Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND SAME SEX MARRIAGE

First of all, in the United States, we all are suppose to have equal rights. That being true then the right to marry is the right of all persons without regard to gender or sexual orientation. It is not only a civil right but also a human right. However, there are those who wrongly think it is their right to take away rights from others and impose their religious beliefs upon others: before the 20th century it was blacks and women and of course Gay People notably the Oscar Wilde case. These thiefs of liberty always seem to claim tradition as a legitimate reason and try to back it by religious beliefs and more often than not these religious beliefs and traditions rest on unproven facts and fallacies.

In the United States; Church and State are separate but there are factions who are always trying to make them the same. In this light; Churches and religious groups in the United States should have no legal power to marry people irregardless of gender or sexual orientation. This should be a State matter in which a couple is legally married before a Justice of the Peace first. THEN if they want a Church wedding after being legally married may have a Church Wedding whether they are heterosexual or same sex couple if the Church allows. This is the way it is done in France and has worked well for some 200 years.

Most traditions often have no logical reason for existing and marriage ONLY between heterosexuals is just one of them. Such traditions are often both ethically and morally wrong because among other things they involve discriminatory practices: engaging in and keeping slaves; denying women thier right to an education as well as black people supposedly either because they are suppose to be the weaker sex or they are suppose to be an inferior race. The list goes on an on and none of these traditions have any good reason to exist or justify the customs that they impose.

There is no logical reason in Civil Law to deny the Equal Rights to Gay People. The opponents will cite the religious dogma that Marriage is for the purpose of creating stable enviroment to raise and have children in and since Adam and Steve can not biologically have children then they should not be able to enjoy the benefits of Marriage. Such is the view of the Roman Catholic Church which is a fallacy. There are many heterosexual couples who do not get married for the purpose of having children, many do not want them and others want them but can not have them and are thus the same situation also exists among gay couples. Also gay couple can adopt children or through the miracles of modern reproductive biology can have their own biological children and gay people can form just as stable if not more stable relationships than heterosexuals if not at least equal. Some have been together for more than 40 years. Marriage should be a choice and an option opened for both heterosexual and same sex couples.

Despite the ignorance of many people on gay marriage (who seem to think it is some sort of an attempt at Social revolution); it has always existed throughout Western Society. After the fall of Rome; the Roman Catholic Church sanctioned same sex marriages and had a liturgy for it. In other societies also same sex marriages have occured in all cultures. Julius Caesar was married to Augustus Caesar and also adopted him as his son. In ancient Greece; marriages between same sexes existed.

If gay marriage were made legal throughout the United States the world would go on as it always has. The objectors are the same folks who in the South beat up and arrested mixed race married couples in the South during the segregation era. They are the same mean spirited people who objected to women advancing themselves et al. These are the same people who between 1860 to 1961 went to Church on Sunday and prayed to God and then came home and lynched black people. They are the people who hypocritically wear their religion on their sleeves.

Why should gay marriage be allowed or even better why should heterosexual marriage be allowed? The answer lies in the equal rights amendment. It will allow gay people to enjoy the same rights and priviledges that heterosexuals enjoy and take for granite. Despite what the opponents say; children of gay people often come out better as adults than heterosexual couples. Gay couples often have firmer and more stable relationships than apparently heterosexuals because heterosexuals are under the pressures to get married by the 30s.

As this is being written the Bush administration, one of the most worst,shameful and disgraceful Presidencies that the US has witnessed since the days of Andrew Jackson, is trying to get an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage and making second class citizens of gay people. This movement is lead by the traditionalist school of one man and one woman and the Christian religious fundamentalists who brainlessly follow the Bible unthinkingly. Their entire movement reeks of Nazism and Fascism; yet they have the nerve to criticize the Islamic Taliban groups as barbaric. It has not occured to them that they are just as bigoted and barbaric. Their behavior against gay people recalls the days when Reichstag passed similar laws when Hitler came to power which not only sent Jews to the Ovens but also gay people and other minorities. Today throughout Europe and in Germany; it is a condition of the EU to accept fully the equal rights of gay people. Why is it that the United States seems so Socially backward and narrow minded??? User: Ludwig 6 June 2006.

Congratulations Ludwig for using this encyclopedia talk section as a vechile for political propaganda. The terms used in the piece above like "fascist", "thiefs of liberty" are strong and you also try and link opponents of same sex mariage to the Nazis, lynching blacks, and many other things that are generally seen as evil, ignoring the fact that there is a big difference between beating and killing people and not allowing someone to marry. You also link this in with attacks on george Bush and Andrew Jackson, which you appear to dislike not only because of their views on same sex mariage. If you wish to debate same sex mariage do so somewhere else. Your piece above doesn't appear to complain or discuss any part of the page this is suppose to be disscussing. The talk about "Civil and Human Rights and same sex mariage" which you put in this title imply that same sex mariage is a human and civil right, and thus should be avoided. user Member N.

Page is Getting Big

We're getting up near 32k now -- does anyone have any thoughts about breaking the page up at all? - Ray Radlein 24 March 2004

--solution-- State Articles

It appears that the article is getting very long. How about having indiviidual state articles? (At least for prominant states on the issue) Simply pad it out, explaining the state constitution, court rulings, individual examples etc. I'd be willing to help out. --OldakQuill 06:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Moved this up under my original page-length section:--Ray Radlein 06:46, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

In a nod to the effectiveness of Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts ... methinks the time has come to create Same-sex marriage in California and possibly Same-sex marriage in New York articles to thin this beast down. - Davodd 18:39, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Religion and Gay Marriage IT often seems that the objectors of gay marriage and gay people always want to bring religion into the matter. Most of these people who are Christian do not know the Bible as they claim that they do. They do not speak or understand the languages of the Bible and if their mother tongue is English wrongly think that they Bible was always in English. They seem to think that what they read is the original Bible of which there is not original Bible. The opponents/objectors often belong to Churches with a non-central Government and anyone can be a Pastor without any seminary traning or education at all: such as the Southern Baptist Church in the United States which has a tendency to have their beliefs (which would be canon laws in other Christian Churches) made into State Laws which they do subtly and under the separation of Church and State Clause is illegal and an abuse of Church and State relations.

However, the Bible says absolutely nothing against gay people and nothing about gay marriage especially when the science of linquistics is applied--word usage and meanings change over time (for instance in 1940 the word gay was an adjective describing someone who was overjoyed but in 1960 it came to mean a person whose sexual preference was their own gender. To understand what is being said we must not only count the words and examine if they mean the same thing in other passages.

The famous Leviticus passage is not about gay people but one of the laws of purity and the other OT passages are about hospitality. (We have similar passages in Genesis about marrying foreign women. If Adam and Eve and thier children were the only people in the world at that time --how could they be foreign women?) Christians are not beholden to them by reason of the Council of Jerusalem which was called by James Brother of Jesus. However, it says that slavery is ok (when according to modern morals is not) and other immoralities are ok and sanctioned (to get married in Solomon---one must go out and beat up 100 men, circumsize them and bring their foreskins to the father in law to be for example). The New Testament says nothing against gay people and certainly Jesus did not. The Apostle Paul (who was very sexually repressed) did warn heterosexuals from engaging in sexual activities that are against the heterosexual nature which were common in the temples of Venus and Aphrodite of the time in which sacred harlots worked and sex was part of the religious ritual. In Christianity, the banned against gay people goes back to Emperor Constantine's wife who developed a particular dislike of gay men--probally because they would not have sex with her. Constantine's wife was known for her orgies which involved having every body orfice of her body sexually penetrated.

