While the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
In most states where SSM is legal, that has come as the result of a federal court decision. In x states, it's been because of a state court ruling. X states have legalized SSM by enacting legislation and X by popular referendum.
Please rewrite. I think this really gets complicated if u want to do it well. NJ for example was a governor's decision not to appeal a state court. Saying it was a state court decision really doesn't tell the story.
Saying just 3 by referenda as a standalone fact, underscored by "only", as one editor wants to do, is both inadequate and tendentious. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm the editor trying (in good faith) to include a statement about how many states have passed SSM laws solely on the results of popular referenda. I believe this is a salient and illuminating fact. I also appreciate your feedback about the two sentences as being tendentious (specifically the modifier "only"). Not my intent. Yours is the first feedback that makes sense. Most of the others have rejected the statement of fact (derived directly from the nearly adjacent table in the same article) as unsourced. Even though the paragraph immediately preceding my input is also unsourced. I referenced the source, and the article was still deleted.
The fact is, the three paragraphs preceding my input are all interpreting the very same table and summarizing a specific point in words. From a "parallelism" argument, that is all my input is doing. Is my summation as relevant as the others? I think so. The lead paragraph in the "State Law" section (the section we are discussing) reads as follows:
"Prior to 2004, same-sex marriage was not performed in any U.S. jurisdiction. It has since been legalized in different jurisdictions through legislation, court rulings, tribal council rulings, and popular vote in statewide referenda."
So the lead paragraph introduces the "contentious" element. My concluding entry is the only back-up in the entire section to that lead-in. My entry is congruent. Now to eliminate the contention, I propose the following (eliminating the offending "only"):
Three states have approved same-sex marriage by direct referendum: Maine, Maryland, and Washington. Maine is the only state to approve same-sex marriage without prior legislative enactment. Refer to table below.
The section that this is being added to deals largely with the status of the law in states. It is unclear to me why this one method of getting the law in place (out of the four listed, three of which apply at the state level) needs a separate count solely for it, or why the specific order of events in Maine deserves some special call out here when there are many states where the specifics are unique. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, the lead paragraph specifically defines state referenda as source of law. My edit speaks directly to this introduction. Direct vote is a bedrock element of democratic process, arguably the most fundamental element. My edit reveals the status/utility of that process in the implementation of SSM. Can you provide any state with a unique condition in such a critical arena? Uniqueness is not the issue. AGAIN: the lead paragraph in the in the section specifically introduces state referenda. Until my edit, nothing was mentioned in reference to that lead-in element of the first paragraph. Why include it in the first paragraph if it does not apply? --Puuloa (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Dropping only just removes the red flag.
The lead paragraph does not introduce the contentious element. It mentions a variety of means. Four of them. What's contentious is singling out only one of those means as you did. You enlarge upon just one because of your opinion about a "bedrock element". But judicial review is a bedrock element. Federalism is a bedrock element, etc. In the history of the legalization of SSM, no one method is privileged. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Direct referendum is not a particularly more legitimate or vital process in a representative democracy than the others; of the three methods applicable to the states, it is probably the one least used in creating law. And I fail see anything particularly "critical" about the uniqueness of Maine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I surrender. You have defended the fort. It's your encyclopedia, not "ours." Best of luck and enjoy your life. Puuloa (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant to add that Maine's situation isn't even unique for a jurisdiction, as at least one of the tribal groups passed theirs via referendum. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Good grief! Puuloa (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess the map in the Public opinion section is outdated, I mean the colores must be updated (after the recent polls with 63% YES). So, who will handle this issue? :)) M.Karelin (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Not polls, poll, as in a single poll done by CNN that involved 1,200 people. While it is a highlight, I wouldn't read too much into it as there is bound to be an average percentage with the combined polls. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone with editing privileges needs to update the Alabama situation to reflect the federal court ruling on May 21, 2015. Even given the contentiousness around this article, that ought not to be controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)