Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

FRC labeled a hate group by SPLC

Having visited Southern Poverty Law Center's website, it's pretty obvious that they're a pro-LGBT organization. Them calling FRC a hate group doesn't carry much weight: it would be like a Tea Party Group calling Obama a "racist". It may be true that they said it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is sufficiently NPOV to merit treatment in an encyclopedia. I originally included a statement that the SPLC is a liberal group (to return objectivity to the section), but that clause was removed without comment. So I've taken it out entirely. It's just implying that anyone who's against same-sex marriage is a hate group. Which is not the broad consensus in society (at least, not yet...)

Please discuss this here, before bringing the sentence back on the article.

–Trevdna (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not implying that anyone who's against same-sex marriage is a hate group. The SPLC does not label most anti-same-sex-marriage groups as "hate groups". And even within the paragraph this sentence was in, it noted two groups and only specified one as being noted in that way by the SPLC, so clearly there is no implication that all such groups meet the SPLC criteria. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Trevdna I do not think putting in a side comment of x group being labeled as a hate group by such and such is a NPOV statement, this is not the same as the KKK there is no broad community labeling this group a hate group. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed-- who is or isn't labeled a hate group by another (albeit influental and not solely anti-LGBT) is tangential. It may be proper to put in their respective articles, but placing that in, no matter how it is done rarely would meet [[WP:NPOV}} jj (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any sources that indicate the opinions of the Family Research Council carry any weight on the topic. The sub-section (Opposition Groups) is redundant and devoid of secondary sources. I've removed it. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
So a section on the HRC is acceptable, while a section on (apparently) the largest anti-same sex marriage group is not? (Actually, I don't know if it is or isn't the largest, but I assume so because it was the (only) one that was mentioned here. I haven't been a follower of this issue that much.) That seems to me to be giving undue weight to the other side. Again, public opinion appears to be split about 50-50 on this issue (although supporters now appear to have a slim but growing majority), so the coverage on both sides should reflect basically a balance of both viewpoints (in a perfect world, at least). —Trevdna (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Beware of mistaking neutrality for objectivity. They are not the same thing. 74.107.112.196 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"It's just implying that anyone who's against same-sex marriage is a hate group." Aren't they? So far, the only motive behind widescale opposition to same-sex marriage is persecution based on religious morality.

This opposition doesn't even make sense when you look at the basic tenets held by several Christian denominations. According to the nature of original sin, humans are hopelessly corrupt as a result of transgressions committed by Adam and Eve, which means each human is born into sin and physically cannot restrain themselves. According to the New Testament, humans achieve salvation through proxy only by accepting Jesus as their savior, at which point all sins past, present and future are completely absolved. Nowhere does this claim that human nature itself undergoes a change. The nature of original sin still applies; but the fact that a Christian still goes on sinning is irrelevant, since - again - Jesus' salvation is a total absolution from the responsibility of sins past, present and future.

So, this belief that silencing the LGBT rights movement or denying gay people the right to marriage will somehow force their "lifestyle" to go away doesn't seem biblically sound. If you believe it's a sin, you must also accept that it's a permanence (original sin) that cannot be changed. What's the rationale, then? Should we also deny marriage (or other rights) to liars and thieves? Biblically, no sinner is any more or less noble than another. Your heterosexual marriage is just as much a slap in the face to God as any same-sex marriage, if only because all humans are [deterministically depraved beings]. 98.86.122.90 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Marriage in New Jersey begins 12:01 am, Monday, October 21, 2013

In order to avoid an edit war: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/18/21026864-nj-supreme-court-rules-same-sex-couples-can-marry-beginning-monday :

Same-sex marriages will begin Monday in New Jersey after the state Supreme Court ruled Friday that the state must begin granting same-sex marriage licenses.

Also:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nj-court-agrees-sex-marriages-monday-20614323
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/new-jersey-gay-weddings_n_4124145.html

While formal appeals will be heard by the NJ Supreme Court next year, there is no stay on the lower court ruling allowing same sex couples to get married. For all intents and purposes, New Jersey is the 14th state to have marriage equality. The article should be edited to reflect this. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