Only the most extreame Jews these days follow the laws of purity. Jews study the texts and have a long history of their meanings which Christians do not. Again there is nothing against gay people in the Bible. (user Ludwig 6 June 2006)

Again congratulations Ludwig for using this as a vachile for progaganda and to attack people who don't agree with your views. The above might fit into a homosexuality and religon article, but not here. If you do want to contribute to this encyclopedia please do research on a topic and post actual facts and statistics to provide people with information, instead of posting what is political propaganda and your personal opinons. User: Member N

Arrgh

Next time I'm present at an historical event, I will remember to bring a bloody camera, so I can take some pictures for the 'pedia. Sigh. Tualha 15:15, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are congratulations in order? :) - UtherSRG 15:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Didn't notice this until now - no, I was just a spectator and cheerer-on. Thanks for asking though :) Tualha (Talk) 04:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Pics

Hey, Tualha, I have you covered. I got a couple while I was there. And , yes, that marriage license is mine. ;-) Davodd 01:20, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations to the happy couple! - jredmond 21:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New York

I removed the link to Donald Williams, the DA who is pressing charges against Mayor Jason West, because there is a former astronaut of the same name who just got an entry, and I don't think that the DA really rates a disambiguation page to distinguish him from the astronaut. Reasonable? - Ray Radlein 04 Mar 2004

Oregon

Hey, Davodd, did you mean to make the section heading for Oregon into a reference link? - Ray Radlein 03 Mar 2004

Nope. Davodd 18:37, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove the link, then. - Ray Radlein 03 Mar 2004

Hawaii

This item has been bugging me ever since the Massachusetts' supreme Court ruling: wasn't Hawaii the first state to recognize same-sex marriages? ISTR some hullabaloo in the news years ago -- previous to Vermont's civil union law. But according to a chance mention above, it was a proposed law that failed to pass.

I'd appreciate a discussion of this in the article from someone who knows the details. I'm sure there are a number of people like me who vaguely remember hearing something about it. -- llywrch 17:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. In 1996 Hawaii voters amended their state constitution, allowing the state legislature to bypass protections against sex discrimination and to be able to define marriage as "one man and one woman." The state now has a system called "reciprocal beneficiaries." Not marriage. Davodd 18:36, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

You're probably right (I'm quoting from memory, & I wouldn't dare contribute to Wikipedia from such an unreliable source) but what I'm thinking about happened within the last 5 years, & should be in the article -- even if to correct faulty memories like mine. And didn't Hawaii's action contribute to the enactment of the DOMA law? -- llywrch 20:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IIRC Alaska had a similar situation - there was a state Supreme Court decision against heterosexual-only marriage laws, and the state Constitution was amended to "fix" that. Hawaii was first, though, and IIRC that did prompt DOMA. Whether Alaska was involved in the debate or not, though, Hawaii should at least receive mention. - jredmond 21:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Hawaii was long thought the state most-likely to be first to recognize same-sex marriage in the mid-1990s, which resulted in DOMA being passed. That controversy is essential to the topic on this page.

By the way, this page is getting so long and convoluted (like a patch-work quilt), it is in need of a major overhaul for cohesive clarity. Davodd 21:44, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe these are of interest:

Hawaii court findings

Alaska court findings

Listing of SSM status around the world (US states listed at the end)

(warning, this site is rather POV (ie. pro-marriage))

-- Kimiko 22:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Popularity contest

According to: This link
The Same-sex marriage in the United States page was the #106 most-read WP page in February 2004 -- with 5,280 hits.

How many of those are all of us re-re-re-editing it to keep up with the changing news? :-) - Ray Radlein 04 Mar 2004

makes me busy updating the version in Chinese. ;p --Yacht 17:33, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Canada

y Canada is here? --Yacht 03:55, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

That has been bothering me, too. I believe it is an arifact fromthe days when not much was going on in the U.S. Davodd 18:57, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Also, the presence of legal gay marriage in Canada has been a significant factor in public perception in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest; many of the couples getting married, or agititating for it, in Oregon, Washington, the Bay Area, and upstate New York have been making calculations about whether to go to Canada or to stay home (immigration and naturalization concerns vis-a-vis Canada and the US are also a factor for some couples). Ray Radlein 11 Mar 2004

Yes, there is a separate Canada article, this paragraph seems to be about the impact that the Canadian situation had on the US. Mark Richards 00:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, the pic should be updated now that Canada has gay marriage nationwide. Nifboy 09:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

&mdash

What's this: "and sue the state in Monmouth County Superior Court to have the licenses &mdash along with the one marriage which was actually performed &mdash declared valid"? (in section New Jersey). :O --Yacht 02:39, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

The Asbury Park City Council voted to freeze all pending licenses and to sue the state (etc.) Think I'd better start cleaning that sentence. - jredmond 02:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

It should be "and sue the state in Monmouth County Superior Court to have the licenses — along with the one marriage which was actually performed — declared valid"

Which reads as:

"and sue the state in Monmouth County Superior Court to have the licenses — along with the one marriage which was actually performed — declared valid"

The purpose of the em dash, as it is called, is explaind here.

Acegikmo1 03:00, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Uh, thanks for fixing my faulty em dashes, Acegikmo1.  :) That paragraph still needs work, though. - jredmond

oh, i have to modify what i have translated. thanks guys. ;) --Yacht 04:15, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Source for Multnomah County Update

Sunday Oregonian, 28 March 2004, had an article in the Metro section, "Gay Marriage: who did, didn't and why" by Laura Gunderson. (For some reason, there's no online version of the article.) I believe it adds some material that explains the human side of the issue. -- llywrch 18:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removal of spurious "arguments"

The previous three edits after 10:13, Mar 31, 2004 are REALLY borderline edits. First, not all the local government rulings have been ruled in a court of law to be a violation of the law. Second, citing the spurious arguments put forward by the Federal Marriage Amendment advocates by simply couching it as "some people say" is no different than quoting the flat-earthers manifesto and couching it as "some say". I could easily start posting GLBT literature sources and couch it as "some people say" as well and the endless ensuing spiral would render the topic nothing more than a flame war between opposing camps.

Should we start listing the litany of hate-speech and "points" raised by people such as Fred Phelps here as well but then couch it in the subterfuge of "some people say" and also link to PDFs of arguments from www.godhatesfags.com ...?

Lestatdelc 06:31, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Rearrange

The layout of this article (mainly the position of the pics) looks terrible. anyone has any idea how to improve that, or rearrange the pics? --Yacht (talk) 15:40, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Future of this??

