Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States public policy articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Alaska stay denied - Same-sex marriage gets a green light from SCOTUS[edit]

The Court has refused to stay the district court's ruling. The state can now be painted dark blue. https://www.scribd.com/doc/243367900/Alaska-Marriage-Stay-Denied

Table order[edit]

I was looking at the table and there's something I'm not satisfied with. Wouldn't Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia be listed before Oregon and Pennsylvania? Yes, the 10th court ruled in June that the bans in UT and OK were unconstitutional, and yes it went into effect after the SCOTUS declined the cases. But we have states whose bans were struck down and the decision stayed immediately and a few days later had it lifted, still fitting in chronologically. It is my suggestion that we order the table by the time the initial decision was made (in the case of Utah, December; Oklahoma, January; Virginia, February, and so on). Einsteinboricua (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed before. We decided that the order would be from the date of the last ruling that looked at the merits of the case. The very first Utah decision came in December 2013, but the appeals decision in June was also judged on the case merits. The subsequent SCOTUS appeal was dismissed and is not counted for the date. Therefore, Utah is dated as June. See [1], [2], and especially [3] for the previous discussions and reasons. Kumorifox (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kumorifox: There was barely any discussion in the first two links you provided and consensus was gridlocked in the third link. Prcc27 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A sequencing scheme that pretends SSM became legal in Florida before it did in Nevada, Idaho, etc. is pure nonsense. People have peculiar notions of what court rulings mean that are simply out of touch with the facts on the ground. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree, people are way more likely to look for Florida at the bottom of the table since the reliable sources say it was the 36th state with same-sex marriage. This is a table for jurisdictions that license same-sex marriage so it should be in order from which states licensed it first. Prcc27 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree when I look at the map I was surprised to see Florida in the 26 which is not correct. But then New Mexico, Oregon and Pennsylvania would had been first than Illinois correct?--Allan120102 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The order of the States in the Table should be based on the day, when SSM become legal in given State, but not on the day, when the court issued the rulling. M.Karelin (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Support ordering by effective date. Dralwik|Have a Chat 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So, everyone is agree !! Who will change the Table ? 46.70.245.50 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Vehemently oppose any changes - 46.70.245.50, no one will change the map. This discussion is way too under-participated and too young to act on. If you are going to make a discussion on something that has been recently discussed, please at least ping the previous participants... You can't just expect them to appear. There are two logical options for how to order the map 1) when the bill is signed/overrode into law or the final, non-vacated ruling on the merits of the case is made or 2) when SSM begins statewide. Those are the two dates in the table, and thus those are the only two logical options. Reliable sources generally use the former than the latter. I support the former, and the former is the status quo and had more support (albeit by one individual) the last time it was discussed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Also it is not clear that Kumorifox supports this. They supported my position in the last discussion on the issue. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The reliable sources use both: same-sex marriage legalization and when same-sex marriage becomes legal in their news reports. Since this is a table about licensing same-sex marriages it doesn't make much sense to list a state before they start issuing same-sex marriages. In fact, we stopped adding states that legalized same-sex marriage to the table until after the stay expires. Prcc27 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
        • The big news day is the ordered/enacted date. With the exception of occasional ineptitude around California, they always count the states based on this date, not the other. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Lately same-sex marriage going into effect is a big new day as well. SCOTUS paving the way for same-sex marriage in Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin and eventually other states were big news days. I highly doubt that there are any sources that say Florida was #26. If the status quo is to list by date of enactment/ruling, why is Colorado listed after Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Indiana when according to the table Colorado's ruling came first? Prcc27 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Not as big as the ruling days. This table needs to have a consistent ordering scheme, and for everything IL and prior, the day of a ruling or the day a bill was signed was the day reliable sources went by. The point of the "SCOTUS paving the way..." is significant in the sense that anything the SCOTUS does is significant (because it is the most powerful court). As for numbering, there are sources saying that Florida legalized SSM on the 21st. The number does get a bit inconsistent/wacko in RSs for everything post IL-bill-signing simply because so much is going on. As for Colorado, if those dates are accurate for last ruling on the merits (I can't fact check right now, supposed to be working), then Colorado needs to be moved. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
              • It might have worked then but it won't work now. The most common method of legalization is judicial ruling overturning a ban and the ruling is usually stayed. The sources don't count the stayed ruling as "legalization" until after the stay is lifted or expires which is when same-sex marriage goes into effect. Readers are going to look for the state when same-sex marriage becomes legal not when the ban was struck down and stayed. As a result, listing states by their legalization date is going to confuse readers especially since it has a more drastic impact on the states' numbering than if we used the effective dates. I'll change Colorado but I'm not going to fact check. Prcc27 (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The table covers THEN and NOW. The order that did not work for the past in the past will not work for the past in the present. Rhode Island through Pennsylvania would see drastic reshuffling with numbers differing fairly from reliable sources. There can be only one ordering scheme, and the first 20 states order will not make sense and will violate reliable sources. We must avoid recentism. I continue see sources say SSM is legalized on ruling days (e.g., "State judge legalizes gay marriage in Florida Keys" - July 17th, "Same Sex Marriage Legalized in 3 States" - October 17th, Wyoming is one of the referenced states). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The "Same-sex Marriage Legalized in 3 States" source you provided claims that Alaska legalized same-sex marriage on October 17 even though that was its effective date. Prcc27 (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we can put the table alphabetically and retain sorting ability. Then people can do whatever they want. They can sort by effective date already if they want to. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I support ordering the table alphabetically. Prcc27 (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I support alphabetical listing, and removing the leftmost column of numbers. It would solve a lot of problems in one fell swoop, especially if the table is sortable. People can then draw their own conclusions on when the state obtained legality. Kumorifox (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • support It makes more sense that way.David O. Johnson (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks like we have consensus for alphabetical order, but I don't know how to change it while removing the leftmost column of numbers. Prcc27 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I made an alphabetic table without the numbers and added it, then reverted the edit so people can check it properly, like we sometimes do with the maps. I just realised I should have added it here instead, mea culpa. In any case, check and see what people think. Kumorifox (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody against alphabetical ordering, it seems? Kumorifox (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose I am vehemently against alpha ordering. It made much more sense when the ordinal number column was in place and it was ordered historically. - Becksguy (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, it didn't make much sense because Florida was listed before several states that had same-sex marriage before Florida did. Alphabetical order lets the reader organize the table how they'd prefer to do so. Prcc27 (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Florida question[edit]