TechBear is making a prediction and inserting it. That is inappropriate. "I believe it is for all practical purposes true" is not an acceptable argument for this insertion. The Supreme Court could reverse itself; it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to declare that the Supreme Court will not do so. All WP editors need to concede that the current state of affairs, as of today, is provisional. Hurmata (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources are already saying that marriage equality has come to New Jersey. What more do you need? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is what Wikipedia needs. (1) Why hasn't TechBear taken the next logical step of deleting the description "provisional"? I wish this editor would acknowledge the fact which every "Reliable Source" mentions: that same sex marriage is before both the New Jersey Supreme Court and the legislature. Marriage equality will unconditionally come to New Jersey when one or the other so decree. Wikipedia rules do not permit editors to report a "sure thing", a "virtual certainty", as a certainty. WP does not call U.S. presidential elections before election day, even when we find RS's which have called it. When marriage equality will go into effect in, say, Minnesota on August 1, and today is July 25, editors say same sex marriage will come to Minnesota on August 1 -- they do not say it already is in Minnesota. (2) We are past Wikipedia 1.0. In order for the WP product quality to improve, it is not OK to flatly repeat just anything that is said in just any "Reliable Source". Even under WP 1.0, you must take into account multiple criteria, e.g., Weight. It is not OK to quote without comment a RS as saying the capital of Germany is Bonn. If for some reason you were to insist on quoting this RS, you would be obliged to report that the RS is wrong, in view of all the other RS's that claim Germany's capital is Berlin. All the statements that "marriage equality has come to New Jersey" are simply exuberance and hyperbole. It has virtually arrived. It will almost surely be confirmed by the Supreme Court. Hasn't happened yet. Hurmata (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hurmata, what you said is not true. You cannot say that New Jersey lacks legal same sex marriage because it can be taken away at a future time. All sources say that you can get a legal same sex marriage license in New Jersey on Monday. It does not matter that there is a possibility that it will be taken away, or we would have not edited New Mexico. MKleid (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Would not have "edited" New Mexico -- sentence fragment there, can't tell what you mean. No, there is only a grain of truth in your reasoning. An article that lists "which states have same sex marriage" is supposed to be about states where issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple is enacted, is firmly established, not "pending final approval". To do otherwise would be irrational. Now, yes, states where same sex marriage exists only tenuously, yes they should be mentioned, but not if you withhold the key information that they are pending, tenuous. I would like to see you acknowledge two other points. (1) New Jersey doesn't have same sex marriage for another three days. Other editors in the past -- particular in same sex marriage articles -- have had no objection to reporting imminent events -- i.e., they haven't happened yet -- as not having happened yet. (2) The map has been wrong all along: months even before Judge Jacobson's ruling in September, this map was including New Jersey among "has same sex marriage" -- while same sex weddings were prohibited. Hurmata (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no "pending final approval" here. The Court has already made their ruling about whether marriages go forth for now. To suggest that we cannot recognize the scheduled status of granting same-sex marriage because some pending court case may overturn it would mean that there would be many states which we could not claim do not grant SSM, because there are current court cases to overturn that. All laws may someday change; that doesn't mean that they aren't now what they are. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The day before, Oct. 18, the Star-Ledger's headline was "Same-sex weddings can begin pending appeal, N.J. Supreme Court rules". "Pending" and "appeal", get it? (It's a happenstance that the governor has since made the appeal disappear.)
The second point is reasonable, but I disagree with it because yeah, it does matter whether a legal dispensation is temporary or not. New Jersey was the only one of the 14 states where same sex marriage was not instituted by a either a supreme court or the legislature. Wikipedia, which can be updated every few seconds, is genuinely a daily newspaper to many Internet users. Tell them the whole story.
Finally, since I am not confusing "permanent" with "eternal", the point about it's always possible to repeal a law is not a valid point. Once a law has been passed or -- as in Iowa and Massachusetts -- a legal dispensation has been established by supreme court ruling, it certainly does become arduous to overturn the new legal order -- at least in states which don't allow you to place an initiative on the ballot in the same year. Hurmata (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

comment This is not a question of right and wrong and it's the same one which we have seen over the years at the same sex marriage template: some people want i) only things that cannot be reversed; others want ii) the present legal situation; whether it is already in effect or not and yet others iii) the present practical situation; no matter how sure we are it will last. Can't we arrive at compromise wording and use footnotes to further clarfiy in order to arrive at a compromise? L.tak (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


I tried to add more detail in the lead. However, I think we could use the 14 number if the phrasing is based on issuing licenses. Either my accepted revision or the pending one would be acceptable to me. jj (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

But that would be antiinformative, if not deceptive. People use Wikipedia as a source of information. It is academically shoddy to make the claim that something is so, with no ifs, ands, or buts, when you know it could be undone in four months. Somebody will read it in Wikipedia in October, and they will go around proclaiming it -- "I saw it in Wikipedia". That already happened with same sex marriage in Maine and California. When same sex marriage was first instituted in Maine (2009) and California (2008), opponents immediately put the issue to a popular vote -- and won, remember? If I recall, when Wikipedia included Maine or California in the map, it also prominently mentioned those repeal campaigns; at least, that's what should have been done. In Maine and California, repeal was eventually nullified in turn, but not for three years and five years, respectively. Now as it happens, Governor Christie today rendered our discussion moot by withdrawing the appeal to the state supreme court. With that action, there is no longer an attempt to nullify the authorization of same sex marriage. Hurmata (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hurmata, the issue is dead: the state Supreme Court has allowed marriages to proceed statewide, and Governor Christie has withdrawn his legal challenge. With no pending appeals, the lower court's ruling stands. Further arguing on the matter is pointless. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What issues, in fact, are the issues are being argued about? It wasn't only about what the situation is in New Jersey; what is valid and invalid editing is a separate issue from what's going on in the outside world. Anyhow, New Jersey only became the 14th state to institutionalize same sex marriage after your first comment, because the governor abruptly changed the situation. Your comment didn't fit the whole real world development; the bottom line is, you were wrong. And your latest comment echoes the comment you're objecting to ("Now as it happens, Governor Christie today rendered our discussion moot"); your comment doesn't fit the whole of another editor's argument; in fact, you don't acknowledge it. As for user JJ's comment on the 19th, I responded by making a general point that the issuance of licenses for marriages doesn't necessarily amount to the legalization of those marriages. Ideally, people will come to realize that these issues are likely to be repeated in other states when the campaign to legalize same sex marriage gears up in those states. Hurmata (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico to dark grey?