What is the most probable future of same-sex marriage, several decades from now?? Georgia guy 22:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I say it's the new civil rights movement: in twenty years it will be legal in almost every state. Czolgolz 13:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The discussion is interesting, but I don't think it belongs here.Emmett5 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Marriage status maps

I notice and interesting thing, the map of the US showing the legal status of SSM in each state seems to carry an inherent bias. States with 1M/1W by constitution are bright green, as if for "home free". 1M/1W by legislation are a less comforting green, as in going the right way but still not totally safe. States with civil unions are ornage - think increasing danger. And Mass is Red for Danger. Contrast this to the similar map of Canada where the colours don't convey any obvious symbolic opinion about the import of whether or not a jurisdiction has gay marriage, it just indicates. I consider the very perceivable colour symbolism of the US map to be an unfortunate taint to the principle of neutrality. Someone might want to think of revisiting this.

--Steve D 00:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like it the way it is. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it. I like the new version much better because it lacks any colour symbolism that could undermine the Wikipedia principle of neutrality. The two blues are hard to distinguish, though, that's the only thing. It would be better if they contrasted more. --Steve D 00:38, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC-7)

State bans

I see there is a section on how voters voted in various states to ban same-sex marriage. This article is getting really large, maybe this section can be spun off into its own article? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 7 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Other problems: The chart is wrong with respect to Maryland. For decades Maryland has legislatively defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Additionally, laws that are not passed should not be listed as support. Again, the laws with respect to Maryland are incorrect. I do not know how many other states info is also incorrect. --Noitall

Furthermore, I've looked around a little on other pages on the issue on the internet, and from what I've seen, the table of bans is incomplete and factually wrong... and not up-to-date, either. (There are about a dozen more bans pending voter approval, for instance; and in Hawaii, there has been some sort of ban before the introduction of domestic partnerships.) I don't really feel as if I actually know enough about what's correct and what's not (some of the pages I've found directly contradict each other), so I'm posting this as a request for someone with more certain information to rework the section on bans. Nightstallion 07:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The data used to make the table of bans is from CNN.COM and there is nothing wrong with the numbers. Hope that helps. And on Hawaii I belive you are right, there was some type of ban, although CNN.COM's archives do not go past 2000, I was unable to locate the additional data so I have not included it. 70.57.82.114 22:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

On the second point. Yes, there are some pending bans awaiting voter approval, I will add them as my time permits. 70.57.82.114 22:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Charts

We do not need another column to state the obvious, you can see whether a ban passed or failed just buy glancing at the numbers. 67.41.236.211 00:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

A chart should make things clear and neat and informative, and my edit does all the above. Making the reader figure it out does not help anyone. In addition, your argument implies a real POV. --Noitall 00:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The new column is redundant, its states a second time information already there. I think you did it to stress a POV, mainly the no same-sex union view as you did not bother repeating the information when legislation is passed against your POV. Globeism 00:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. Let's not be a reactionary reverter here. I modified 2 charts. On chart #1, I accept your modification. Chart #2 seems pretty good to me. Make a modification if you think you can improve it. But don't be a reactionary reverter. --Noitall 00:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it looks pretty good right now. Nice edits. --Noitall 05:36, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Maps

We have a nice map of where same-sex marriages and civil unions are recognized. It would be nice to have a similar map where various bans against these things have been enacted. -- Beland 23:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I found one and added. -- Beland 03:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Civil unions vs. Mass. marriages

Quoth the article:

"Outside of Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is now legal, Vermont, California, New Jersey, District of Columbia and Connecticut are the only U.S. states to offer same-sex couples all of the state-level rights and benefits of heterosexual couples. They do not use the word "marriage", however, but call such unions civil unions and domestic partnerships. These arrangements do not, however, provide the federal-level rights, benefits and protections that come with a civil marriage license, nor will they necessarily be recognized in States that have no such laws."

Don't all the caveats in the third sentence apply to Mass. gay marraiges too, though, what with DOMA? Is there really any practical difference between a same-sex Mass. marriage and a Vt. civil union or a California domestic partnership other than the name? --Jfruh 04:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

NJ's domestic parnership law, as of Ocober 2006, does NOT offer all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. Hence the recent NJ Supreme Court ruling saying that the State must pass legislation saying remedying that inequality. Will update the paragraph. Jeneralist 21:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it doesn't (or at least doesn't yet). You'll notice that in my question I asked about Vermont and California, where same-sex unions explicitly grant all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. under state law. --Jfruh (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I see what you're saying now ... you're responding to the quote above. I've already edited the article to reflect NJ's differing status. --Jfruh (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

DC legislature

Just picking a nit, but the chart on state legislative action has same-sex union legislation passing in both the senate and lower house of the DC legislature, which has no such things (DC's legislature is a unicameral body). Not sure of the easiest way to illustrate this in the chart. --Jfruh 05:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Beland 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mention of the Ku Klux Klan

The KKK is a very loosely based hate group, so it does not seem apparent to me that their political views would matter or should be taken seriously. Even though I think much the same thing about other groups listed along with them in that paragraph, I feel that the KKK should be removed. Any objections? Gilliamjf 21:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That's right- there is no monolithic KKK anymore. It is a set of splinter groups. However the broader point of opposition from far-right groups might be added in a more general, less inflammatory, fashion. -Willmcw 22:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a valuable piece of information that demonstrates the view of the very extreme right. People can interpret the KKK's endorsement however they wish. I don't think this needs to be changed. --LakeHMM 08:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Verify

There are also several fringe groups which hope to legalize same-sex marriage as they believe that this would give more credibility to their own situations. These groups include some polygamists who seek recognition for their own marriages, as well as several advocates of pedophilia such as NAMBLA. These groups are widely denounced by the more mainstream supporters of same-sex marriage.

I visited the NAMBLA web site and it does not mention same-sex marriage. The newspaper articles I found concerning polygamist remarked that they were using legal arguments similar to those found in gay rights battles. However; it did not say that they supported same-sex marriage. In fact the FLDS, the largest American polygamist clan opposes same-sex marriage. Can someone verify the above statement? Until then I have removed it. 70.57.93.147 07:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I quickly checked around on the web and couldn't find any source for it either. BTW, always use the summary to explain the edit when deleting material. Otherwise it appears to be vandalism. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It was original research - or non-NPOV, which is not the wiki way. Davodd 14:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Washington Court Case

What is the update on the State Supreme Court case on gay marriage? tdwuhs

There is no update... the arguments were heard before the Court in March of 2005, but they haven't issued a decision as of 2/8/06. kdogg36 01:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey

With the State Supreme Court considering a gay marriage case shouldn't the article be updated? tdwuhs

Cherokee update

Their high court says it won't invaldiate gay marriage: [1]. And if the link expires, here's the gist: The top court of the Cherokee Nation has declined to strike down a gay marriage in what is seen as a pioneering case in American Indian country, the couple and officials said on Wednesday.

Cherokee tribal members Kathy Reynolds, 29, and Dawn McKinley, 34, married in May 2004 in Oklahoma....Because tribal law at the time allowed same-sex marriages, a tribal clerk gave them a wedding certificate. But members in the Tribal Council sued, saying the marriage would damage the reputation of the Cherokees, and the law was later changed.

