Talk:Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The information on Maine is incorrect or incomplete. We were the 1st state to vote BOTH popular vote and law. That meant that it could never be repealed. It was permanent. Something I am quite proud of. I live in Portland, Maine and we have a very large gay population. I'm not gay but my neighbor is, the girl downstairs is bi-sexual. There is a gay bar up the street. They're our friends and loved ones. I have never been so proud of our state for being the 1st to recognize that this is a human rights issue. [[

File:StateSame-SexMarriageLaws24378.gif
Please read the copyright information below. Please correct the errors mentioned. This is for educational purposes only

]]

MA flag[edit]

I can't get the MA flag image to show up. Either it is full sized or not at all. Can anyone help me? Postcard Cathy 00:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red X and Green Check npov?[edit]

I really hate to nitpick but the use of green checks and red xs seems to me that it defies neutral point of view. Seems to make voting yes on amendments banning same sex marriage be a positive thing. In my eyes it's a negative thing because same sex marriage does nothing to opposite sex marriage. Why must people take marriage -- which a subject of love -- and turn it into a subject of hate? I'd like to see red checks and green Xs, but that's my point of view. In the interest of neutralness, shouldn't we change it to just the words yes and no? That way neither side would feel slanted against -- nevermind the fact that this entire subject is slanted in the first place because of the two sides, the hate is only in one direction and completely unfounded in anything other than religion which isn't even supposed to affect government policies in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.163.104 (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • I hardly think the red x/green check is a POV issue. The notion of the color green being associated with "yes" and red with "no" is universal enough to be understood without inferring any bias. It's not "green is good, red is bad", it's just "green is yes, red is no". Anyone who reads anything more into it than that is being hypersensitive. Arkyan 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California[edit]

They voted again on SSM. That should probably get added. 140.90.131.108 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposition 8 (2008) was recently upheld, but the 18,000 marriages between the 19 June, 2008 decision and November 5, 2008 are upheld as well. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question, within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention. Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Connecticut[edit]

Where is Connecticut on the "Pending efforts to define marriage through constitutional amendment" list? I bet the legislature have a big "consitutional amendment" quoting "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" [sic] (or words to that affect) plan to ban gay marriage in Connecticut very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recently the Marriage Code 2009 was implemented and made completly gender-neutralized with all references to marriage allowing both opposite sex couples and same sex couples over 18. There is NO constitutional amendment being planned in Connecticut - so we can "safely say" that marriage for all is safe in Connecticut. For example it now says Marriage means a union between two adult persons within the state of Connecticut or any other state that recognises these types of unions is valid and is legally and lawfully recognised in Connecticut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire[edit]

The New Hampshire same sex marriage bill was erroneously listed as having a "No" outcome. Although the Senate Judiciary Commmittee recommended a no vote, this is not dispositive. The full NH Senate will vote on the bill the last week of April 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.2.13 (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Currently the New Hampshire Civil Marriage And Religious Freedom Bill 2009 is currently being amended to include this (so it can pass into law or statute):

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010. Source: NH Gov. Lynch Statement Regarding Same-Sex Marriage Legislation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another table planned[edit]

I am planning another table for the Court action on same-sex marriages:

For example

States; MA, CA, CT, IO.

Votes; 4-2 4-3 6-5 6-0

Name of challenge to court

Dept of Health vs. MA Dept of Health vs. CT Dept of Health vs. IO Dept of Health vs. CA

Overturned:

CA by voters in November 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes! i think it needs to be done!Olliyeah (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new table and just completed it - do you think it looks good????

I fully support same-sex marriages as well, lets get the right information out there.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court table[edit]

Thanks to everyone who's worked on the Supreme Court table, it's been long overdue, but I did notice one aspect that could be extremely confusing for people who didn't previously know the outcomes of the cases. For example, when it says [vote] "for" or "against," the Massachusetts entry says "4 for" and "3 against" while the California Prop 8 challenge says "6 for" and "1 against." What is unclear is that the court in Massachusetts ruled 4-3 that the restrictions on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, while the court in CA ruled that Prop 8 was constitutional. I know it's hard to summarize the terms of the vote in a small template, but at the present, it's very misleading, to say the least. VoodooIsland (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity and Fairness[edit]

There are several sections in this article that aren't objective, or fair. Cueball (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for example?Olliyeah (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California.[edit]

There will be NO proposed Ballot measure to repeal prop 8. Please edit that on the Ballot measures section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.71.169 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsible table for legislation[edit]

After playing with the table in a sandbox for several hours, I have discovered that the art of creating collapsible tables is beyond me. Since the current table is becoming increasingly long, I thought that collapsing the material from the 1990s and 2000s would clean the article up a bit. I believed that leaving "modern" material would be more resourceful. Could someone by chance make this happen? I tried and couldn't achieve it. (Tigerghost (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Wyoming[edit]

