Template talk:Same-sex unions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Template  Quality: rating not applicable

USA - too many states?[edit]

Is the USA reaching that point at which there are too many states to list individually, and we should change to something like "20 states, 8 tribes"? - htonl (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I updated this template's sandbox to show what that would look like. I could go either way on it. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer to keep the individual states. There seems to be plenty of room to list them all in the template and they all do link to individual articles. If each state didn't have its own distinct article on the subject, I might feel differently about it. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Rreagan007. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe if we did this with other countries, but I prefer having the states listed. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I *think* the only other countries where there are more than 15 internal units where marriage has been that much of a one at a time by internal unit, issue are Brazil which is now completely ME, and Mexico which will probably be as screwy as the US is now within 5 years.Naraht (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Canada was bit-by-bit, but with 10 provinces and 3 territories, it totals less than 15 internal units. When 9 (IIRC) of those 13 had passed a SSM law, the national government decided to try for a national law to bring the last four into line. Maybe when the USA reaches 34 or so, somebody will propose a federal law. So, we're about half-way there. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Brazil maxed out at 13 states before the Supreme Court stepped in and legalized same-sex marriage throughout the country. As for the US, we'll almost certainly have a Supreme Court case in the next two years. Congress doesn't have jurisdiction over state marriage laws, only over federal recognition. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the USA has too many states. At minimum, the Dakotas, the Virginias, the Carolinas and Colorado/Wyoming should be merged, Delaware should be given back to Pennsylvania or merged with Maryland and Idaho should be split and given to Montana and Utah. :)Naraht (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr. President --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd also support not to list them all; the US is now using up 7 lines, no other country has more than 3. (If possible, it'd be nice to have a pop-up window opening when hovering over "20 states" which does give the full list; same for tribes.) The template is supposed to be a short overview.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Fully agree with Roengenium... This should stop at some point and 20-odd entries seems to be the right moment... Those who are really interested will find their info 1 click away.... L.tak (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I concur. Remember, the US is taking up half the "recognition" space as well. Because of the complexities in the US, it is understandably taking up disproportionate space in the articles, but at this point, the template is just becoming a wall of two-character abbreviations, most of which probably aren't recognized by non-US readers (and more than a few US readers) anyway. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. As a non-American, I don't know any of the state abbreviations (some, like NY or DC, are easily guessed, but most are not), although I know all US states' full names. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I've implemented the change, linking "19 states" to the corresponding table of the US article. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the US should be split off into it's own template for the purposes of listing each state? Such as done with Template:LGBT in Canada Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

We do have Template:Same-sex unions in the United States. Dralwik|Have a Chat 06:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Have we considered listing the exceptions? As it's now 32-18, maybe list US (except AL, etc.)? (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Not yet in effect[edit]

Can we turn the greek letter into an asterisk instead..? Prcc27 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 30 June 2014

Too Many States Revisited[edit]