In a December 22 decision announced on Wednesday, the Judicial Appeals Tribunal of the Cherokee Nation, the tribe's highest court in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, rejected the request for an injunction against the marriage.

Puerto Rico?

Anyone see anything wrong w/ adding a Puerto Rico section? They past a DOMA in 1998.

Extended list of parties?

Why was the extended list of parties removed as supporters of same-sex marriage? They were all cited. I can't see how reducing the amount of information is somehow helpful.

Groups opposing

I made an edit which I know will be controversial to some, which is why I'm discussing it here on the Talk page. I noted that the Republican Party was listed as one of the groups opposing same-sex marriage (I got here doing disambiguations) and of course this is true. However, it is just as true that the Democratic Party does as well (in fact, read Section 2 of this very article). In the interests of NPOV, both should be here, or neither, as, vis-à-vis legal recognition of same-sex marriage, the two parties' platforms are essentially the same. --Deville (Talk) 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[2] page 38 of the national platform clearly states that the party supports equal marriage rights for gay couples that are not called marriage and that marriage itself should be defined on a state level. it takes no position on marriage. it allows the states to decide that. it does support civil union

Stuff that was at the top

Inasmuch as same-sex marriage is now legal in Massachusetts, someone should update this article. Someone better-informed than me, though. AJD 04:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks like Montrealais has taken care of that already --Ray Radlein 06:49, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

I think this title is somewhat misleading, since the US has not got same-sex marriage (yet). May I suggest Same-sex marriage debate in the US or the like? - Montrealais

I understand your suggestion, but I think that the topic is explained fairly well in the first sentence which says "Same-sex marriage is not currently legally available in the US" or something to that effect. I would leave it as is for now. - Jiminnyc

---

The way the following sentence is phrased makes it sound like DOMA is stupid: the thing it seeks to circumvent doesn't exist, so what's it for?

In 1996, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law; it allows U.S. states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other U.S. states (although no state currently offers same-sex marriage as an option) or other countries.

I would like to rewrite this sentence and/or provide some context which explains the act's purpose. Hawaii came close to legalizing same-sex marriage, and I think DOMA was a respones to that (kind of a "head them off at the pass" thing). Also, there's fear among conservatives that Vermont's civil union thing might evolve into same-sex marriage. The point is, the other states didn't want legalization of same-sex marriage in another state to automatically legitimize it in their own state. Am I making this clear enough? --Uncle Ed 13:33 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Seems to me that it is simple and accurate as it stands. --Tb 23:41 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Does any one have enough info on California and AB 205 to write something up on it? I'm in NYC and not too clear on the whole thing and the debate around it, so I can't do it myself. Any volunteer-type-people? Paige 16:37, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's sad that there are a lot of idiots out there vandalizing this article. Kudos to the serious wikipedians who keep on top of it to undo those vandalisms.

---

Fifth Amendment

I see someone added Fifth Amendment to the notion of due process in the Lawrence v. Texas. This really doesn't seem like a Fifth Amendment to me, but IANAL so I could be convinced otherwise. I will revert it for now.--Deville (Talk) 05:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a way late response to you, but since nobody has answered: the US supreme court has ruled that the Fifth Amendment, which makes it unconstitutional for someone to "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", by extension means that a person cannot be compelled to testify against his or her spouse. So, I suppose, the question is, since the 5th is a federal constitutional statue, can someone married in Mass. be compelled to testify against his or her same-sex spouse? And if so, does that right extend also to those in non-marriage partnerships (of the same or opposite sexes) in those states that offer them? --Jfruh (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The state of Alabama recently passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, and refusing to acknowledge same-sex marriages from other states. Therefore, I believe in Alabama it could happen under the law as it stands currently, but not before a run straight up to the Supreme Court first. --EazieCheeze 19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church, etc.

I moved the Westboro Baptist Church back to the sentence regarding extremist groups. If we are going to even mention them, the belong there. Doesn't the SPLC consider them as such? Grouping them in with mainstream religious organizations is wrong and likely POV.

Groups for/against

Hi all, I was rereading the intro due to some recent edits, and it strikes me that as things stand now, the intro is a bit long with all of these groups for and against gay marriage. Also, in my opinion there are some weird choices as to which are included and may even be a bit POV. For example, Coretta Scott King and Tom Menino? Moreover, there seems to ave been some recent debate amongst editors about which should be included.

Now, I'm not suggesting that this information be removed, but I do think it shouldn't be in the introduction. The introduction is there to give a concise overview of the subject of the article. Anyway, I'm willing to do the work myself, but I didn't want to make such a massive change to the article without getting peoples' input? Anyone have any thoughts? --Deville (Talk) 12:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't belong in the intro; if even in the article. It has been a battlefild of POV edits since the page started. It's an ever changing laundry list of who is for or again the issue and doesn't really add anything substantial to the text. Maybe move it down or dump it all together.

Looks like it's gone now. Anyone know why? I concur w/ the above though. It didn't add much to the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.216.252 (talk • contribs)

Well, I finally moved it about a month ago, and it looks like it's bounced around a bit in the meantime, and can now be found here: Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Groups_supporting_and_opposing_gay_marriage. I think it's better now --Deville (Talk) 03:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Washington

Any word yet from the court case? tdwuhs

News changes, Georiga ban struck down (16 May 2006) --> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/16/georgia.gay.marriage.ap/index.html

It's being appealed.

The REAL "gay agenda" here from a gay man.

When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences. One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.27.68 (talk • contribs)

Please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Come on...

Something has to be said about how this is an issue brought up only by social conservatives in even numbered years, if you know what I mean.

I know that many mainstream journalists have commented to this effect. It would be entirely appropriate to mention this somewhere under "The Debate" heading, but definitely provide citations. kdogg36 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Utah amendment details

I added some more details regarding the Utah amendment. Specifically, the wording of the amendment and a possible reason why only 66% were for the amendment instead of more in such a conservative state.

Historical inaccuracy in top-of-page summary

Or perhaps it's a difference of opinion, but I'm begging to differ here. The current version of the page states that the notion of same-sex marriage came to national prominence with the 1996 passage of DOMA. However, I would argue this is a misreading of the situation. DOMA was the reaction to efforts in the courts in Hawaii, and then Vermont, to argue that their state constitutions required the recognition of same-sex marriage. Vermont then did become the first state to recognize civil unions, while Hawaii became subject to the first Mormon-funded anti-gay-marriage campaign of recent times. DOMA was passed because of fears that one of these two states would soon allow same sex marriage, forcing the other states and territories to recognize them because of the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution. I would like to therefore suggest for the summary that the cases in Vermont and Hawai'i be referenced rather than DOMA.