Both a marriage and a civil unions bill have been introduced and have more than one cosponsor. They should both be listed. --Smart (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Florida[edit]

Florida lawmaker introduces same-sex domestic partnership bill --Smart (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota[edit]

An editor has taken upon himself to consolidate the Minnesota bills because he has some crazy notion that listing them both sets them up as "dueling bills". The fact is that the bills are companion bills: they have identical text but are separate and distinct documents. Listing it as though a single bill is pending in two houses at once is a nonsense, and anyone who understands the legislative process will think it an obvious mistake. We should not be in the business of creating nonsense. At this point, we don't know which bill, if any, will end up on the Governor's desk. At the heart of the matter is this: we list any bill that gets a final vote in a legislative body. It remains possible that each bill will receive a final vote, meaning each should remain listed. Here are some possibilities:

  • Each bill fails in its own house. If listed together, this creates the bizarre impression that a single bill somehow failed in its originating house, then went across the Capitol and failed again.
  • Each bill passes in its own house. If listed together, this creates the false and misleading impression that the a single bill has passed both houses and goes to the governor, when in fact each bill will have been sent by its originating house to the other. The truth is that one house would have to pass the other's bill. And if a vote occurred on it, where the hell would be put the tally?
  • One fails in its house, and one bill passes its house. The first bill would be entitled to be on this list by virtue of being a bill that failed. The second would still be live and could still pass if the second house's vote turns out different than on its own bill.

There is no reason to consolidate to one bill until we know that only one bill will get a floor vote. That hasn't happened yet, so the two-line version should be restored. In the end, this is a list of legislation. Each bill is a separate piece of legislation, so should be listed separately. -Rrius (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2 years of editing the sections. You are the only one who has come forward about this. In every state no one has never made it look or appear that way. If you look at the history. I mean, it doesn't matter when or where it starts. The only time there was a two-line proposal was when the same state was considering passage of civil unions or marriage.
Because lets say 20 states were to propose such a bill. And 20 states were proposing civil unions and marriage in separate chambers that would make article 1000 times larger. I feel like it is not unnecessary because its the same state, same session, and etc.
Also, I would like to point out for example lets say the Minnesota legislature rejects marriage equality in the senate by a vote of 19-35 (SF925). So the bill would dead in the Senate likely for that session. So lets say the House were to pass (HF1054) Keep in mind SF925 and HF1054 have the same exact language. Lets say that HF1054 passes the house. It wouldn't be taken up in the senate because it would have failed as SF925. Also when a chamber usually votes in against a bill it kills the other for that session. Because it needs to pass the Senate/House. If it can't pass it wouldn't become law. So the other editor makes it sound like in his closing remarks that just because the House passes the bill. That the Senate would automatically consider the proposal when that is false because it failed in the same session. Good luck Senator Dibble on getting the votes to change that outcome. The outcome wouldn't be different... Thats the truth. So if it fails in the other house it would dead in the other house. The vote wouldn't turn out differently because its the same language in the other house. Does that make sense?

Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drivel. If the SF925 were rejected by such a clear margin, it would likely be dead for the session. But what if it failed by only a few votes? Would it not be likely the House would send over its bill to give proponents to swing a few votes? If so, your version would make it look as though the House had passed its bill first and it had failed in the House. That is nuts. Going back to your example, if the Senate voted down the bill and the House didn't bother voting on its bill, we would delete the House's version and mark the lower-house column "n/a". I am not advocating leaving two columns for all time (unless each bill happens to get a floor vote in its house, which is unlikely). What I am advocating is not engaging in asinine speculation. What I am advocating is reflecting reality. There are two pieces of legislation, each pending in a separate house, each capable of moving forward. It is not like we never remove rows from this table, so what is so fucking difficult about leaving the two separate and deleting the one that becomes redundant? -Rrius (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its possible, but I wouldn't see the members changing their mind on the same bill within the same session. I mean it would likely only be possible if the wording was tweaked a bit. Well I mean I think I know where you are going with this. I mean lets say SF925 pass were to fail 32-35. You are correctly it is possible for people to change their mind. I mean so that would be in the Senate column. Assuming the House could pass it which its possible lets say it does 88-42. The Senate would redo the vote. So it would go in place of the old vote of 32-35. So if the House were to pass their version which is the same as the Senates. So 32-35 would be cleared out because was a fail vote then the new vote would be entered into that space. Does that make sense? Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada[edit]

SJR13 would repeal Question 2 which is the Marriage Amendment that passed back in 2002. This bill would repeal that amendment. This bill would not legalize gay marriage in the state of Nevada. This bill would need to pass in 2013 or 2014. November 2014 elections happen. Then it would need to be passed again in 2015 or 2016.