Doesn't New Mexico, per Attorney General Gary King's recent opinion, recognize same-sex marriages performed in jurisdictions where they are legal? -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It was non-binding opinion, not directive, like that issued by Rhode Island Governor in 2012. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The Supreme Court apparently doesn't see it that way: [1] -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What about HAWAII?

After 20 years and some months debate, Hawaii approved Marriage Equality on 09 Nov 2013! Hawaii was the first state to consider marriage equality. It is quite insulting to continue to call this same-sex marriage. It is a human rights cause and about EQUALITY and Marriage Equality is the correct term. This movement for a basic civil right started in Hawaii and now this article needs to be completely restructured to demonstrate this accurate history! Article very unfriendly and unclear and using the wrong terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooor-Matt (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii is not yet listed because the bill has not yet been enacted. It has passed the House, but must return to the Senate which must concur in the amendments made by the House. Then it has to be signed by the Governor as well.
As to your second point, there is nothing wrong with the term "same-sex marriage"; it is a perfectly neutral term that accurately describes the subject of the article. "Marriage equality" is a political term that espouses (pardon the pun) a particular point of view - a point of view which I happen to share but which would not be in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. As to the claim in your edit summary that the article is "ethnocentric" and "highly homophobic", I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion. - htonl (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The governor will sign the bill on November 13, 2013, but there is a legal challenge that could block the law from coming into effect on December 2. Should we add Hawaii to the list once the governor signs the bill, or wait until November 14 for the judge to make a ruling? Axelfar (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
We should add it. then change back if the judge rules that way. jj (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. - htonl (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not speculation in the outcome of the case; but rather a recognition that it seems to be standard practice to state the law as it presently stands. jj (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii law in effect?

The long-standing policy is that editors cannot say "is" until it actually "is." There is not marriage equality in Hawaii until the law actually goes into effect. We can say that it has passed and will go into effect, but it would be flat-out incorrect to say that marriage equality "is" in Hawaii. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus in this article is that that states have been added to the list in the lede - I assume that is the list we are talking about - when their law is enacted, not when it comes into force. You can look at the history to see what the article looked like between MD, MD and WA passing their referenda in November last year and the laws coming into force in December and January; or between DE, MN and RI enacting their laws in May and their coming into force in July and August. - htonl (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I live in Seattle and worked on the Ref 74 campaign to pass marriage equality in Washington. I am quite aware of the discussion in various Wikipedia articles regarding the whole process, from the Legislature passing the bill to the Governor signing it to the referendum challenge being filed to the ballot measure's passage to the moment marriage went into effect. Some editors kept trying to add "is" before it was. The consensus then was to wait until the law actually went into effect: legally, the law does not exist until that happens. I stand by what I wrote above. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't write that same-sex marriage exists in the state until the law actually goes into effect. I don't know if we really had a consensus to the contrary or if people just wanted to cut down on the edit warring. —Designate (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
If the article says that the state has marriage equality and includes the effective date, I don't see what the issue is. I believe the way it's been done is we wait until the governor signs the legislation and then can place it into the article. That's the way I've done it for the past nearly two years in working on the legalization in Maryland, etc. Teammm talk
email 23:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that the law is not in effect but the article goes on like it is and SSM is happening in Hawaii right at this moment which is not true. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
After reading the article, I do understand how it was misleading and I corrected it. You were definitely right about that. Teammm talk
email 23:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Original research?

To me, the following sentence appears to be original research:

"A poll taken shortly before the failure of Minnesota Amendment 1 showed 52% opposed to the ban, 45% in favor, and 3% undecided. The amendment ended up failing 52.6% to 47.4%, suggesting undecided voters are more likely to vote against same-sex marriage at the ballot box."

It does not seem particularly logical either, especially given the very small percentage of undecided people polled. More likely to me, the people for the amendment were more likely to vote than those against it. I don't see a reason to think that the undecided voters cast a vote at all. I'm asking someone with a better knowledge on the subject to make a decision on removing the sentence. 137.132.3.9 (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I have removed the OR sentence. CTF83! 11:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Illinois

It looks as if Illinois has passed legislation and are poised to allow same sex marriage.[2][3][4][5][6]216.36.9.149 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but bills become law only when they are signed. MKleid (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
So if it is not yet law why is it on the table? We should be waiting on this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally I don't know if it's worth the fuss to remove it, and have people readd it. We know the governor will sign it. It would be different if the governor was undecided. CTF83! 00:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
There is always the chance that the governor won't sign it. Plus it is inaccurate. Please remove it! --Prcc27 (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
There's 0 chance of that, since he specifically called the legislator to a special session with the purpose of having them pass it...and he has said he will sign it this month. Your second point is valid though. CTF83! 11:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
To be correct, he didn't call the legislature into a special session, but I agree that it there is virtually no chance he doesn't sign it. SPQRobin (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's mission is to provide the most accurate and current information, not to inflate information to a higher status no matter how likely it will end up that way. MKleid (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The governor has said he will sign it on November 20, and we should wait until then to add Illinois to the list. The Hawaii legislature is also debating a marriage bill, and if it passes and is signed before November 20, that would technically make Hawaii the 15th state to legalize same-sex marriage. There is also the pending decision of the New Mexico Supreme Court. Adding Illinois now could cause an edit war later on over numbering should Hawaii and/or New Mexico decide on same-sex marriage before the 20th. For now, Illinois is the 15th state in waiting. Axelfar (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
It should be re-added to the second table until the 20th then.75.179.42.181 (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case then the 'Note' above the table should be edited to say something like: This table includes jurisdictions where same-sex marriage legislation has been passed into law via signature of the Governor, though such a law has not yet gone into effect. For instance, Illinois' law doesn't let same-sex couples get a marriage licence/go into effect until June 1, 2014. In the table's current form, they would be at least listed 16 (depending on what happens in New Mexico and other States where legal challenges on constitutional bans are being heard). (Jono52795 (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC))
To update, the Illinois bill will be signed at 3:30 Central Time today. NBC Chicago Dralwik|Have a Chat 16:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Enactment of marriage laws table - include LGBT population estimate?