Okay, the template looks stupid now. Why are the 5 states under "Previously performed but not invalidated" not labeled "5 states"..? If we're going to use the "19 states", we should use it for the previously performed and for countries with more than one sub-jurisdiction as well. This template should be consistent. A big issue with the change though is that it doesn't link directly to the state's same-sex marriage page which is a big problem. The individual links are really important (I can not stress that enough). and I don't think the template was all that cluttered before and it didn't really bother me. Prcc★27 (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm changing the template back to the way it was as there was clear opposition to the proposal that has yet to be addressed. Prcc★27 (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, which discussion do you want to have? The one about wether we should have individual states of the US in the template by abbreviations? Or the one about consistency of the implementation? L.tak (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should start off by discussing whether or not we should have individual states of the US in the template. Then, if we decide to get rid of the individual states we can discuss doing that throughout the whole template, not just the United States of America. I oppose changing the template. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Then I suggest you give your suggestions in the sections up... I thought there was broad consensus for implementation (after having this discussed several times and always getting to a consensus that there should be a point where a country takes up simply too much space in the template and things become contra productive... Let's see in a week or so if the consensus has changed there and wether the discussion is complete and wait for implementation until that there... You may want to explain a bit your "oppose change" position in relation to the "other states should do so as well" position in the context of the arguments followed in the past months (related to amount of space). L.tak (talk)
Okay, at what point is it considered "too much space"? 17 sub-jurisdictions? 18? 19? 20? I don't think that's been established yet.. The template isn't even that cluttered. Even if it was, all that would mean is that there are a lot of jurisdictions in the United States that legalized same-sex marriage. If 20+ countries legalize same-sex marriage we're not gonna leave them off the template because it's "too cluttered" are we..? The main reason the proposal is an issue is that it doesn't link to the individual same-sex marriage pages. Those pages are important and should be included on the template. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
What's the point of establishing this new thread instead of continuing the above (where the purported "inconsistency" was already addressed, and no opposition to the suggested change was given afterwards)?
Obviously subnational entities are less relevant than countries. You've given no argument why US states' pages are supposed to be "really important" for a worldwide (!) overview template. They are still linked indirectly via the linked US page, just like the individual articles of the Canadian states which legalized SSM individually are. And as discussed above, the states' abbreviations are likely incomprehensible for most non-Americans anyway - they're literally clutter to me. If you want to list all 19 states then why not the 10 individual tribes, a much lower number? The template was consistent in summarizing all lists of ten or more subentities after my edit; it's inconsistent now (as it was before) in this regard. (FWIW, a limit of ten or so subnational jurisdictions seems reasonable to me for summarizing. I also wouldn't mind summarizing or even removing the "previously performed" states due to their lower relevance, but that's another topic.)
I wouldn't mind putting the links to the individual states in a footnote to the template (or a pop-up window shown when hovering above the US line, if that's possible) if you insist on keeping direct links to their articles. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think if we're going to remove the links from the United States then we should do the same to the other countries with subjurisdictions. Many people might not understand the abbreviations for the respective subjurisdictions of Australia and Mexico, so what's your point..? How are they any different from the abbreviations of the United States? That's not a good reason to remove them! I could support having a footnote or pop-up window for all countries with subjurisdictions. But the fact that the United States has a lot of states with ssm doesn't make their articles any less important or relevant than say the articles for subjurisdicitions of Mexico. So whatever we do to the United States, I feel we must do to the other countries. Also, the reason we don't list all 10 tribes is because there is only 1 article for all ten tribes. I don't really care if we remove the previously performed. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Let's be real here: U.S. state abbreviations are likelier to be familiar to an English-speaking audience (and this is English-language Wikipedia) than state abbreviations in, say, Mexico. But we use Mexican state abbreviations anyway. Why not? The information is presented in a clear and direct way, and the awesome thing about wikilinks is that if you want to learn more about something, you can click the blue link and gain the knowledge you seek. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The obvious difference between the US SSM entry and e.g. Mexico (as repeatedly pointed out) is the number of states with SSM - summarizing 19 states saves space, while "summarizing" e.g. Mexico's two states actually increases the amount of text. Other than that, I wouldn't mind summarizing the subjurisdictions of all countries; I'd also like to get rid of the other "cryptic" abbreviations. If you want to keep all individual US states just because they have individual articles, then why not list the Canadian and Brazilian states which have individual articles? To me, the template should primarily be an information summary, and only secondarily a "link farm". Note that the UK's subjurisdictions are listed individually although they don't have individual articles, putting in doubt your argument for not listing the tribes.
@Kudzu1: Likelier yes, but still probably not likely. As Nat wrote in the above thread, not even all US readers will know the abbreviations; and the US is only a small part of the English-speaking world. The awesome thing about wikilinking "19 states" as I did is that if you wanted to learn more about the individual states' laws, you could click the blue link and gain the knowledge you seek from the US article's table and links. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Summarizing Australia's states decreases the amount of text though... If we are going to get rid of abbreviations it has to be consistent throughout the template. Also, UK's subjurisdictions are countries. I didn't like how the "19 states" was wikilinked; it didn't link to the states' articles. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The UK's subjurisdictions England, Scotland etc. are only "nations", not countries (as are many tribes which call themselves "XY Nation"), and that is a purely cultural term without any international legal meaning AFAIK. I wouldn't mind summarizing Australia's Civil unions entry as well if you prefer (though summarizing only long lists of states would also be "consistent"), I was only looking at the SSM section.
How could "19 states" wikilink to all 19 states at once? I'd be glad if one could do a pop-up window showing the list of wikilinked states, but I don't know how to do this (if it's possible). If we can't wikilink all the states, we must link to a list instead, as I did. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
You could wikilink to part of an article that actually has links for each states' articles. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, the United Kingdom recognizes England, Wales, Scotland, etc. as countries (see Wikipedia articles) and they are more sovereign than Native American tribal nations (especially since evidently they are allowed to vote for their independence). Native American tribal nations are recognized by the United States as "domestic dependent nations." Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing Clutter[edit]

