in any sense that is meaningful to a reader, as we generally use legal union to mean one that is recognized. Let's see what other users say about "ban" as shorthand for "ban from recognizing." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I share the concern about using ban, would would defer to the sources. Just because somehting is innacurate doesn't mean we shouldn't reflect what the sources say. The use of the word "legally" is troubling because it has two potential connotations; 1) that the marriage is a legal contract recognized or implemented under the auspices of the government (which they are not in many cases) or 2) that they are able to marry without legal consequences (which is true, even in states that do not recognize gay marriage. I can have a ceremony with my friends and marry someone, regardless of whether the state recognizes it, and I face no legal charges because of it). I think the term is ambiguous enough that we should be careful in how we use it. Regardless, I think we can reword ban if we need to, or add qualifying language to meet the concern raised which is legitimate.204.65.34.238 (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is "banned" in many states in the sense that county clerks (or whichever government officials are in charge of such matters) are forbidden from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The statement by 99.251.163.236 that "two consenting adults of the same gender may legally marry in all American political jurisdictions" is not true; a couple cannot marry if they cannot obtain a marriage license. As for polygamy being banned, in order to obtain a marriage license one must affirm under penalty of perjury that one is not already married. –Dr.enh (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Then the article should specify same-sex marriage licenses are banned instead of same-sex marriages, in the interests of eliminating the ambiguity. 99.251.163.236 (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Saying that same-sex marriage is "banned" is misleading. I've started adding "civil" before "marriage" to make the distinction that we are just talking about the recognition of marriage by the government and the conveying of the benefits and responsibilities that go with it. The government has never banned same-sex religious marriage, that would be interfering with the freedom of religion, and thus be unconstitutional. Governments have banned and legalized same-sex civil marriage, and we should make that distinction clear in the article. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Foreign" marriages

From my research on the topic, three states recognize "foreign" same-sex marriages, i.e., those performed in other jursidictions. The three states currently are New Mexico (see Arthur S. Leonard's article cited here), Wyoming (see Christiansen v. Christiansen, cited there), and, most recently, Ohio (see yonder and way over yonder). Can we include a small section on this? I think it would clarify some oddities in state laws. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Ohio order you reference had no such effect. So far, though its argument was quite broad, a federal district court in Ohio required the state to recognize a single Maryland marriage. As one of your sources says: "That’s what U.S. District Magistrate Judge Tim Black did late Monday afternoon, granting a temporary restraining order – but noting it was specific to Obergefell and Arthur only." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What about the other two states? Bearian (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In all three of those cases, there is no ruling by a court that has said same-sex marriages will be recognized. In some instances, the court specifically said its ruling on those particular matters is separate from the broader issue. While it may be true that those state courts may allow recognition of foreign marriages under principles of comity, they have not ruled on it definitively and it's not the law yet. Teammm ^talk
_email 18:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither looks clear to me. What a statute says vs. what a statute means depends on what those who enforce the statute determine. For example, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court determined that the state constitution mandated the legalization of same-sex marriage, it first looked at the state's marriage laws, which didn't mention gender at all. If you wanted to be clever and literal, that alone would have allowed a same-sex couple to marry. But the court said that the legislators who wrote that law had an idea of marriage in mind, the everyday definition of marriage at the time, "the term's common-law and quotidian meaning". Courts in WY and NM could come to similar conclusions: that despite what the state law says on its face, we all know what the legislators meant. Meanwhile it looks to me like it's at best an open question whether these 2 states might accept same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. (HRC says no for WY and "no explicit prohibition" for NM.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is currently a request for comment on what shade of blue should be used on File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg to represent full marriage equality. Fry1989 ^eh? 08:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Same-sex marriage in the United States, August 2013.png

I'm not sure how to add this to the page, but I edited a pointless red shape that was underneath Arizona and next to Alaska from the previous file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noseycjr (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsensical wording (?)

In Opposition section, the article states: "The Southern Baptist Convention says that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would undercut the conventional purpose of marriage." Does that sound awkward and out-of-place, considering that same sex marriage exists in the United States and has for a number of years? The statement (which I guess is a direct quote, and perhaps cannot be altered) makes same sex marriage seem hypothetical, when it's already, in fact, a reality. Does anyone else see this as odd?Codenamemary (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's nonsensical, in that the statement is still on their site, still something they put out there. However, the sentence is very interpretative, in a way that is likely not inaccurate but probably nonetheless inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I added the date of the statement so it makes better sense. It was a reaction to 2003 events in Vermont, Ontario etc. Even when talking about opposition as a general ongoing phenomenon, we might avoid such problems by saying groups "have argued" rather than "argue", even when their views continue into the present (and aren't changing soon). Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That does help keep the reader from pausing and thinking, "Would? Shouldn't it be 'is' or 'has,' if that's their argument?". Codenamemary (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico

We seem to see some "surprise" possibilities in southern New Mexico (see here); any suggestions on how to treat those? L.tak (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We should let the dust settle at the very least. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Santa Fe too 128.187.97.21 (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (jj)