The status quo is to list the date of final order. Should the order from Hinkle saying the order is state-wide count as the last ruling on the merits? Doing so would put Florida at the bottom of the list and seem less glaring of confusion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. The preliminary injunction only applied to one same-sex couple. Prcc27 (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not how an injunction works. It names a specific actor, like a couple or clerk to establish law, but applies throughout the case's jurisdiction. (Hence the state wide defendants in each case.) Hinkle's clarification was specifically to eliminate this misunderstanding. I have no objection to the re-ordering though. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The preliminary injunction did not give other clerks permission to license same-sex marriages but the clarification order did. The order was to clarify that all clerks are allowed to issue same-sex marriages even though the preliminary injunction and the order that announced issuance of it only required Washington County to issue same-sex marriages. However, it was just a clarification of the preliminary injunction so I don't think that counts as a "ruling on the merits". I think the best way to fix the problem is to order states by the effective date, especially since it is very likely that something like Florida will happen again which will only confuse readers. Prcc27 (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll actually agree with you on that and concede the Florida interpretation. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This article may be too long[edit]

This article is likely to shrink substantially by late June. We can expect the litigation section to disappear. And not all that much should happen in the meantime, though Alabama has been a surprise. I wouldn't worry much about length. In the meantime, if it's quiet, I try some trimming on a case by case basis. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be valuable to preserve much of the detail as a "History of same-sex marriage in the United States" article. 209.6.114.98 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Soon or late (I guess maximum in 6 months) this article will be much-much shorter (after all litigations will over). So lets just wait half year. M.Karelin (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree this is getting too long. There is no need to wait until after the Supreme Court rules, some of the information here is excess and can be found on their respective sub-articles. I will do trimming as I see appropriate. Like do we really need the 3rd paragraph in the intro? That is rather outdated from when rulings were all stayed except for single exceptions. Can we delete that? Gabe (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree to deleting the 3rd paragraph. Not worth mentioning in this entry's summary. I'd also remove the long outdated "Public Opinion" section, leaving just the pointer to the entry that covers the subject properly. Objections? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I would offer to make shorter the paragraph about Alabama in "January" (2015) section. It is too long. M.Karelin (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I shortened the Alabama graf. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Do we really need all the info about litigation and the cases? We already have Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States, Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state, and Timeline of same-sex marriage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
And Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States. There is no reason for the extensive history - specifically in the past two years. S51438 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Not on this page. It might be helpful to have a Litigation of same-sex marriage in the United States page, but then again, that would necessarily duplicate quite a bit of material from Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised by some of these statements. There is no duplication whatsoever between the litigation section of this entry and the entry for Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state. Litigation on the one hand and the content or former content of statutes and constitutions on the other. No overlap whatsoever. One may be more or less interested in one subject or the other, but I just don't get the idea of duplication at all.
Nor does Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States cover the litigation terrain well. It has a section called "Lawsuits seeking to overturn statutory bans" which I don't think makes sense in an entry about legislation, is labelled confusing, and is far far from comprehensive. As for the timeline, as I explain below it is limited in what it tries to accomplish precisely because it's a timeline.
Finally, there's no where else on WP you can get a snapshot of the current state of litigation across courts and states. It's possible the litigation section could be its own WP entry, but since it's due to shrink over time anyway--unless everyone is mistake about what the spring will bring--I don't see that as vital. I think what we have now under Litigation is actually superior to most other sources you'll find on the web, which usually require you to look up a state, while here we have tried--using headings, and bold text, and indents--to make it easy to get an overview of material that is otherwise scattered across WP entries for specific cases, or Same-sex marriage in XXX, or LGBT rights in XXX. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree in keeping the litigation here, as creating a separate page for it would be far too temporary. But with that, we should shorten excess information under each case. We should simply say how it was ruled, if there is an appeal, and other simple details. Indepth details can be read on other pages, like if the case has its own page or Same-sex marriage page for that state, etc. I shorted a couple already. Those are taking up a large part of the page that can easily be shortened. Gabe (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