If passed the 2nd time this would go to the voters of Nevada in November of 2016. If the amendment repeal passes. Lawmakers can then pass marriage in 2017 if they would like to or not. Domestic Partnerships I don't believe will be affected by this bill. I mean I don't believe this talks about that in the bill. However I made a new section on the page because I thought it wasn't proper to place it in efforts to enable unions because this bill wouldn't do that.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samesexmarriage101 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [1]

Date problem?[edit]

The tables contain several occurrances of May 2013. As I write this, it is April 24, 2013. Is this some attempt to predict the future by anticipating when action on a bill will be complete? It is still possible that Rhode Island and/or Delaware will complete action on their bills and have them signed during April, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.111.149 (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the intention was, but the two states you note are the ones that seem the most certain not to reach the end of the process in April. The Rhode Island bill is, according to their website, tentatively scheduled to go to the House Judiciary Committee on May 2. In any event, it doesn't seem possible for the bill to make its way to the Governor before May. Likewise, a pre-announced hearing must be held on the bill, and it cannot be considered the same day it is reported to the Senate. On top of this, the Delaware General Assembly does not meet on Friday or Monday. It is just not going to happen by Wednesday. The Illinois House could pass the Senate's bill when it comes back into session on the 30th. Either house of Minnesota's legislature could pass a bill tomorrow or Friday, setting up a vote in the other house by the 30th. Even in those states, the bill would still have to be enrolled (officially printed) and sent to the governor, a process that typically takes at least a couple of days. So we can be reasonably comfortable saying that these bills will still be active in May.
What I don't actually get is why we assign months to active bills. I think we should just list a year and add a month when there is a final action taken. -Rrius (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By way of update, the RI bills will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee on the 30th after the House rises, making the earliest day for passage 1 May. In Delaware, the Senate Executive Committee will meet to consider HB 75 on 1 May. -Rrius (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota House vote[edit]

The Minn. House of Representatives will debate their bill on Thursday. It is not clear exactly when the Senate meets next after that (their schedule page is crap), so it is not clear when it would take up the bill after that. According to the press, the House is the more difficult chamber to get it through, suggesting if it passes Thursday, it is a fait accompli. That it has been brought up for a vote may suggest it has the votes, so keep an eye out for action on Thursday and when Senate leaders or bill sponsors say it will come up in that house. -Rrius (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois[edit]

Not sure how much stock to put in comments by activists, but keep an eye out for a vote next week.[2] -Rrius (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rep. Harris, the bill's sponsor, will "absolutely" call it for a vote by May 31, and says, "When I put it up on the board, it's going to go up to win," strongly implying he does in fact have the votes. The House sits tomorrow, so a vote could come as early as then. Theoretically, it must pass by tomorrow, the deadline for third reading of Senate bills, but the Speaker can and presumably will extend the deadline. It is not clear whether the House sits over the weekend, so we'll have to keep an eye out for action on Saturday or Sunday. -Rrius (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The deadline has been extended to the 31st, and there is a Sunday session (but none on Saturday). The Sunday session may be pro forma. -Rrius (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rumor is the vote will be today. -Rrius (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Texas[edit]

Proposed joint resolutions to overturn the state's constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage were never heard from again after being assigned to committees. The legislative regular session adjourned sine die on May 30, 2013 thereby killing any chance for passage during this biennium. Fortguy (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas[edit]

Arkansas for Equality has filed a proposed 2014 ballot initiative to amend the state's constitution to allow same-sex marriage. The state's attorney general must certify ballot wording before the necessary 78,133 registered voter signatures can be collected. Source: http://www.ktbs.com/story/22705204/arkansas-group-seeks-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ban Fortguy (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morrissey vows to overturn Va. ban on same-sex marriage[edit]

Morrissey vows to overturn Va. ban on same-sex marriage http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/morrissey-vows-to-overturn-va-ban-on-same-sex-marriage/article_0b8fd22e-6a2c-57a9-be93-263f9353b241.html --Smart (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Florida 2[edit]

Equality Florida has launched a petition seeking a repeal of the state's constitutional ban of same-sex marriages. The launch featured gay-advocacy convert Tim Hardaway, formerly of the NBA's Miami Heat, despite his previous opposition. To be successful, the petition requires the signatures of 683,149 registered voters located in 14 of the state's 27 Congressional districts and must be filed by Feb. 1, 2014. If placed on the November 2014 ballot, the proposed constitutional amendment will require a supermajority of 60% approval from voters. Source:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/florida-gay-marriage_n_3548573.html Fortguy (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct scope of "Lawsuits seeking to overturn statutory bans"[edit]

After adding a recent federal lawsuit regarding Kentucky, I noticed that the language at the top of this table actually would exclude many of the entires. So, we should probably update the text, or the table.