Intrigued as to weather or not it would be worthwhile to include a column in the table titled LGBT state population (estimate). I'm largely going off Gallup's 2012, 6-month tracking poll that asked people if they self-identified as Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. (SOURCE: LGBT Percentage Highest in D.C., Lowest in North Dakota; All states are within two percentage points of the overall national average of 3.5%, Feb 2013, Gallup poll) Considering the average is a fair representation of LGBT population estimates, would this proposed change be a good idea? Thoughts? Jono52795 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest not - part of the reason is that the poll is not an estimate of the number of people who are LGBT, but of the number of people who identify themselves as LGBT. This can be a very crucial difference; it would not be surprising that someone who felt same-sex attraction in an area where such is heavily frowned upon may choose not to make that their identification, or at least to not tell a pollster. And there are clues that this may be very much what is going on; consider the fact that while the "I'm LGBT" contingent seems to vary widely between Hawaii (5.1%) and North Dakota (1.7%, making the spread 3.4%), the "I'm not LGBT" difference is much smaller (91.7% to 93.7%, a difference of 2%); that 4.6% group of non-responders ("declined to state"? "Not sure"?) in North Dakota may well contain more LGBT folks than the "I'm LGBT" group from that state, making trying to apply the logic you wish problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I concur. It's also important to recognize that gender-neutral marriage does not strictly apply only to people who identify as LGBT, even if people with same-sex attractions are far likelier to take advantage of the expanded right. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
And, of course, sexual identity has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, so the "T" is irrelevant here. —Designate (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Should New Mexico be added to the table? Never mind... Prcc27 (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


Same-Sex Jurisdictions Equal 38% of the population???

I'm not sure that the population numbers add up to come out to 38% of the population. When I do the calculation, I come up with 20.35% using: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Population. Either the 38% is wrong, or I'm doing something wrong.

California 38,041,430 Connecticut 3,590,347 Delaware 917,092 Hawaii 1,392,313 Iowa 3,074,186 Maine 1,329,192 Maryland 5,884,563 Massachusetts 6,646,144 Minnesota 5,379,139 New Hampshire 1,320,718 New Jersey 8,864,590 New York 19,570,261 Rhode Island 1,050,292 Vermont 626,011 Washington 6,897,012 Dist of Columbia 632,323 New Mexico 1,209,612 ========= Total 63,876,356 US Population 313,818,356 =20.35% 76.187.137.93 (talk)

Your addition seems to have left out California. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right. Now I'm at 33.91%. The total is 106,425,225 of 313,818,356. There seems to be a 4% difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.137.93 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone had put that number based on the numbers lower in the article, but that number includes Illinois, where the law has passed but is not yet implemented. I have adjusted the number in the lead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico

There seems to be an edit war going on about where and how New Mexico should be included. As far as I can tell from the media coverage and from reading the ruling, there is no mention of a delay or a suspension, and it takes effect immediately. So, as far as I can see, New Mexico should be included in full as a state that issues same-sex marriage licenses. - htonl (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I concur. No reason to prevaricate on this; the unanimous Supreme Court ruling is quite clear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I am agree. It's clear decision and final. Such decisions can not be reviewed by US Supreme court. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Oklahoma: Change to medium red?

It seems to me that on the map image Oklahoma should be changed from dark red ("Constitution bans same-sex civil marriage and specified or unspecified civil union types") to medium red ("Constitution bans same-sex civil marriage"). Oklahoma's constitutional amendment states: "Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." I do not read that statement as banning other civil-union types.93.142.173.24 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you think the phrase "the legal incidents thereof" refers to? It prohibits granting the rights/privileges of marriage under another name, like "civil unions" or "domestic partners" or any other name. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry my point wasn't clearer. I'm referring to the word "require:" "Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require...". In other words, domestic parternships/civil unions are not required (to compensate for the fact that SSM is now banned?). That's how I read it. Where do you see the word "prohibit" or even its sense?93.142.177.128 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Will it change with recent news? http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/oklahoma-ban-on-gay-marriage-ruled-unconstitutional/article_85e88366-7d68-11e3-ab41-001a4bcf6878.html Buffalodan (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead wording

I like the way the first paragraph of the lead is written. Nice improvement. Teammm talk
email 16:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Utah