History section[edit]

I have just tagged the section as not properly summarizing the main timeline article. What we should do is condense the section into an overall summary of SSM in the USA that leads into rather than duplicating the main article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you've completely misunderstood the relationship between the Timeline and this narrative. The timeline has only major events and covers them in very succinct statements with just the minimum detail necessary. The narrative, on the other hand, is the place where we provide the detail and a far larger number of events. The narrative isn't summarizing the timeline at all. It's expanding on the timeline.
That in fact is why the cross-reference to the Timeline at the start of the narrative is and not . And the tag that complains that the narrative duplicates info found elsewhere is similarly ill-advised. Of course it duplicates...and expands and elaborates...for people who want more than a timeline, which is by its very nature a terse treatment of historical info. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The narrative shouldn't expand on the timeline, the history section should be a summary not in format that is in prose and not a on such and such date X occurred in every sentence/paragraph. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It needs re-writing for sure. But first we need to get facts in sequence. The rest of what you say I don't understand. The whole point of a timeline is to be a bullet-point-like summation while a comparable prose treatment could allow for quotes and comments from participants assessing the state of SSM developments at various points, etc.
Maybe you just want a summary version of the history of SSM in the U.S. here? Like an executive summary in a few paragraphs? That would work here, but I'd want to see it cross-ref'd to . Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that's fine. The goal here is condensing and removing a lot of the extraneous details to daughter articles, because this page is enormous and doesn't really work well as a concise summary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Done.Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Michigan window marriages[edit]

The ruling in Caspar v. Snyder was dated January 15 and stayed for 21 days. Snyder sought no further stay from any court and announced the state would not appeal on February 4, which just happened to be day 21. So the preliminary injunction took effect on schedule. All the reports of Snyder's statement took the form "Michigan will recognize" but that clearly meant "will now recognize". There was no suggestion of delay or wiggle room. What more do we need? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization[edit]

I really like that we removed that excessive history section and gave it its own page that is much shorter and cleaned up as well. But I still see this huge "intro" that seems a bit overdone. I propose we move the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs into the now blank "History" section. Reading those paragraphs, mentioning the beginning in the 1970s, milestones in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Windsor, could be used to fill the history section. Brief, simple, and straight to the main landmarks/points. And then if there is more curiosity by a reader they can view the other History page. And that would also allow a much shorter introduction. What does anyone think? Gabe (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This is so obviously a good idea that I went ahead and did it. I then made two significant changes to the remaining intro: Moved the last line to the top (%age of the population more accessible to non-Usonians than # of states, and also shorter to describe), and changed the number to 37, as there are greater marriage rights in MO than in KS. (SSM has been legalized *in* MO, it just hasn't been legalized *by* MO.) We could also say that marriage is open in 35 states, and that it is partially accessible in 2 more. It is misleading, however, to list KS as one of 36 SSM states, when you can't even adopt or file your income taxes as a married couple, and IMO we should be clear about that from the start. "Legal" doesn't mean anything if the law isn't enforced.
Also, about the word "legal". That wrongly implies that in other states SSM is illegal. "Recognized" is better, except for KS. Recently saw better wording on news site. Will try to find it again. — kwami (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for helping restructure the beginning. But stating the SCOTUS is now taking up the issue doesn't belong in the first sentence. It can be moved to the introducing paragraph. Although I do agree it needed use some rephrasing from the original first paragraph. Gabe (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree that word "legal" is unclear shorthand in most cases. Wherever we can, words like "licensed" and/or "recognized" do a better job. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's stop being ridiculous. The number is 37. Kansas and Alabama Count, Missouri doesn't.[edit]

I changed the number in the lead from 38 to 37. It's time to get real. Wikipedia is about consensus. Let's not ignore that the consensus of every major media outlet is that it is now legal in 37 states. All of them count Kansas, but not Missouri, although some articles do mention that it is legal in "parts of missouri."

Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/02/09/alabama-chief-justice-asks-officials-to-defy-gay-marriage-ruling/

NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/09/384918052/will-alabama-courts-issue-marriage-licenses-to-gay-couples

NBC http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-declines-block-gay-marriage-alabama-n302786

ABC http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ala-chief-justice-tells-judges-refuse-gay-marriage-28826019

Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-09/gay-marriage-cleared-by-u-s-supreme-court-to-start-in-alabama

Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/09/us-usa-gaymarriage-alabama-idUSKBN0LD1KX20150209

USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/09/alabama-chief-justice-orders-ban-same-sex-marraiges/23107997/

The lead should reflect this. Also, Kansas should be moved from the "partial" table and put in the main table along with Alabama. Shoeless Ho (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There are 37 states with Same-sex Marriage. MO has no vetted ruling yet, but KS does - even if the state is ignoring it.76.105.127.56 (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree to the 37 states in the lead, and my apologies for changing it. I will not agree to moving Kansas in the table, however, as the status there is very clear: licenses are not issued on a uniform basis, and the state government itself refuses to recognise the validity of the licenses that are issued. Thus, for all intents and purposes, Kansas only has partial implementation and should be listed as such in the tables. Kumorifox (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It's legal because the courts have ruled that it is so. The failure of certain officials to abide by that doesn't change the law it simply means that they are in violation of the law. If my local judge in California were to refuse to marry an interracial couple, it wouldn't mean that we should change the scope of Loving v. Virgina. It would still be legal everywhere in California. Shoeless Ho (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not. The Kansas injunction is preliminary, and thus far affects the plaintiffs only. Only once the ruling becomes permanent is it binding on the full state. And even if it were legal de jure, it is the de facto situation that is listed in the article. Kumorifox (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
For evidence backing up my claim, see this update from Equality Kansas, where it is stated that, and I quote, "the actual trial in our members’ lawsuit against the State of Kansas has not yet occurred. We are living under a “preliminary injunction” issued by Federal District Court Judge Daniel Crabtree. That injunction specifically prohibits KDHE, and Sedgwick and Douglas counties, from enforcing the Kansas bans on same-sex marriage recognition." No injunction against the state of Kansas itself is currently in force. Kumorifox (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This is an incorrect reading of the situation, perpetuated by the biased Attorney General. A preliminary injunction is temporary, but it carries the same weight as a permanent injunction; its scope is not lessened somehow. As an example, look at Wyoming. That state has been issuing marriages since October, but the final injunction came out on January 29. The issue in Kansas is that the state government is refusing to recognize the injunction, and the judge is in no hurry to issue a clarification like we had in Florida. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think maybe it was me who opened this can of worms. My reasoning: though you may have to drive farther to get a license in MO, at least everyone in the state will recognize it. In KS, hardly anyone is more than a county away from an office that will issue a license, but the state considers it invalid. That is, it's more legal in MO than in KS. — kwami (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Instead of saying "legalized" in 37, why not say "performed" in 38? Then our list would match the info box. Also, "legalized" is confusing wording, because it implied SSM is legal in those states and illegal in others, as with legalized marijuana. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I support this. Dralwik|Have a Chat 17:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, if it's legal in "parts of MO" (as stated at the top of this thread), then it's legal in MO. It's also legal in "parts of KS". What we're really talking about is whether there's a state-wide court ruling, when what people are probably more interesting in is in which states you can be officially married. — kwami (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
If we say "performed" because it's legal SOMEWHERE then we have to include every state with native american tribes that perform weddings. How many would that make? 40something? KISS (keep it simple stupid) is a good practice. Wikipedia is a source of information for many people on current events. What good reason is there to disagree with a consensus of every major media outlet? Shoeless Ho (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
A lot of reporting happens at face value. Don't get me wrong, it's an invaluable source of information and I'm glad we have access to it. But sometimes, facts go a little deeper. Also, I disagree with the native American analogy, since their tribes are not bound to the law of the state where they live but have their own sovereignty. Kumorifox (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if it weren't impractical, we could have a map with both the states and the tribes.
Also, in AL we have counties which have stopped issuing *all* marriage licenses. Does that make opposite-sex marriage "illegal" in those counties? I don't think that's helpful wording. — kwami (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. By the logic being used by some people on this page, only 49 states perform opposite sex marriage. Someone please update the Marriage in the United States page. Shoeless Ho (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Prcc restored the number to 38 despite the fact that the National Conference of State Legislatures do not include MO as a state that allows SSM. I have reverted it back until an official source (Not a news source) can be established here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I edited the section States that fully license and recognize same-sex marriage but since I am not familiar with whether the supreme court ordering that the probate judges to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses in Alabama changes the status, I will not change anything else. I am not sure if that means it changes the count or even if it means the state no longer fully supports same sex marriage so I will leave that up to you, the previous debaters. The order conflicts with the federal ruling and I am not a lawyer so I do not know what the actual status is now. David chamberlain (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is Alabama?[edit]

