Talk:Uniting American Families Act

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uniting American Families Act article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Good Article

I'm currently working on a long list of improvements to this article with the goal of making this a good article. I'm currently working on sections about public support and opposition to the bill. If you have any sources on those sections, please note them here or edit the article directly. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an important and good article, but that it needs work. I'm taking on this article for a class project and do not want to undermine anything you may be doing, Karimarie. I agree on public support and opposition--trying to make these as equal in length, content, etc. as possible. Also, maybe more information on organizations, specific political figures, etc. who support and oppose the bill. Where its at now & possibly key reasons why it hasn't passed? Let me know what you think.Gbraham522 (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOMA and gay rights

Nearly 20,000 Americans and their foreign-national partners are being denied the right to live together in the U.S.—one of the many, many profoundly discriminatory consequences of the Defense of Marriage Act. Efforts at repeal have been building for awhile, but the new Congress seems unlikely to be sympathetic. The courts are the new frontier; there are now five challenges working their way inevitably to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, bi-national gay couples can always go to Canada, which provides asylum to gay people who cannot find safe haven elsewhere. For more on LGBT rights and US immigration : http://www.thailawforum.com/gay-rights-lesbian-rights-and-DOMA.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by RDRomberg (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the Family

The opinions of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council do not belong in this article. They are not credible organizations. They make things up and conduct fake "research" that fit their agendas. 75.221.247.247 (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page: Thanks for taking the time to raise your concerns at the article's discussion page. You're obviously angry about the positions of Focus on the Family and Family Research Council on the bill. (And, guess what, I may be too.) Please do remember that one of the "five pillars of Wikipedia" is a "neutral point of view". This means including all significant views that have been published by reliable sources , even if you - and maybe even I - disagree with. See you on the talkpage, and happy editing! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can just say whatever they want, and then we have to include it. Focus on the Family, and Family Research Council are a laughing stock to any rational-minded person - not to mention every mainstream medical organization. Their opinions aren't what I would call "significant." 75.221.247.247 (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Uniting American Families Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]