A federal judge has just ruled that Utah's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/us/utahs-gay-marriage-ban-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?_r=0

I went ahead and beefed up the article on Same-sex marriage in Utah, inserting it into the proper templates. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
With this recent news, info about Utah should be added in body article besides lede. George Ho (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage licenses are being issued. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/12/salt-lake-county-clerk-issues-marriage-license-to-same-sex-couple/ S51438 (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I've got that in an edit in the pending queue. (Cheers for Utah!) Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No stay of appeal has been granted, same-sex marriage remains LEGAL in Utah for the time being. S51438 (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they plan to appeal though and asked for an emergency stay. Will need to stay on top of it. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
That's affirmative. Shelby's decision didn't seem to have much sympathy for a stay of order, but it will be up to the Tenth Circuit to decide. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

State population column in tables

Do the stats must be exact, or must we round them off to nearest thousands or hundred-thousands? I see "estimate 2012", so why not use official 2010 census? --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe if you actually go look at the reference cited, you will see that the figures are from the *official* 2012 estimates of population by the Census Bureau - not just some editor's estimate.Textorus (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Official or unofficial, we know that numbers are estimates, and the exact figures may not be accurate. --George Ho (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Enactment of marriage laws table — enactment is the wrong word

The word enactment is confusing in this context, because it suggests that the legal situation in each state has always come about as the result of legislative processes. But in many cases (as in Utah), the legalization of same-sex marriage has occurred as the result of judicial processes in direct violation of relevant legislative acts. I would just be bold and fix it, but I fear that every more accurate word I can imagine might sound belittling in the ears of advocates of same-sex marriage. Not being such an advocate, I don't know what might offend. Are there any pro-same-sex-marriage folks out there who can think of a more accurate and less confusing word? Lereman (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the table you refer to is a list of state with CU/DP laws, all of which were indeed enacted by the respective legislatures. However, I've tweaked the title a bit to remove "enactment" and make it more in line with the preceding section title. Textorus (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Textorus! You are mistaken about what I was referring to, as you will see by looking at HectorMoffet's change just prior to the one you made and contrasting it with the previous version of the page (which was current when I posted this comment). But I definitely think that your making that subsequent table more consistent with HectorMoffet's good rewording of the problematic title was itself a good improvement! Well done, everyone! Lereman (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Utah appeal

Editors have been inserting as reference for a statement that the state of Utah is appealing the federal decision sources that do not actually say that the state has already filed their notice of appeal. They repeatedly strike down this source, with one claiming that it is not a WP:RS. EqualityOnTrial.com is a specialty news site, with editorial oversight and a paid staff, and they got strong respect under their prior name (Prop8TrialTracker.com). They are part of an advocacy group, and should not be used for balance, but NPOV is not a requirement of a reliable source, merely accuracy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right that the source from MSNBC didn't mention the notice to appeal. I've updated the lead, and corrected the mistake (an appeal isn't underway yet). As for the source you mentioned, my only concern is that it's a blog and not mainstream. I originally was going to cite LGBTQNation, but thought that since the issue is in the mainstream press, might as well cite them. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The appeal is underway. Filing the notice of appeal is the action of appealing. The appeal case is not being heard yet, but the judgment is indeed being appealed; it has gone beyond intent. ("A notice of appeal—a written document filed by the appellant with the court and a copy of which is sent to the appellee—is the initial step in the appeals process. It informs the court and the party in whose favor a judgment or order has been made that the unsuccessful party seeks a review of the case.")
Being a blog does not rule out something being a WP:RS, as it is not a personal blog, it's a news site run on blog software. Not being mainstream does not rule out something being a WP:RS. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Didn't know that about the appeal process. Thank you for teaching me. As for the source, I was just explaining my thinking. When you undid my edit I didn't revert because I know blogs can be RS. Is the current source good enough though (we'll need to change the sentence again though... Can get to tomorrow if no one else does. My phone makes it hard to edit) EvergreenFir (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong colors in map

Whats wrong with the map in the section State laws ? Why New Mexico is not blue yet ???? And why Utah is still red ?? 217.76.1.22 (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Clear your cache. jj (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Back Obama

I hardly think the reference to Obama in the leading paragraph is at all necessary. He would not even support gay marriage if it wouldn't work in his favor. Not to mention how pissed he staff was when Biden slipped and "evolved" before Obama did on the subject.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/

I think the leading sentence should be removed. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It has historical significance.- MrX 16:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
He's not mentioned until the third paragraph. I'm sure you know the president's mind better than he does, but the fact remains that he is the first US president to publicly support SSM, and that warrants inclusion. Czolgolz (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with above 2 comments. You are speculating on Obama's thoughts. If there are enough reliable sources, go add info to Obama's page about it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ohio ruling

Federal judge ruled that same-sex marriage in other states must be recognized by Ohio on death certificates. Story here. Need to update articles. Should the map have dark grey stripes in Ohio now? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no, because that doesn't recognizing any existing marriage; the marriage is only "recognized" when it no longer exists (as death ends a marriage in a legal sense.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Banned again in Utah