I personally think since Santa Fe, unlike Montgomery and Doña Ana, deserves to be included since it was Court ordered. I'll make the change and respect any reversion under WP:BRD jj (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico should not be added until there is a statewide resolution. However, the page should mention that the marriages that are judicially ordered in Sante Fe and Bernalillo counties are tentatively legal. The Dona Ana marriages are an act of civil disobedience and are not unless a judge upholds them. MKleid (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Coverage of New Mexico should not be overly detailed. We don't need -- in this high-level survey of the nation -- the names of a county clerk and a state judge. This would be easier to cover if we waited a day and found a single source that tells the story of what happened in 3 counties and 2 courts. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not, although I'm not making any edits at this point. Wikipedia has the reputation for being in-the-now, and this page should reflect that. At least a new color should reflect that New Mexico is issuing licenses in some counties. MKleid (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico is a rapidly developing situation with three more counties announcing just yesterday afternoon that they will begin issuing same-sex licenses. This brings the total up to six counties at this writing, which are nearly one-fifth of the total of counties, and those counties hold over 56% of the state's population. The number of counties issuing licenses could continue to explode even before the week is out based on rulings of district judges with pending lawsuits or other clerks who accept the growing trend. Rather than repeated updates to reflect this, the article should mention this broadly while maybe placing a developing news template where appropriate. Fortguy (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the tendency among some Wikipedians to want to wait until something is "finished happening" before updating the relevant articles. Part of the immense power of this website is its ability to update in real time. If there is documentation to support what is happening and secondary sources are in consensus, Wikipedia should be updated to reflect the latest facts. Meanwhile, there's a Same-sex marriage in New Mexico page for specifics like county clerks and district judges and the blow-by-blow of what's going on in that state. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There absolutely should be updates, and I think the current description works best. All I argued against was misrepresenting the situation. MKleid(talk) 13:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As a New Mexican I don't know what editors think they are doing. Have they kept up with the news? Counties in that allow Gay Marriages in New Mexico should be blue, not the entire state. The state nor the courts have ruled that gay marriage is legal in all of New Mexico. Only 6 counties as of today have issued licenses, thus we should have a map that shows the counties in BLUE and the rest of the state should remain gray. Amy russ12 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Amy russ12. Ron 1987 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with having only the 6 counties in blue, but it's not so easily done in the map. However, 1) the licenses are valid statewide, 2) a judge has ruled that same-sex marriage is legal and 3) the situation is evolving rapidly anyway. Also, it may be best to keep discussion on the map on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. SPQRobin (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Amy, clerks issue state certificates, i.e. there is no such thing as a county marriage license. 74.107.112.196 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Marriage laws table

Should the table include the seven counties (six in New Mexico, one in Pennsylvania) outside the 13 states that are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples? -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey

New Jersey may be joining the legal same-sex marriage states: [9]. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oregon

Oregon now recognizes legal marriages performed elsewhere. Link: [10] Fortguy (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Better RS here. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

History vs. by state

I disagree with the change from October 9 that split the "History" section up into individual states. The section was a "History of same-sex marriage in the United States", and it was intended to represent all of the information as a single history. Dividing it up destroys the history and turns it into "History by state"—but we already have an entire article giving the history for each state. So now you have dozens of two-sentence sections, which violates our manual of style. You can't expand them, or you'll make the subarticle redundant. So why split it up? Each state does not exist in a vacuum, which is why the history was presented chronologically: it shows the trend that accelerated from one year to the next. A history of the whole nation is the proper way to present the information in this article, and readers who want more detailed information for particular states can go to the sub-article. I am going to restore the original history section unless there's a strong consensus to change it. —Designate (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Designate: I agree with your reasoning for you reverting my change to the History section from chronological to state-by-state. I thought that with a change to state-by-state, that the History section would be more manageable, so that as new developments become legislative/judicial history, they could be added state-by-state, and also that users could look up the particular history for a state rather quickly.

But you are correct in that there are individual pages for states, each state does not exist in a vacuum (though states' rights activists see it that way) and your revert keeps with the manual of style.

We should, though, consider a standard title for each state's same-sex marriage developments, as some articles are titled, for example, "Same-sex marriage in New York," while others "Recognition of same-sex unions in New Jersey", and "Domestic partnership in Oregon," etc.; and some states don't even have pages, even though equality advocates are moving toward same-sex marriages in all states; and that each state has a same-sex marriage legislative/judicial history even though there may not be a page detailing that history.

I will now instead focus my effort on improving each state's page on same-sex marriage history, and try to build a consensus in having each state's page titled in a consistent manner. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention :) MarkGT (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And there's also Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state, which could certainly be expanded/updated. It's useful to have both. —Designate (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

California 2nd not 6th

Hello, I noticed for some reason people were labeling California the 6th state not the second. This is chronologically inaccurate in every aspect. CA was the second state to legalize SSM. It was unconstitutionally suppressed due to Prop 8 and the time involved in litigation, but that does not change the fact that it was the 2nd state to perform SSM. Please leave the #2 next to CA. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

There are sources saying that CT was the second state though. (Courant), (NCSL), [Freedom to Marry We should be going by sources not original research. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to go into reliable sources if we are just looking at what date precedes what date, but if you want to we can. Also, no reliable source calls California the 6th state to legalize SSM. At the time CT went into effect it was one of two states because of Proposition 8 (and some news sources forgot how to count). California was the second state to legalize it regardless what happened afterwards California called second, "Connecticut as the third state", "California this summer, it now becomes the second state", "Connecticut became the third state","Connecticut the third state, after Massachusetts and California", "Connecticut now becomes the third state" I could go on... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)