As an aside, I think it's odd on a page of this nature to have so little information about the gay civil rights movement and what shaped it over time. It's like talking about how LBJ helped get the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed yet ignoring the context of the African-American struggle and the work of activists such as Martin Luther King. 98.180.14.97 (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Request: Recognition of same-sex unions in Indiana

Hello all, I'm an unregistered user here and I noticed there was no page entitled, "Recognition of same-sex unions in Indiana". I think most, if not all of the other states have been covered but I don't see a separate page specifically for Indiana. Thanks for your attention -- 69.151.74.200 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC) aka DragonMage

•  Done Article made >> Recognition of same-sex unions in Indiana - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Debate --> Opposition

I have placed an undue weight tag here because there is no summary of where the opposition stands on same-sex marriage. I recently removed the opposition as it just gave personal opinions from diffrent people reguarding the matter, is there any short summary that can be added? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There Is No Evidence Or Logic That Supports A Conclusion That Denying Marriage To Same-Sex Couples Would Encourage Heterosexual Couples To Marry And Procreate

The first logical and factual failure of this supposed rational for Proposition 8 is that there is no empirical scientific or research evidence that denying marriage to same-sex couples somehow encourages greater rates of marriage among heterosexual couples––much less that it promotes their greater rate of marriage and greater rate of procreation, and therefore leads to a higher percentage of children being raised by one mother and one father. In fact the supposed mechanism by which the state’s denying same-sex couples the right to marry could possibly encourage heterosexual couples to marry and procreate is hard to imagine, since heterosexuals would remain equally free to marry before and after the same right is extended to same-sex couples. The only conceivable mechanism by which Proposition 8 could achieve this supposed encouragement of heterosexual marriage would be based on the assumption that there is an attitude among a significant percentage of single heterosexuals that their personal goals of marriage and having children would become less desirable (to the point of personally abandoning them) if the institution of marriage were somehow “devalued” by being made available to a less worthy or respectable group of human beings than they are. That attitude itself would be invidious discrimination, since it necessarily depends upon the view that gays and lesbians are inherently less worthy human beings than heterosexuals.

Amici know of no empirical evidence in the relevant scientific literature, nor within their collective clinical experience, of such an extreme and illogical attitude in any significant part of the heterosexual population. Although a majority of the heterosexual population in California may be opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage as a matter of social policy, that is very different from concluding that a significant number of heterosexuals who are otherwise ready to marry and start a family might decide not to marry and have children, merely because the institution of marriage had somehow been lessened in value by allowing same-sex couples to marry. And even if there were evidence of such an extreme attitude, it is well established that invidious discrimination by one segment of society against another segment cannot justify the government’s support of further discrimination against that minority. See, e.g., Palmore v. Sidotti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984).

If there is no evidence of any mechanism by which denying the right to marry to samesex couples could possibly encourage heterosexual couples to marry and procreate, then perhaps the primary purpose of Proposition 8 is revealed: to discourage same-sex couples from forming lasting relationships and procreating, in order to protect the privilege, benefits, and status of marriage reserved for the heterosexual majority. This kind of naked discrimination through the political power and will of the majority is, of course, exactly what the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit. See, e.g., Romer, supra, 517 U.S. at 635, Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, supra, 473 U.S. 432 at 446-447. (http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Perry-AAMFCD-Trial-Amicus-Br.pdf)

This line of argumentation of credible sources should be reflected in article, too. --Destinero (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

SAME-SEX MARRIAGES RESUME IN CALIFORNIA

The stay is lifted. http://sdgln.com/news/2010/08/12/breaking-news-same-sex-marriages-can-resume 74.97.128.11 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the source "Appeals court could possibly decide to intervene in the matter" Nothing is said and done yet until the 18th. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Hekerui (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Closed by poster. Statement could have been better worded. See WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:TALK.
The following discussion has been closed by lostinlodos. Please do not modify it.
Just a note: the American Constitution mandates the separation of Church and State; so the recognition of any marriage performed by a religious member or in a religious setting on religious property is technically illegal and all such marriages should be overturned and denied any legal right or respect. Religion in the US has no legal standing, and no legal right, to an opinion. When the illegal meddling of the religious is discounted and removed from thought, the issue would settle quickly!Lostinlodos (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Is this message corresponding to a specific concern with the article? If not, it will be removed because this is not a forum. Hekerui (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Yes; the failure of mention in the article.Lostinlodos (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[/s]

Voting on Same-Sex Marriage

All the information keeps saying that gay marriage has been voted on 31 times and what-not, but I think, in reality, same-sex marriage has only been voted on a handful of times. In California and Maine most obviously, but when looking at the actual text of the amendments voted on, only Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska and Oklahoma make a reference to same-sex couples. All other amendments only discuss the affirmation of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, not specifically same-sex marriage. Even in California this was the case, but the circumstances were different considering the ballot title "Eliminates the Right of Same-sex Couples to Marry" and, logically proceeding, the fact that marriage licenses were being given to said couples. Domestic partnerships for same-sex couples have only been voted on twice (Washington and Colorado) with Washington approving their law and Colorado falling just a bit short. I think it's an interesting thing to think about when analyzing the scenarios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.14.60 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The "31 states" thing is a talking point that is generally incorrectly summarized; when it appears, it does need to be taken apart into what it actually says (above poster is right in that in many of those cases, SSM was not on the table, merely passing a second law to confirm existing legal situation against SSM.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex marriage in Maryland

Citation is needed for this. The closest I can find is an Attorney General opinion : http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/maryland It may be that same-sex marriage isn't actually legally recognized in Maryland yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmyoung (talk • contribs) 14:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a small change in the section concerning Maryland by changing the phrase House of Representative to House of Delegates as no house of representatives exists in the Maryland general assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcomet (talk • contribs) 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Public opinion

I recommend to add to the text of Public opinion section following source: polling report, especially interresting is the FOX News source which is giving more information about division of the supporters and the number of real opposers. Thank you to all english speakers/writers.--DeeMusil (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The map should be changed

Proposition 8 has been overturned. Sure, it might be overturned on appeal, but that is months from now. The map should be changed, so that California is now all blue.70.178.74.131 (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be WP:Crystal Proposition 8 has not been overturned, Judge Walker issued a stay after announcing the overturn (A stay means it has not yet gone into effect) and the case was eventully appealed (Is going through the courts again) before the stay was lifted (Lifting the stay would have made the law go into effect in august). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to SSM Section