Update the map again. Utah's ban got reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.246.79 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Technically, it's not banned but rather put on hold. The constitutional amendment is not back in force and we don't have an "on hold" color for the map, so I'm not sure what to do with the map. (I'm the most recent editor of the map.) Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, it's done now. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The map for Utah needs a new color. The effect of the stay, is to prevent the issue of any more same sex marriage licenses, until the 10th appeals court hears the case in the spring. If a same sex couple has a marriage license, but has not gotten married yet, they can still get married in Utah. Red is no longer appropriate, neither is blue. I will let somebody else figure it out what it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.112.245 (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be the same as California was for a while: a lot of legally married people in a state where it is illegal. Yeah, new color needed. Czolgolz (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
For the time being, I put in striping to reflect the ban de facto in effect but married couples remaining. What would be a good "stay in effect" color? Some sort of purple? Dralwik|Have a Chat 18:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
IIRC that's what was done with California when that state was in the same situation. The bigger question is, with a dozen or so lawsuits having the potential to put a dozen or more states soon to be in the same situation that Utah is currently in, do we want to decide a way to handle these states, or just assume how California was handled was good enough and use that as a base line?Dave (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather have a distinct color for states where a stay is in place on a ruling lifting a ban, both to mark the status of these states and to prevent the map from potentially turning into a blur of striped lines. I'll see what I can come up with. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I've put in a purple color for Utah due to the legal stay. If it's not distinct enough (should it be darker? lighter?), feel free to speak up. I've also updated the legend on Template:Samesex marriage in USA map. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Thanks for doing that. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that's acceptable. Now the issue is to get the dozen or so translated legends at File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg updated. Dave (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I could run my sentence in English through Google Translator for each language, but that's about as well as I could do. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Done. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
FYI, for those that don't remember, here was how California was handled during that time [7]. Yeah I think a new color better conveys what's going on than the striping. Dave (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the new color keeps the simplicity. Easy to understand. Teammm talk
email 19:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, everyone. (Hopefully we don't have to use that purple color very frequently.) Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Could we make it a different color? A lot of these colors are close together, and it's pretty hard for someone like me who's colorblind to tell them apart. --Watchreader (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Any suggestions? Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I made it a lighter color so hopefully the contrast with the surrounding states is more marked now. Dralwik|Have a Chat 20:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to improve the translations for French and Japanese. I figure we should keep the purple color around because this is likely to happen in the future so good translations would be useful. If anyone knows those languages better, please improve upon my translations. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Federal government to recognize Utah marriages

This would indicate an additional category, where marriages are recognized at a federal level but not at the state level. Mr. Anon515 05:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Utah says so, so should this article? --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm in agreement. The federal Government is recognizing marriages legally performed by Utah. There should be another category for this. Apparently there was when California was in a similar situation. Oklahoma will be in a slightly different situation as no marriages were performed, so this may have implications for how we want to address Utah and Oklahoma.75.179.42.181 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it really is a different category. Utah is not now granting marriages, and is not recognizing the marriages previously performed there or elsewhere, which puts it on the same basis as every other state that doesn't accept same-sex marriages. (This is different from the California situation, because California was in a separate category because they -were- recognizing marriages but not granting them.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed Utah is not now granting marriages nor is it recognizing them the good thing though is that the couples will get federal benefits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, despite the rhetoric of the governor, Utah's same sex marriages are being recognized for at least some purposes [8], just to throw in one more kink into the debate over weather Utah should have blue stripes in it. =-) Dave (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Did SSM in Oklahoma get legalized?

Right now Oklahoma is listed under the States that license same-sex marriage (table) as SSM but was it or was the ban just struck down? (Also the populations of Utah and Oklahoma can not count towards the total population on the table as SSM is currently on hold) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have read that the ban was struck down but immediately stayed pending resolution of the Utah case(to avoid the legal limbo that Utah got) [9] so it seems to be premature to list it as a state that licenses them(as well as counting it towards the population) though I think listing it under case law is OK. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed here I could not find any evidence that Oklahoma was placed in the same status as Utah is why. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Correct. See LGBT rights in Oklahoma#Lawsuit for some detail. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
So he stayed enforcement of the judgement, given that I feel we should remove Oklahoma from the table for now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible Changes to the Map

Hello, everyone. I'm a person who really enjoys analyzing political maps, and every time there's a change to a same-sex marriage law I find myself returning to this page to look for the corresponding map update. I have noticed that the footnotes in the map are getting bulky and that there are a few items in the footnotes of the U.S. map that I feel could be represented by the existing map key. For example, if Missouri allows same-sex couples to file state taxes jointly without recognizing marriage, why not give it light blue stripes (limited/enumerated rights) like Wisconsin has? If readers are curious about those limited rights, they can visit the page on same-sex marriage in Missouri rather than have a crowded footnote section. Likewise, if an Ohio judge has ruled that out-of-state marriages must be recognized in Ohio, why not give Ohio dark gray stripes like Oregon? I love the detail and professionalism of this article and just wanted to point out an easy way to prevent increasingly-lengthy footnotes as recent judicial rulings add more nuance to recognition of same-sex relationships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.209.189 (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the footnotes are long. CTF83! 01:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion map

*Proposal 2 implemented per consensus.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original Map

Right now File:Public opinion of same-sex marriage in USA by state.png is split into only four major categories:

  Recent polls or ballot votes that show a majority of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls that show less than a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls or ballot votes that show a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  No recent poll data.