Questions:
  1. Should we split the whole table out (see below), and if so, how?
  2. Should the table only include cases which have been ruled on by a Supreme Court? (The text says yes, several entries in the table imply otherwise.)
  3. Should the table only include cases in the state judicial systems? (The text says yes, but a couple federal cases involving state recognition are included.)

Discussion encouraged. (E.g., should this be split?) --j⚛e deckertalk 05:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest broadening the question. SSM litigation to overturn legislation is a broad topic that could easily be seen as too much to include in an article dedicated to the legislation itself. It might be better to note that a listed statute has been overturned and spin out any lists we have about lawsuits to a new article. -Rrius (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you are suggesting is actually my own instinct as well. I added it as a first question. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


New Jersey ?[edit]

Should we remove New Jerseys out of state marriage bill link since it never happen and New jersy has marriage now ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.156.145 (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado over turn ban court case link[edit]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4181879 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.167.84 (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon[edit]

The 2014 ballot measure has enough signatures to qualify for ballot access. http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=17181&MediaType=1&Category=26 97.71.50.252 (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana[edit]

I have decided to make a change with Indiana and I would like to explain why that change was made. HJR6 was passed in the House and senate in 2011. Those votes were taken and they will be judged in history and by history. HJR6 became HJR3 this year in 2014 and it was just amended. Therefore, it is not the same bill. The old legislation and bill is dead. HJR3 and HJR6 were the same bill, they are not anymore. Therefore, the old votes should still be listed on the page and separate from the new bill. The new bill and ban is only marriage between one man and one woman. Of course this will have to pass the House tomorrow (3rd reading) This is just a change for now and for the record. We will see what happens going forward. Samesexmarriage1001 (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho[edit]

Interesting: [3] — kwami (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Marriage Amendment - 2016 Ballot[edit]

I restored the information about Nevada's gay marriage amendment as I found an article that the legislature could continue with the second vote to put the amendment on the 2016 ballot. If the 2015 legislative session ends without a vote on the amendment, then it would be safe to remove that section or declare it a No.

http://www.newsreview.com/reno/repeal-still-to-come/content?oid=15222451 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorksa10 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yorska10: Isn't the table irrelevant given the fact Nevada now has same-sex marriage?
@S51438: Assuming that S51438 left the above reply (I apologize in advance if I'm wrong), it is entirely possible that states like Nevada may pursue with repeal of their invalidated bans in the 2016 election. I have read articles such as the one above that discuss this very possibility (Oregon is another state to watch during their 2015 session) However, with the Republicans gaining control of both house of the Nevada legislature during the 2014 United States elections, I don't have much faith that they will continue to repeal process that the Democrats have started. As of right now, I don't see any prefiled resolutions seeking to continue the process. I guess we'll see what 2015 holds. - Yorksa10; 11/10/14

Old Illinois ban?[edit]

I can't find anything concrete about the Illinois ban from 1977, and there is no reference in the table. Did the statute explicitly ban same-sex marriage in Illinois back then? All I can find is the 1996 ban. Kumorifox (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of a description here. It was the first re-write of Illinois' marriage statute in more than a century, and it seems the focus was divorce, property rights, and common law marriage, not SSM in the least. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page, or update it?[edit]

All of these same-sex marriage legislation pages are incredibly outdated. They need to either be updated or deleted. Same goes for the LGBT rights in the United States page, and all of the other back-end pages about gay marriage around the Americas. Do we only need the one "Same-sex Marriage in the United States" page? Because thats the only one thats being updated. What a mess... VisaBlack (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be for keeping this page as an overview of landmark and defining cases, such as Windsor (landmark), Kitchen and Bishop (defining for single states), but not so much as an active page. Once the SCOTUS ruling on Obergefell is handed down, this page will be a handy overview of major legislative history, which will reduce the size of the main "Same-sex Marriage in the United States" page (which was deemed too long). Kumorifox (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, I couldn't fix it and I have been to the freakin sandbox and it doesn't help, please don't report me because I put it above the table of contents. This is the talk section and it shouldnt matter anyways. Besides to me it is a major issue that deserves attention of the top of the page because this article is incorrect and outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellwake (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts to enable same-sex unions[edit]

The section is perplexing. It puts on a par bills aiming to codify gender-neutral marriage and unions and other bills that are labelled as 'expansions', whose purpose and content are quite unclear. I'd like the table to be more focused and list only the first kind of bills. Expansions or successive modifications could be footnoted or described in the respective page 'Same-sex marriage in STATE' Finedelledanze (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States&oldid=1210192389"