I do not see any reason why we are listing the states that allow marriage state by state in the infobox rather than linking to the information already provided here: Same-sex marriage in the United States#States that license same-sex marriage. There are no states on the table that marriages are not yet in effect in and the SSM by state can be linked through the table as well, we already have a footer template with the information. Having all this info about the United States in the infobox also adds WP:UNDUE weight as a visual distraction. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There are states with marriage not yet in effect, and it's important to list all the states because it links to their articles. This is already being discussed in one of the sections above. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Prcc27: You are missing the point the states are clutter and weigh on the template WP:UNDUE the whole world isn't America you know. Which states are without marriage on the table? Under "Date effective" I see no states that aren't yet in effect. I count 24 states that currently have SSM legal as well as this being in the heading of the article: "Twenty-four states,[a] the District of Columbia, and ten Native American tribal jurisdictions[b] issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples" so where are you getting the "states with marriage not yet in effect"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There is not violation of WP:UNDUE because all countries are treated equally on this template. Any country with ssm or other unions legal only in certain jurisdictions have links to the sub-jurisdictions where it is legal. Yes, 24 states ISSUE marriage licenses but Colorado and Florida LEGALIZED same-sex marriage because Colorado is stayed and the AG said they will not defend the ban (and ordered every county to issue licenses to same-sex couples) and because Florida has a temporary stay. Don't remove FL/CO. And this discussion belongs in one of the sections above, not here. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
if this discussion keeps popping up then it means im not the only one seeing a problem here, CO and FL then can always be listed separately they are two states, as for FL there is an ongoing discussion if FL even qualifies for SSM pending. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There are also people who don't see a problem and see a problem with removing the links to individual states. I am unaware of a dispute about Florida. This discussion belongs here. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said the state links can easily be added to the table and we already have a footer in the form of a template. Template:Same-sex unions in the United States what is the benefit of linking the state articles here. Also if you want to combine this section with the other feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to help keep clear where consensus lies: I felt it was too cluttered before, and that has only become worse with today's expansion (to be clear: this is the only manner in which I think today's changes made things worse.) I'd go with the state count and the link; if the list in SSM in the US is unsatisfactory, then we could link it directly to Template:Same-sex unions in the United States. (Yes, I know that linking into template space instead of article space is an odd move... but it just may be crazy enough to work!) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Are we doing this with other countries too or just the United States? We have to be consistent, we can't just link all of the U.S.'s states into one but not do the same thing for other countries...
24 states
10 tribes
2 states* (What page would this link to?)
I prefer the template link over the link that's been being used. However, I still oppose linking all of the states into one. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that if any other country takes up at least three sublines, then yes, we should do similar shrinkage too. That is not currently the situation --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I think awhile ago someone suggested that if the number of states ever went over 25, instead of listing the states that allow it, switch over to those that don't. It would basically say same-sex marriage is legal in the United States with the exception of the listed states. That way the list would shrink rather than grow. I'm not sure if it would fit in with the rest of the template, but it's one possible option to reduce the clutter. It will soon be up to 30. Axelfar (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not like there is limited space in the template. If we needed to free up space for something else more important it would be another matter, but we don't. Listing each state separately seems appropriate, since each state actually links to its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am still seeing no reason why we cant do this, why not put an Asterisk after the 30 states then as I reworded above? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Knowledgekid87: Because then people will think that same-sex marriage was legalized in 30 states, but isn't in effect in any of those states. Prcc27 (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • That is where the Asterisk can come in, we already use it to show this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
        • @Knowledgekid87: You're misunderstanding... If we put an asterisk next to "33 states", people will think same-sex marriage is only legal in D.C. and the 10 tribes. Not only will they think that same-sex marriage is not yet in effect in Wyoming and Florida; they will also think it isn't in effect in the 31 states with same-sex marriage. By the way, you shouldn't change my text without asking... Prcc27 (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