Another editor reverted the entire section on opposition to same-sex marriage, on the grounds that the material was already covered in the general article on same-sex marriage and that it was not specific to the U.S. I restored it, but removed the only sentence that could conceivably be read as not having to do with the U.S. If the fact that arguments for and against same-sex marriage are already covered on other pages is the real issue, then perhaps the sections on support and opposition to SSM in the U.S. could each be removed. However, if there is going to be a section on support for SSM, it stands to reason that there should be a section on opposition as well--otherwise, it seems to me that we have a balance/NPOV problem.184.74.22.161 (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And there are likely parts of the support sections that could be deleted as not being US-specific; I have not reviewed them all completely (it is far easier to track new changes as they come in). However, that would be a call for further editing, not for letting anything in. As for whether the material actually covers the US, it goes beyond not being US-specific; citations include a Canadian Parliament transcript and the views of a church in the Ukraine. As such, I'm reverting it, and if you have time and concern about the support sections being non-US-specific, you edit that material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed the problematic citations you identified and restored everything else. All of the material is fully sourced even without the problematic citations. The material is entirely United States-specific. Next time, may I suggest simply removing the problematic citations (none of which were essential) rather than reverting entire paragraphs?184.74.22.161 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the use of US sources does not make the material being covered US-specific, as has been mentioned earlier. This material appears in the mane same-sex marriage article, so I've removed the problematic addition. --04:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will remove the "support" section as well, as that section is not US-specific, either. This will restore balance.184.74.22.161 (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that other section, but the section you removed is sourced with American sources discussing same-sex marriage in the U.S. We don't blank content just to have some artificial balance. The opposition section should probably be rewritten instead to focus on the U.S. Hekerui (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not worth arguing about anymore. Tagged the section for expansion, since right now, there is no section.184.74.22.161 (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Currently there is tons of info about support to SSM but near nothing other than a list of supporters for Opposition to SSM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has lots of pieces on opposition to SSM - on DOMA, on attempted Constitutional amendments, and so forth. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is more balanced out then the debate section which I was talking about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lack's a neutral pov

"The Republican Congressional platform for the 2010 mid-term elections, entitled "A Pledge To America", focuses on fiscal issues and does not include the word "gay".[51] A vague reference to the marriage issue is in one line of the document: "We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.""

This is an encyclopedia. It holds alot of room for facts but very little room for needless opinions.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So your concern is with the descriptor "vague"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Update New Mexico's Status until further notice

New Mexico's Attorney General, Gary King released an opinion the 4th of January 2011, stating Same Sex Marriages performed out-of-state ought to be recognized as legal in New Mexico. New Mexico must be added to the list recognizing same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions joining Maryland, Rhode Island and New York. It current status in the U.S. map should also be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.240.2.221 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No it should not just because a person says it should be something does not mean it is, unless a bill is signed or something like that it is not official. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The NM AG's opinion is non-binding. Ron 1987 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't know yet whether the opinion will have consequences or not (whether it's binding or not I can't say from just the news so far neither). We ought to wait for more specific information before making a change. Hekerui (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is non-binding, but it is vital, in that the AG is the one who would be involved with the question in court on one side or another. But yes, that doesn't qualify NM for this list yet. They actually have to recognize something to do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Organization sections

It seems that the purpose of the "supporting organization" and "opposing organization" sections duplicates those of Supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States#Organizations and religious denominations and Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States#Organizations; shouldn't we just put a pointer to those, on pages which seem more their natural homes, rather than have the double effort across articles? --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

False 31 states claim

An editor has reinserted the false claim made by the UK's Guardian that "same-sex marriage had been defeated in all 31 states in which it had been directly put to a popular vote". Same-sex marriage has been put to a vote in very few states. In most of the 31 presumably being cited (the marriage amendment votes), same-sex marriage was against the law before the vote, and would have remained against the law no matter which way the vote went. (There are some cases where opportunities to legalize have been voted down, or, in California, SSM was legal but then was voted out. But they don't approach 31.) The Guardian got it wrong, and we need not repeat the falsehood here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I normally find your edits excellent, so I'm surprised to find myself not entirely sympathetic to your point of view. Are you saying that a state that votes to amend its constitution to define marriage as opposite-sex only should not be counted as a state in which same-sex marriage has been defeated by a popular vote? Because same-sex marriage per se was not on the ballot? And/or because same-sex marriage was already illegal?

I suppose the Guardian was being a little imprecise. I take it they meant to say: "Where definitions of marriage have been presented to voters at the state level, the side of the question supported by proponents of same-sex marriage has been defeated 31 times." Does that work?

I think it's reasonable to have a sentence on ballot box behavior, which is distinct from the current state of the law in the states as detailed in the remainder of the paragraph at issue. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Are you saying that a state that votes to amend its constitution to define marriage as opposite-sex only should not be counted as a state in which same-sex marriage has been defeated by a popular vote?" Yes, that's what I'm saying. If same-sex marriage was illegal before, would be illegal after no matter the outcome of the vote, and the material voted on doesn't mention same-sex marriage, in what way has same-sex marriage been put to a vote? It's like saying that voters defeated Harold Stassen for president in 2008 - he wasn't running, and couldn't have served even if people voted for him. We can't even say that it represents how people would've voted had SSM been put to a vote, because different people would've been motivated to vote had it been something that had actually changed the availability of SSM in one direction or another. That isn't to say that we cannot or should not have something on voter response, but it should be more nuanced and accurate than that bit of spin. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume good faith on the part of the anonymous IP editor in this case. I see imprecision rather than spin. I've made an update and hope someone will source my stab at a description of ballot box behavior or correct it with better data or details. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. The Guardian was echoing a standard bit of spin of the anti-marriage forces, lumping disparate situations from 31 states together into one. And I'm afraid that without citation, your rephrasing of it is questionable in itself; I don't have access to the list of 31 claimed states; do we actually know that it's referring to 31 states that passed anti-SSM referenda, rather than failed to pass pro-SSM referenda? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC) (ADDED: I should note that I guess this comment was aimed at Roscelese's edit of your edit - but even your edit assumes that the referenda placed a "definition", rather than a restriction. If we pass a law saying that all cars must be painted pink in this state, it doesn't mean that things that aren't pink therefor fail the definition of "cars". And it also is counting "times" rather than states, which means the count is off by assuming that each state only did it once, which is not true - witness California.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Roscelese to add his/her thoughts here. At the very least, I hope no one will change the sentence without supplying a quality citation! That's the point of the tag.

Before seeing that edit I was saying....Let's let anyone who's interested have a crack at this. I believe my phrasing encompasses both anti-SSN and pro-SSM referenda by counting the number where the side backed by the pro-SSM forces lost. You think that's mixing apples and oranges. I think it's less than ideal but an acceptable start as labeled. Maybe someone will come up with more detailed data for the 2 types of referenda. Meanwhile the "citation needed" casts the sentence in a questionable light and invites correction. I may investigate myself when I'm done with my current project, Samuel Reber. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"The side of the question supported by proponents of same-sex marriage" is a ridiculous phrase. If we determine based on other sources that the Guardian article was incorrect, let's not include the claim. But no source uses this description of the referenda, and we shouldn't be including poorly worded original research in order to get around an article we think is factually wrong. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If we don't have the actual information, instead of posting a guess with a Citation Needed flag, it's better to not put anything at all. To post a guess, a presumption that whatever-the-Guardian-was-describing was always a definition and always had the diverse pro-SSM forces on one side, would not seem to serve the article well. Better to formulate something in Talk and work it out before insertion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from more editors, but if people are less than respectful, Roscelese, others are less inclined to participate. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reality check: Thirty-one states have placed voter referenda regarding same-sex marriage. All 31 of those referenda passed. Twenty-nine of those states passed constitutional amendments limiting marriage to unions of one man and one woman. Hawaii passed a constitutional amendment authorizing their state legislature to pass a law limiting marriage to unions of one man and one woman. Maine passed a people's veto reversing a same-sex marriage law that had been passed by their state legislature. Thus, it is fully accurate to say that all 31 states where the voters have voted upon referenda regarding same-sex marriage have voted for the traditional definition. Whether those referenda represented a change to existing law or merely a reaffirmation of it is just not significant. I have tried numerous times, on multiple pages, to convey this information in a way that other editors will not find problematic. When I have the chance, I will try again to recraft this sentence and to accompany it with enough sources that there will be no further issues. When I do that, I would ask that editors (ALL editors) please respond in good faith by trying to improve the sentence rather than simply reverting it wholesale. Thank you.184.74.22.161 (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is 31 accurate? Assuming all 29 constitutional amendments were adopted by referendum or initiative, which is probable, that gives us a start. California adopted a statutory ban by initiative (which was struck down as unconstitutional) before it adopted Prop 8, so that's 30. Maine blocked the SSM bill from taking effect; that's 31. Then we have the Hawaii vote, which at least the IP above takes as a vote for "one man, one woman". That, though, would make it 32. If it is 31, what do we have 31 of? Also, by not saying how many times such votes have failed (at least twice), the passage gives the impression that the record is 31–0. Instead of the tortured excuse for a sentence we have now, how about we try something precise, useful, and readable? The best action would probably be to reword the whole paragraph:

"Hawaii was the first state whose voters spoke on the subject of same-sex marriage when in 1997 they adopted a constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples, reversing a court decision. As of January 2010, voters in 29 states have adopted constitutional provisions restricting marriage to one man and one woman, while 12 others have laws "restricting marriage to one man and one woman"; nineteen of those states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage. Before California becoming one of those 29, its voters adopted an initiative in 2000 providing for a similar definition of marriage. In 2009, voters in Maine blocked a bill from becoming law that would have provided for same-sex marriage."

-Rrius (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Thirty-one states have placed voter referenda regarding same-sex marriage. All 31 of those referenda passed." Among those 31 states, there have been at least 33 such referenda, at least one of which (in Arizona) did not pass. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

True, Arizona should be mentioned if the referenda are to be mentioned in the article. And "whose voters spoke" is incredibly unencylopedic. Why not something simpler, like simply mentioning the number of states that have DOMAmendments, that they differ in what they ban and how/whether (in the case of Hawaii), and that Arizona rejected one version before approving a variant. Hekerui (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed this sentence, it's unsourced and imparts no better information than the next one, which is sourced. Perhaps we should simply ink to List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type, which disentangles it all. Hekerui (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we're trying to do a little something different here, namely, answer the question: what did voters do when they had a chance to vote. I'll put something in place soon. And it will link to Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States #Attempts_to_establish_same-sex_unions_via_initiative_or_statewide_referendum in the citations. I'm not going to provide a citation for each state. I still believe we can come up with that from a source that more precise with its language than the Guardian, which started all this. We'll see what you think. Too much? Or maybe the whole ballot box issue doesn't belong. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The popular vote figures are a question for election pages and the state amendment articles - what we can reasonably do in this article is mention that that amendments were voted on and passed in (insert precise number of) states. However, we report facts and don't make soapboxing which including a sentence like "what voters did when they had a chance to vote" in the article would do, because it implies people were disenfranchised. If there is a reliable source quoting someone notable claiming people were disenfranchised that belongs in the specific SSM state article. Hekerui (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And beyond the question of disenfranchisement, it overlooks that voters often have a chance to vote if they choose to give themselves a chance - when a petition doesn't get enough voters' signatures to get on the ballot, for example. And we have no way of measuring how many times SSM opponents haven't even tried to get something on the ballot because they realized it was not likely to pass. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have either of you look at what I added? I'm happy to remove it, but it has none of the language you're discussing. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't address the wording, but it does address the reasons for inclusion and thus raises concerns of how it should be covered. I looked at your edits, and did some adjoostments for clarity. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph and the next say almost the same thing, please combine them. And they diverge on the number of voter-approved amendments, could this please get sorted out? Hekerui (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It now says 28 and then discusses Arizona. It originally said 28 and "in addition" Arizona, which comes to 29. NatGertler removed those 2 words. My own opinion is that the article was better before this flap began. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I reinserted the fact with multiple references. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And I removed the reinsertion as the claim it made ("voted against legalization") was not the claim made by any of the reference listed... nor is it an accurate one, as legalization was not a votable option in the vast majority of the cases. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Reinserted with the wording found in the sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all sources are equally good, and the one you cite is manifestly incorrect. Please read the discussion above. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times, NPR, Newsweek, and the Daily Mail are all incorrect? Please stop removing properly sourced information. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

They're not all making the "direct" claim; only the Mail is, and they're wrong, even on that word. The Hawaiians did not directly vote on same-sex marriage; they voted on the right of the legislature to make laws in that realm. (If you read the article on the Mail that you linked to, you'll find that they set a record for number of filed complaints over the inaccuracy and homophobia of a piece they carried; they are not immune from criticism over their depiction of homosexual issues.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're saying, but if you're playing the homophobe card then I don't really care what you're saying. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the previous writer noted complaints about the Mail's coverage of homosexual issues. That's not playing a card. It's questioning the partisanship of your source. It's up to you to defend it. Instead you say you "don't care" and then put the same bad material back in place and say that you have discussed it. In fact you've just refused to discuss it. Try defending your source. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm from the US so I know nothing about the Mail's credibility. I'd have to see it questioned in reliable third party sources to consider his comment as relevant to the encyclopedia. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This section of the entry already tells the story with care: "Voters in 28 states have approved constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.[15] Arizonans voted down one such amendment in 2006,[16] but approved a different amendment to that effect in 2008.[17] In 1998, Hawaiian voters approved language allowing their legislature to ban same-sex marriage.[18] In 2009, Maine voters prevented legislation permitting same-sex marriage from going into effect.[19]" Make your case for summarizing it in the language you propose. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My wording is the same or close to the wording in all the sources, not just the Mail. All 31 have rejected gay marriage in some way or another. We can't put all the minor differences in the lead. We operate on sources, not the wording we prefer. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If we cannot put something clear, accurate, and meaningful in the lead, then let's not put it in the lead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This wording or something close to it is found in four reliable sources. See the discussion above. Should it be changed? Does it belong in the lead? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Compare the proposed language with this language, already included in the entry. This language notes that one state switched sides, and others voted on questions that were not straightforward bans on same-sex marriage. It's 66 words, hardly so long as to require a summary that loses the nuances or, as I see it, mis-states the facts.

"Voters in 28 states have approved constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.[15] Arizonans voted down one such amendment in 2006,[16] but approved a different amendment to that effect in 2008.[17] In 1998, Hawaiian voters approved language allowing their legislature to ban same-sex marriage.[18] In 2009, Maine voters prevented legislation permitting same-sex marriage from going into effect.[19]"

Thx. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What that whole thing says is that 31 out of 31 states that have put it up for a vote have rejected gay marriage in some way or another. I don't see the issue with summarizing it as such. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support in the lede. It accurately & most importantly succinctly reflects the sources. Obviously the overall picture of the voting is relevant in the lede. Lionel (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Do Not Support without the following changes, Support in lede with the three changes below

  Lionel is correct that this (or something like this) is an important fact about the status of same-sex marriage in the United States, something like this is lede-worthy. But precision and neutrality are utterly key in ledes, and the precise wording here is, I find, not quite accurate nor neutral, although it is close. As such, I suggest three changes, the first two of which are required for my support.