Why the Alabama is in States with stayed rulings for same-sex marriage table. Named state should be in States that fully license same-sex marriage table already. 46.71.219.149 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's in the partial table. Several counties are declining to issue marriage licenses due to Roy Moore's order. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alabama is a Same-sex Marriage state and should be listed as such. 76.105.127.56 (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it should not. It follows the same pattern as Kansas, which is also listed as partial. Until there is clarification in Alabama and probate judges are no longer refusing to follow a federal ruling, it is a partial implementation state. Kumorifox (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian[4] has a useful summary that's updated every few minutes. — kwami (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Since anyone in AL can get a license in any county, all that matters is that a few big ones are issuing licenses. And we know a corrected death cert has been issued. This table is about the legal state of things, not degrees of compliance. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
My personal preference is for Alabama to be in the full marriage table. Licenses are being recognized throughout the state and a couple is not bound to their county, and if we try to wait until every county is on board that may be months. Kansas and Missouri have much more nuanced situations but a same-sex couple anywhere in Alabama can have the state recognize their marriage. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the legal situation is in enough dispute that listing as partial is appropriate for now (and more accurate). -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The law is clear, regardless of the actions by individual probate judges. Shoeless Ho (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, now Alabama in two different tables same time !! M.Karelin (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Shoeless Ho. There is no reference about any place not issuing marriage licenses. To say so is OR and moot. The law is clear. Alabama is a full marriage state. This is about what is legal, not about renegade clerks. Alabama needs to be moved to the full marriage table. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
ABC is reporting at least 51 of 67 counties are refusing to issue licences. [5] Sounds like Kansas to me. 69.166.47.100 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No reference? Look at the lead paragraph. See [6] for a reference about two counties already, one of which is blatantly stating it won't issue to same-sex couples, the other is not issuing at all. Mobile county is also refusing to issue, see [7] for a reference. Kumorifox (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the editors need to decide if this article is about the legal situation for each state or if it is reporting where weddings are being performed. To try and do both at once will be very difficult and confusing to the readers. My suggestion would be to stick to legalities and just add asterisks for states where officials are not upholding the legal decisions. If the legal decision is really unclear, that could be a separate table. From what I'm reading, my take on AL is that the legal decision is clear, but some officials are openly disobeying. -- SamuelWantman 22:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alabama is like a cross between Kansas and Missouri right now. In Missouri, people can get licenses in select jurisdictions only due to a district court order, but the marriages are recognised state-wide. Kansas has a federal order which people say applies state-wide, but the state refuses to recognise the marriages in violation of the order. In Alabama, we have a federal order, the state appears to recognise the marriage licenses issued, but there are at least 4 counties not issuing licenses in violation of this order. I call that partial implementation, be it by the state government, or by state officials who are employed by the state government, regardless of whether they are acting on their own volition. In any case, the situation in Alabama is patchy and not uniform, therefore, I say we do not include it in the full legality table. Kumorifox (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alabama needs to be full marriage table. Federal Law trumps State law, and SCOTUS trumps GOD. Judges that ignore Federal Law will be dealt with accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.143.13 (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, see my comparison with Kansas. Federal judgement which is being ignored means it is (so far) classed as a partial state for the purposes of this article. Kumorifox (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The federal judgment in Kansas was never clarified as the Alabama order has been. See Florida. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Judge Granade also said that the non-complying probate judges are not bound by the injunction, though they are bound by the US Constitution. See here for her statement. Does that mean AL state law does not require licenses to be issued but the Constitution does? And this is an honest question, would this mirror the KS case, where the AG and governor are taking the narrow view of "No defendant, not bound by ruling"? Kumorifox (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please excuse a bit of chat. Just some history: Judge Granade's grandfather wrote the federal court decision that declared Montgomery's segregated bus system unconstitutional in 1956. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/30/obituaries/richard-t-rives-judge-on-court-that-helped-integrate-the-south.html Teammm talk
email
21:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, Judge Granade just ruled that Mobile must grant licenses to same sex couples otherwise situated to marry. How much longer are we going to go on with this farce of Alabama not legally recognizing SSM? Until every Christian hater in the state has been slapped with a fine by the federal courts? I'm posting here instead of making a change, but really would like to hear a sound and valid argument against that change. The "well, some Christians haters aren't on board with it" argument isn't cutting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.0.53 (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say until we have reports of every county issuing at least one license, or at least that they are not refusing them if the county has had no applications from same-sex couples. Haters gonna hate, but we're talking about state officials here, and they are easier to keep track of. Kumorifox (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Until the last Christian hater has been forced by the federal courts to acknowledge the supremacy clause? I'm not making a change, but you really have to come up with something better than that. This should have been done at the earliest convenience last Monday. You're making this dependent upon the Christian haters being forced to submit to the rule of law and order, that's just plain wrong. Please, give a rational reason for continuing to list a full-marriage equality state as anything but. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.0.53 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm not talking about everyone in Alabama. I'm talking about the county officials, for AL I guess that's the probate judges. There are 67 counties in AL, so far 24 are issuing to same-sex couples. That's not even half way. 43 to go before I would call it a full equality state. For the purpose of this article, I couldn't care less what the number of anti-marriage people is in each of those counties, be they Christian or not. If they all start to issue licenses, then I'd call it full equality. Kumorifox (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Unacceptable. A federal judge just ruled, again, today - the matter is settled. These Christian haters are in open rebellion against the Contitution of the United States. Please change it or provide a rational reason for your position that a federal judge's ruling based on the US Constitution doesn't matter. If you won't, I'm going to conflict resolution. It's obvious that any change I make you're revert and I'll revert right back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.0.53 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Be my guest to go to conflict resolution if you wish. I'm not the only one with this opinion, just the one replying to you. We specifically created this new "partial" table for cases like this. Saying AL has full legality is all well and good on paper, but it is similar to the country itself: the federal government of the US recognises legal marriages, but several states do not, therefore, there is no legality country-wide. Same with Alabama, but on a smaller scale: just substitute state for country and counties for states. Kumorifox (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think your logic here might be faulty. The counties do not decide the legality of this issue. This article is about the legality of same sex marriage, and that is not decided by rogue officials. If every article about law were to follow your criteria we would say that marijuana was legal in the places where people are not arrested for possession. That cigarrette smoking was legal in the jurisdictions that did not enforce bans on smoking in public places. It is quite clear now that the legality is state wide. If it is not being enforced in some locations that does not change the legality. Consider this. Was same-sex marriage legal when Gavin Newsom decided to disobey California courts and start issuing licenses in the county of San Francisco? No. His action had nothing to do with the legality of the issue. It may have led to the case that led to SSM becoming legal, but it was clearly not legal at the time of his action.-- SamuelWantman 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC) (I just noticed that it looks like you may have changed your mind on this below, in which case, I'm sorry to be beating a dead horse...)
(checks below) Gah, forgot about that. My apologies for the defensive talk above, I feel quite bad about that now. In that case, yes, if the state recognises the marriages, it should really be in the "full" table. You were completely correct. I'd prefer that AL is marked in some way to say implementation is problematic, however. Kumorifox (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The Newsom analogy is a good one, as is the heterosexual marriage comparison someone made in the previous thread (some judges aren't issuing ANY marriage licenses, but nobody is seriously claiming heterosexual marriage is only legal in 49 states because of a few judges in Alabama). I still contend that Kansas and Alabama should be in the top table and I would have been bold and changed it myself, but I'm not very good with tables and don't feel strongly enough to want to accidentally make the whole page look like a clusterfuck. That said, I actually think your idea of indicating implementation problems is a good one, but I would rather see it all on one table, like maybe an additional "implementation" column that indicated Yes/no whether there were/are any implementation problems after the initial ruling. Not "did they appeal" but rather were there subsequent holdouts after the initial ruling took effect requiring additional legal measures, etc. Shoeless Ho (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
That could work as well. However, with KS there is the additional difficulty that the recognition ban was never struck, making AL a step up the legality ladder compared to KS. If a state is to be moved, I'm saying AL is a better candidate than KS due to the recognition issues. Kumorifox (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that AL must be added to the full-equality column (and table). That ship has sailed. 76.105.127.56 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC) I also agree that AL must now be added to the full-equlity column and table. That ship sailed and changed port of registry twice since. This is not a Christian theocracy, this is a constitutional republic. If it's not changed by tomorrow morning, MST, I'm changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.0.53 (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Alabama is already in the full equality table, folks. The very top state. The table has been changed to alphabetical order, because the table is sortable and there was a dispute over the ordering by date, and nobody objected to alphabetical order. Kumorifox (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that it's now there. I used to be an active editor, especially on LGBT articles. It's just this sort of endless fighting which caused me to leave. Wikipedia is bleeding new editors because of exactly these sort of pointless conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.0.53 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I want to point out that it's a little weird that Alabama is in the full same-sex marriage table but Kansas isn't since the table deals with licensing of same-sex marriages, not recognition. So ignoring recognition, the two states are nearly identical. Maybe we could change the wording for the table's purpose to clarify? Prcc27 (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
But recognition is the whole point. You could just draw up a marriage license in crayon if no-one's going to recognize it. — kwami (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Which is why the wording for the table needs to be changed since the name of the table is "States that fully license same-sex marriage". Prcc27 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
With the Alabama Supreme Court now hearing a challenge to Granade's order, I will reiterate my belief that Alabama belongs in the partial table. Legally, I don't see that Roy Moore or these non-compliant probate judges have much of a case, but that's WP:OR and WP:POV if we're applying such a personal value judgment to the article. The pertinent fact is that same-sex marriage is not available statewide in Alabama and it is not "fully licensed" throughout the state, and in fact there are a significant number of jurisdictions that are making the legal argument that they do not have to and will not grant licenses to same-sex couples. As Wikipedia editors, we can't make it so just by saying it is so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I also think Alabama belongs in the partial legality table per Kudzu1. Prcc27 (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Not quite yet. There may be a challenge, but it hasn't been taken on by the ALSC yet, nor is there an order from them to restrict licenses. It is highly complicated, I agree, but so far, there is no word of the state government not recognising the licenses, or of total prohibition in the state. And the responses by some of the probate judges were very clear on the illegality of this writ of mandamus (at least, I thought their arguments were very compelling). Let's wait and see what the ALSC decides before we move Alabama again. Kumorifox (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • But this table doesn't even deal with recognition (unless someone wants to change the wording...) Prcc27 (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I changed the caption wording on the full marriage table to include recognition, but I'm a bit stuck for the partial table without having to go into minute details. Hopefully this should satisfy people. Kumorifox (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent with Alabama[edit]