My question, is the wording "Recent polls that show less than a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage." neutral? I see two shades of blue and only one shade of red so shouldn't there be "Recent polls that show less than a majority of that state's population supports same-sex marriage" as well? This is the first issue here per WP:UNDUE.

The second issue is the actual polling data, according to Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States#By state each of the states in light blue have less than a 50% support rate for SSM so where is that line that defines "less than a majority"?

So my proposals are:

Proposal One

Proposal one: Based on the poll data from: Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States#By state make 4 categories. Most of the sources use the jargon "Split" or "Split on the issue".:

  Recent polls or ballot votes that show a majority of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls that are split on same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls or ballot votes that show a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  No recent poll data.

Proposal Two

Proposal Two: Create 5 categories to balance things out.:

  Recent polls or ballot votes that show a majority of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls that show less than a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls that show less than a majority of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls or ballot votes that show a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  No recent poll data.

Opinions

In this section only please place *Support proposal 1, *Proposal 1, *Support proposal 2, *Proposal 2 or *Neither if you want to keep the map as status quo.

  • How the heck is this poorly thought out? The current map has only 3 major categories and the proposals either make the middle category neutral or add another category that is light red. There is nothing complex here as the current map has descriptions that are badly worded per the comments below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support proposal 2. I'm fine with the wording but would support any necessary changes. Good colour choices. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Proposal 2 I also feel that the wording could be better, but am not sure what it could be. Sorry. Something that makes clear that the reason they don't have a majority is because of undecided poll takers. I would also support Proposal 1 if the middle wording were tweaked a bit more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalodan (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Proposal 2 Honestly, the setup of the graphic is slightly inappropriate, as it shows a controversial and dividing issue with separations that are a bit too absolute. Many of the states have percentages supporting and opposing that are very close, and maybe there should be a better representation of that. That being said, Proposal 2 would be a fair and informative graphic with the inclusion of the plurality sections, and I think it is the best option for now. Floatsam (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Proposal 2 ("less than a majority" should be reworded "plurality") --Prcc27 (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Proposal 2 with "less than a majority" reworded "plurality" to be more concise, and using plurality would require the middle two colors be swapped. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This map is supposed to represent polling data and has been deployed under the heading "public opinion". Votes are not polling data, and you don't need me to explain the many ways in which they are not. Votes and polling data can diverge. Votes should not be considered here at all. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wording is bad on both proposals. "Split" does not mean that there is not a majority (consider a "split decision" in boxing, for example). If we keep the segmentation of current/proposal 1, the middle range should be "No majority support for either stance"; if 2, I believe the word you're looking for is "plurality". Also, concur with Bmclaughlin9's concern. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

For proposal 1, the middle color is much too dark and likely does not comply with WP:COLOR. I would suggest
  
or something similar instead. For proposal 2, there's a double negative vibe to the wording that is confusing even to native English speakers. I suggest
  Recent polls that show a slim majority of that state's population support same-sex marriage.
and
  Recent polls that show a slim majority of that state's population oppose same-sex marriage.
I would say we can make "slim" 45% to 55%. I do agree the current wording is a bit awkward and unbalanced. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The structure of the proposals is not neutral either. There are three proposals offered, and they should be numbered as such. It seems designed to favor what is now Proposal 1, which was the proposal the nominator attempted to edit in previously. This should be re-numbered before there is much more participation or it will taint the discussion. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
And maybe the nominator should have followed best practice by attempting even a little discussion on the talk page, as advised here, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Before_starting_the_Request_for_Comment_process, then there might be better options. I think a lot of people are going to feel railroaded to choose between three half-baked options. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The current map though is not a proposal but is how things stand currently so I do not know how it would be considered a proposed change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with the changes and can amend the proposal with your suggestion - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The wording of proposal 2 I agree should be tweaked to be something more neutral and balanced, seeing this is a discussion and nothing has to be set in stone I welcome any ideas or input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what the two middle options are exactly describing. Is the pale color indicative of which side is in the lead, but neither at a majority? For example, a state with a 48%-45% split for same-sex marriage (so a +3% margin) would be light blue, correct? Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is the wording "Recent polls that show less than a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage." what is that supposed to mean and how do you define "less than a majority"? Is less than a majority capped at less than 59% oppose SSM 55% maybe? The wording language is pro SSM as it has the words "less than" so I do not see this wording as a WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My idea for the split would follow Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States#By state 52% - 59% (As shown in light blue) would be "less than a magjority oppose SSM" while 42 - 49% would be in light red as less than a majority supports SSM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Or my understanding of 2 right now is equivalent to:
  Recent polls show a majority of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls show a plurality of that state's population supports same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls show a plurality of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  Recent polls show a majority of that state's population opposes same-sex marriage.
  No recent poll data.
Although this would mean a small number of pale states, likely changing frequently. Your way works too, in showing the swing states. As this proposal stands, I find the wording in option 2 vague. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes pretty much, I changed the idea to a 3% margin but this can always be increased if the changing takes place too often. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Im not good at uploading maps so if a consensus does go into place I would need help implementing the changes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
One benefit of the plurality wording is that it will cover states like Indiana, which has a 48%-46% split right now in favor of same-sex marriage, with neither side reaching a majority. Which color would Indiana be? Dralwik|Have a Chat 05:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Im fine with the color purple as it is right in the middle of the two that or dark gray. I also want to point out that the map currently is also not accurate. For New Mexico for example, 51% support same-sex marriage in the most recent poll conducted, how the heck is 51% a majority? I would compare a state colored in red too for an example to be fair but there is none, another WP:NPOV concern. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