  1. Delete the word 'direct'. The result is more succinct and more accurate, "direct" is not a particularly unambiguous word here. As that word's accuracy is argued by at least one reliable source each with respect to HI and ME, it isn't particularly verifiable. I am less convinced by the objections to this language relating to AZ. The comment that it "reflects the sources" neglects that it does not reflect all reliable the sources we have in view.
  2. "All 31 have" is redundant in a sentence that has already said 31, the repetition feels promotional, not encyclopedic. Try "each has", which is more succinct, or something of that sort.
  3. Remove the Daily Mail source, the NYT source is strong enough to stand on it's own, and truly, the Daily Mail ranks up with the National Enquirer as a scandal rag. To my mind, including it in a long list of sources weakens, not strengthens the claim here.

  I also am entirely comfortable with the more detailed 66-word version language, should these changes be problematic for some other reason. --joe decker^{talk to me} 00:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right about "direct", I thought I had removed that in my revisions. I agree with the other points too; I'm from the US so I have no idea how accurate the Daily Mail is. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also be comfortable with the 66 word version being put into the lede; would not be comfortable with the 31 state "summary" version being put there, as it's deceptive (gay marriage was actually on the ballot in few of those cases) and takes a slant ("state count" is just one way of viewing things; we could also look at initiative count and its 32-to-1 score; at total number of votes, showing that a relatively small portion of American voters have voted on either side of these measures, as some were pushed in off-year elections, and so forth.) It needs a small change of wording - starting with "Voters in 29 states" and then clarifying Arizona as a subset of those 29 with added relevant info ("Among those states, Arizonans had voted down such an amendment in 2006 before approving one in 2008.") --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Compromise proposal: "Of 31 states that have voted on the issue in voter referenda, all have rejected same-sex marriage in some way." I wouldn't object to some sort of "though" or "but", I just don't know how to word it. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that is a compromise. If you want a "but", it would be "but in all except three of those cases, same-sex marriage was not on the ballot, as it would've been illegal in that state no matter which way the vote came out." If you want to actually say what has happened, the 66 word version does that. The "31 state" statements blur things badly. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I took another look at the 66 word statement and I think it's fair. I'll go ahead and restore that. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, how about this: "Of 31 states that have voted on the issue in voter referenda, all have rejected same-sex marriage in some way.[with three refs] Voters in 28 states have approved constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.[15] Arizonans voted down one such amendment in 2006,[16] but approved a different amendment to that effect in 2008.[17] In 1998, Hawaiian voters approved language allowing their legislature to ban same-sex marriage.[18] In 2009, Maine voters prevented legislation permitting same-sex marriage from going into effect.[19]" Also, can you give me the diff for the 66-word one, I can't seem to find it. Or you can restore it yourself. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another idea: In the lead - "As of February 2011, 41 states expressly prohibit same-sex marriage with prohibitions contained either in state statutes or state constitutions. 28 of these state prohibitions were passed through voter referenda." In the body - "Of 31 states that have voted on the issue in voter referenda, all have rejected same-sex marriage in some way.[with three refs] Voters in 28 states have approved constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.[15] Arizonans voted down one such amendment in 2006,[16] but approved a different amendment to that effect in 2008.[17] In 1998, Hawaiian voters approved language allowing their legislature to ban same-sex marriage.[18] In 2009, Maine voters prevented legislation permitting same-sex marriage from going into effect.[19]" NYyankees51 (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The lede proposal makes it sound like a state has one or the other, when actually many of those states have both. "41 states expressly prohibit same-sex marriage via statute, state constitution, or both" would work better. The wording in the next sentence could be read as indicating that the state did not prohibit SSM before, which is not the case; perhaps "In 28 of those states, voter referenda have established or affirmed the prohibition." (I'd rather count states than prohibitions, to avoid a technical question on CA.) The 31 state claim in the body is still fuzzy things together which need not be fuzzed (and separates out such things at arguable borders, including many places where SSM was not available in any case, but excluding things like Referendum 71 (2009) - "Marriage in all but name"), when we can be specific: "Voters in 28 states have approved constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.[15] No state that has ever had such a ballot referendum has not eventually passed one, although Arizonans voted down one amendment in 2006,[16] before approving a different such amendment in 2008." --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In response to the argument that same-sex marriage was supposedly "not on the ballot" for many of those votes, that is sufficiently misleading as to be basically false. Where the people of a state amended the state's constitution to oppose same-sex marriage, the people (1) specifically deprived their legislative bodies of the right they would otherwise have had to legalize same-sex marriage, and (2) specifically deprived their judicial systems of the right they would otherwise have had to declare a law prohibiting same-sex marriage to be in violation of that state's constitution. Claiming that those votes had no significant legal impact and were essentially meaningless, just because the state hadn't specifically legalized same-sex marriage before the people voted against it, is simply wrong. --Shadow (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: This RFC is posed in a vague way so I'm not sure exactly what the issue is. Certainly in my view, if 31 states have "prohibited" same-sex marriage in the United States, that's a notable issue concerning same-sex marriage in the United States, and it would make sense to mention it in the lead. On the specific point on "direct", I agree that it isn't necessary. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment First, listing the number of individual voting results with special cases like Maine and Arizona explained in the lead is overkill. This detail is what the article body is for, the lead should summarize that after legalization many state amendments were added in reaction. Let's not get too technical in the lead. I also don't think the initial proposed wording is so good per Joe Decker's reasoning, and if the state amendments votes are to be put in the lead they should be put in the sentence with the number of states prohibiting recognition of SSMs to save some space. Lastly, "No state that has ever had such a ballot referendum has not eventually passed one" is far too technical and confusing for the lead and also sounds like a comment on a trend, which we don't do unless we include analysis from reliable third-party sources and mark it as such. Hekerui (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The statement is ok, but don't repeat the number 31, to me that is insulting my intelligence. Just say something like, "31 states have had voter referendums on banning same sex marriage, each passed" is sufficient. The "most recently in Maine" is ok, but this level of detail is usually left for the body of the article, not the lead. Dave (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support with all three of the the changes suggested above in joe decker's comment. The fact that legal prohibitions against same-sex marriage have majority popular support in 31 states is independently significant, enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. I agree that the more detailed 66-word version, with state specifics, belongs in the article but not in the lead. For the record: I am a heterosexual; I support the right to same-sex marriage; I think all 31 of these votes were travesties; and I have a very low personal opinion of the majority voters responsible for them. Nevertheless, the votes did occur, those majority voters do exist, and trying to pretend that they don't and Wiki-lawyer them out of existence would also be offensive. --Shadow (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)