Alabama is a full equality state. You might have to travel across a couple county lines to "git r done" but you can get married in many places throughout the state. Tuesday the number of counties where you can get married jumped from 7 to about 20. The situation which is causing the concern here is very temporary, and remember, WP is not a news site. A couple of deranged politicians throwing a hissy fit for a couple of days doesn't mean that there is an asterisk to anyone's marriage or the legality thereof in the state. The reason I am claiming an "inconsistency" in the article is that according to the map, Alabama is full blue, and as people claim, the asterisk/footnote is adequate for clarifying the temporary issue at hand. Yet it's put in a totally separate table in the text of the article. Why shouldn't Alabama be in the regular table, but with a "footnote" (i.e. comment that some counties are not yet issuing licenses)? Why is a clarification fine for the map, but not for the table? Pick one or the other. Either some medium blue color for KS, MO, etc. in the map, or put all the "however" states in the main table with clarifications. Njsustain (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The table is its own clarification. The law may say that Alabama is a full equality state, but the actions of state officials prevent this from being the case on the ground, and the separate table makes it abundantly clear that something is still amiss. We're discussing things on the map as well to make these issues more consistent. I agree with you that it is not the most elegant display, but then again, neither is the behaviour of the state officials. Kumorifox (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your point of view, but it doesn't change the fact that there is an inconsistency here. And as someone else mentioned, it is also still unclear what the information here is trying to present. Is it what is legal or is it where you can get married? If the former, KS should be red and in the last table as the state doesn't recognize marriages at all. If the former, AL should be in the upper table. Njsustain (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Very good point. I don't think we've ever fully defined the tables and map as being de jure or de facto, at least not to my knowledge. Both seem de jure though, in which case AL should indeed be moved. Kumorifox (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Texas[edit]