I am seeing a consensus here for proposal 2 in one form or another, when the RFC is closed, is there someone who could follow through with it if that is the case? I do not know how to update the maps. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

what happen with Illinois

I noticed Illinois was readded to the civil union area under the US up at the time on the right side where all the other nations are listed. Anyone know why ? It's a marriage state now and it was removed back in November and now it's randomly returned.Bleach143 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

California

Technically, California still has a statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Shouldnt the map indicate this as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.35.34 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No. California's marriage bans (statute and state constitution) have been found unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution by a U.S. district judge, and this decision survived U.S. Supreme Court appeal. In the U.S. Federal law (judicial decisions are called "common law") trumps state law, so these California bans are unenforceable, null and void. They have no legal force whatsoever, while Judge Walker's decision in Perry is California law. MarkGT (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

File:US Civil Marriage Laws.png

Comment moved from User talk:Htonl#SSM Lagal Map:

While helpful the map has a link on it to a personal blog Wikipedia is not a Soapbox in this case. In addition Indiana has an amendment pending as well for an amendment against same-sex marriage which is not shown on the map. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

End of moved comment

This is in relation to File:US Civil Marriage Laws.png, which Knowledgekid87 removed on the basis of WP:POV. Now, the URL in the map is the URL of the blog where the map was originally posted by its author. In any case, having read a couple of pages of the blog in question, it seems to be a neutrally-worded discussion of statistics and not one that is pushing a POV - certainly not "a freedomtomarry blog" as Knowledgekid87 described it in his second edit summary. As to the Indiana issue, the map doesn't claim to depict pending laws or amendments. So I don't see that either of these are a valid reason to remove it. - htonl (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Can I just note that it will be out of date Monday when the ACLU lawsuit is filed in Wisconsin? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess I got the source mixed up but I did see a mention of freedomtomarry on the map. In any case the map will date quickly per Bmclaughlin9. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It refers to Freedom to Marry as one of the sources for the data. The point about the map going out of date is very true; it would be nice if we could redraw it as a (relatively) easy to update SVG map like the other ones. (I already suggested this before somewhere else.) - htonl (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky

I see the usual rush to update, but I've yet to a source say that Judge Heyburn has issued an order. His decision says he will do so and then we'll have to watch to see if he stays it while it's appealed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And here is what AFRR says: "A hearing will be set in the near future to determine when the court’s order will take effect. The State will likely appeal today’s decision." So not yet in effect. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit per the WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional reference from a local paper: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20140212/NEWS10/302120050/Kentucky-ban-gay-marriages-from-other-states-struck-down-by-federal-judge?nclick_check=1

It should be noted that this does not legalize same-sex marriage in Kentucky: the ruling orders that out-of-state same-sex marriages be recognized within Kentucky. Unfortunately, I could not find the case title or more information, but I will continue looking. 66.112.173.202 (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Read the section above this one. Then you'll find lots of coverage at LGBT rights in Kentucky. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Saw that, but only after I posted, but thanks for the cross-reference. :) 66.112.173.202 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Virginia should no longer be red

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/13/virginia-same-sex-marriage/5473687/ Not blue either yet, but I think maybe gray? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In the map, stayed rulings aren't considered until they are enforced. Utah and Oklahoma are still red despite being in the same legal situation as Virginia. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, things are still status quo nothing has been legalized or gone into effect yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
And VA is in the appropriate footnote. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia have a "stay" color? or a # denoting something different is going on. This would be similar to the on again off again of California during its trials. Or a updated map that includes pending legal cases, the current one is outdated. It would be nice if it was visually similar to the other state by state map. Thanks. Moonraker0022 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I've introduced a stay color (light purple) on the map before, and there wasn't consensus to keep it per File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg/Archive 9#Why is Utah purple? Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit: The failed stay color was on the larger red-blue map, while the smaller map being a png is much tricker to alter. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Civil marriage laws" map is just a disaster. There's never been such a law in Massachusetts that authorizes SSM. WP editors use the word "law" very loosely. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no statute in MA, but there's certainly law which authorizes it. Judge-made law is still law. - htonl (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My feeling on the stay issue is that the main map should reflect the situation as it exists now. All the judgments are stayed, so SSM is not presently legal in those states. True, in the past we've changed the colours for states with statutes passed before they came into force; but that's rather different since it was known that the statutes would come into force at some specific future date. These court orders may or may not ever come into force, depending on the result of appeals. - htonl (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Utah recognition

Someone has been editing the article based on the claim that Utah currently recognizes the same-sex marriages that were entered into their during the brief period of a few weeks back. This is not the case; I recommend that anyone considering readding this claim review Template_talk:Same-sex_unions#Utah_Again. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Texas

It looks like Texas needs to be added to the list of the states where the ban was ruled unconstitutional but with a stay pending further appeal. [10] [11] 216.36.9.149 (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States/Archive_7&oldid=1136378789"