The state issued its first same-sex marriage license today, to a couple in Travis County: [8] My understanding is that the scope of this ruling is limited to Travis County, but I may be wrong about that. A Travis County judge struck down the state's marriage ban earlier this week, and the attorney general is appealing: [9] -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty clear the scope of the order behind the license, which comes in a different case from yesterday's though in the same county, is limited to a single license based on medical issues. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Nebraska[edit]

Next week? [10]kwami (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a ruling... [11] -- SamuelWantman 04:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If Nebraska doesn't have a stayed ruling does that mean we leave it out of the table..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
We have a table of states with stayed rulings. Nebraska has no such ruling, so it doesn't belong. That's just respecting the factual situation. We can wait for the stay, which is likely in a few days. Or we can agree to change the heading on the table. But it's clearly wrong to add Nebraska to the table with the heading as it reads now. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Missouri article confusing[edit]

We have effectively been saying that you can get married in Missouri, but that those marriages are illegal. I don't think that was intended, but can't find a RS to contradict it. Part of the problem may be incorrect use of the word "legal". So:

  • You can get married out of state. Those marriages are recognized by MO.
  • You can get married in St. Louis City. Those marriages are also rec by MO.
  • You can get married in Jackson & St. Louis counties. I can't tell if those marriages are rec by MO or not.

So, do we only have marriage OOS and in SL City, or also in the two counties? — kwami (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that people use the word "legal" sloppily. We should talk of licensing and recognition and not use sloppy shorthand. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Still, the question: If you get married in Kansas City, does the state of Missouri consider you married? Can you file joint taxes? Inherit? Visit in the hospital? Be forced to testify against each other in court? — kwami (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Placeholders in full equality table?[edit]

Now that the main table is organised alphabetically, I was considering adding placeholder text for the remaining states, so that formatting and population estimates are ready for future filling in. I was worried, however, that the extra data could be confusing for people changing the table in future, and we'd end up with the wrong grand total at some point. Would adding placeholder text bound by the <!-- tags be of use for future data? Or would it just confuse? Kumorifox (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Alabama Supreme Court orders marriages to stop[edit]

Get the popcorn, the AL Supreme Court just ordered a halt to same-sex marriages: Buzzfeed story and ruling. Order is page 133. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this directly contradict the federal court decision as applied to Mobile County, Alabama? S51438 (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, so now we have to wait and see how many counties stop now, and how quickly the Federal District court and/or the Supremes respond. In theory, the state Supreme Court and the Federal Court are independent, so this may require the US Supreme Court to be settled. But at this point, that is merely speculation. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It's my understanding that the Supreme Court could issue a writ of mandamus, though it is impossible to determine who would ask for one. S51438 (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest reading up on what's in the decision. It has specific things to say about Mobile County, including a question to be answered by Judge Davis of Mobile by Thursday. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the back and forth we had over Alabama the last few months, I would like to suggest everyone hold off on changing status or, indeed, anything, until this is settled. And it will be, soon. Not even the most gay-bashing Christian on the Supreme Court is going to look kindly upon this sort of seditious behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Mobile County has stopped issued all marriage licenses for the time being, but agree with waiting to see how things play out before making any changes. Baltimatt (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[12]
Yes, many of these traitors are going to pretend they can ignore the US Constitution. It's just the way it is. It does not change the fact that the US is not a Christian theocracy. I was really frustrated by the way Alabama was handled here the last several weeks. It would be a real shame if people start pretending that sedition by conservative Christians is tantamount to law in the US. We need to wait and see. As of right now, same sex marriage is still law in Alabama and it doesn't matter one whit what the Christian haters think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Get off your soapbox. Wikipedia is not a forum. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Not to be "that guy", but I have been arguing that we need to be more careful in how we handle Alabama for weeks now. It is clear that same-sex marriage was never accepted by a significant number of Alabama judges, it was never "fully licensed and recognized" throughout the state, and the legal issues were far from resolved. I don't chalk that up to Judge Granade's orders being unclear in any way, simply that the state Supreme Court and a number of probate judges are not prepared to comply with them. As of now, I don't see how we can continue to keep Alabama in the full marriage table, where it never belonged de facto. Hopefully the Southern District (or better yet, a higher court) will step in soon to clear this up, but we need to reflect the facts on the ground right now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that SSM can not be described as legal in Alabama at this point, though there are "window marriages" to consider. Granade's order, as she herself explained, is very limited, and no one is obliged to follow her interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, certainly not the Alabama Supreme Court. This is just how federalism works. There probably isn't a path to resolution any faster than the cases the U.S. Supreme Court already has on its calendar. See also this news article on another AL lawsuit:

Randall Marshall, legal director for the ACLU of Alabama, said a new lawsuit brought outside of Judge Granade's court would have to start from square one and would likely take months to resolve. "So it is highly unlikely that a new lawsuit would be resolved by the time the U.S. Supreme court rules at the end of June," he said.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should change the listing on Alabama just because of the Christian haters committing sedition. It's still legal, the State Supreme Court has no standing to override the Federal District Court and that's that.

I strongly urge we leave things alone. This may take until June, it may be settled quite quickly. Regardless, this is not a theocracy, Christians aren't above the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Kudzu, I'm not on a soapbox and I've had to fight with the abuse of the system here by conservative Christians for years and years. It one big reason I'm no longer an active editor.

This entire act of sedition is based entirely on the hatred of Christians for us gays. Period. There's nothing else to it but that. It's not 'being on a soapbox' to acknowledge that. You don't like it? Fine. I don't either. But I have just as much right to voice my opinion here as do you. Now, unless you want to get a drive-by administrator to stop me from stating that I think we should not make any changes to Alabama just because of the Christian haters (I understand Seifenstein is always happy to hassle anyone who dares question the conservative line on gays) you're just going to have to live with the fact that some of us don't kowtow to hatred when it comes to the question of whether Wikipedia should list something which is a matter of fact. This one isn't even covered by the nonsensical 'facts don't matter' brigade who misuse that policy here all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.188.190 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)