There is a district court decision in Florida that has been stayed. This case has not yet gone to circuit court. We have not previously listed states under this circumstance. We need a circuit court ruling before we can list it. (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a temporary stay from a district court and we have listed states under this circumstance. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Since this Iist is about LGBT relationship recognition, shouldn't it also list the states, territories, and countries where lgbt adoption is recognized? Upside: Adoption is a significant step within a relationship and has the potential to be recognized or banned by a state/country/territory. Downside: The places on the template links to existing articles about the recognition within that governing land mass. The catch is that only the UK, the US, Brazil, and Europe (as a whole) have articles for it. Thoughts? Should we move forward with this? (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So far, all the relationships concern only the same-sex couple themselves. Adoption by same-sex couples, while a relationship which concerns a same-sex couple in part, is entirely different from the spectrum of quasi-marriages provided presently. --krimin_killr21(talk) 23:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Is Estonia's recently passed law, actual marriage for same sex couples or is it a civil partnership scheme? I only ask because some news sources seem to imply its a change to the nation's marriage laws. See here:
Estonia becomes first former Soviet state to legalise gay marriage (The Independent)
Estonia first ex-Soviet state to legalise gay marriage (BBC News)
Every other source makes no mention of it being a change to the country's marriage laws. Can anyone confirm? Jono52795 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. Upon further reading of a multitude of other sources, it is clear this is a civil union law, giving same sex couples most of the rights as marriage. Rather surprising though that two reputable sources (BBC and the Independnet) would make such a blatant mistake in their reporting. Feel free to delete this section. Jono52795 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


The situation is a bit vague (and certainly in flux) in the US at the moment. For me that's a reason to use the precautionary principle that was used in the past years on this template: until we know for sure it is legal or will be legal (in the sense of: actually practised), we shouldn't add; and I therefore have removed Idaho. It seems fully plausible that they will be (forced to) start issuing marriage licenses next week, but we simply don't know, so we shouldn't state we do (even with an asterisk saying it will happen later...). L.tak (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

But in the case of Idaho, the SCOTUS has effectively rejected the appeal making it clear that this WILL happen, it is just a matter of following procedure. That would seem to mean that we should indicate it with an asterisk. (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure that is the case. This is very similar to the situation where a bill is approved, and the King still has to sign it. This signature that converts the act into law is often considered a symbolic action, but still, we wait for it to be completed (who knows what will happen?). So unless we have sources saying it is 100% sure this will happen and there is no discretion possible from the side of the circuit court, I prefer to leave out, so we leave the template for the clear cases. In the case of other countries (Brazil etc) we followed that route as well... link provides the "after scotus" situation and shows there is still (some) room for legal manoeuvring.. L.tak (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It's over in Idaho, they've actually issued licenses (confirmed by a huge number of reliable sources), no more asterisk. This *also* means we can get rid of the protection, because that was the cause. (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2014[edit]

Why is this template protected? Alaska needs to be added. Tinmanic (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I protected it because people kept adding and removing Idaho and some other states. Before any other states like Alaska are added, we need to be sure that somebody won't then remove it again. Accordingly, please at the very least demonstrate that adding Alaska is the correct thing to do. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You protected it because people kept adding and removing Idaho; why does such a circumstance require protection? Does it use up bandwidth or something? Seems unwarranted to me. Tinmanic (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the confusion over Idaho has been resolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#Idaho_2 Tinmanic (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I support the template's protection. People kept removing Idaho and I had to re-add it. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the administrator's decision to protect the template. A fast-changing subject like SSM should allow for wikipediens to alter a template, so long as the link that is added is relevant and appropriately sourced. However, with the template protected, I urge the administrator to promptly update it so as to include Alaska. An injunction has been issued by a federal judge and though the state plans to appeal, as of now there is no legal impediment (aside from the usual 3 day waiting period) to obtaining a marriage license for a same-sex couple in the state. I strongly urge an update. Here are the sources justifying an update: See here + and here Jono52795 (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh and here's the District Court judge's ruling, immediately enjoining the state from enforcing the ban (see page 25): See here. Any reason now why Alaska shouldn't be added? Jono52795 (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not to do with bandwidth (although in a recent case, several edits to one template in a short timespan did cause server outages), the point is that repeatedly adding and removing content is disruptive. As noted by Xaosflux (below), it's a temporary protection: here is the log, from which you will see not only that the prot will expire 21:17, 19 October 2014, but that it has been temporarily protected on several previous occasions, normally for the same reason: Edit warring / content dispute. WP:BRD applies to templates just as it does to articles (more so for templates that are used on more than a handful of articles); this template has inclusion criteria that encourages discussion with sources. Anyway, from the comments above and below, adding Alaska appears to be a constructive action, so Yes check.svg Done; but a very good reason will be required to remove it again. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate your promptness. Regardless of weather or not the template stays protected beyond 19 October (I oppose such a move FWIW), I just want to advise administrators this is a constantly evolving field, with many states likely to have SSM bans struck down soon, not to mention the possibility of future stays being implemented by SCOTUS or a conservative 5th or 6th circuit ruling. Hopefully within a few months things settle down and there will be no need for this inevitable 'edit warring' that occurs when states rapidly shift from legalised SSM to stayed SSM pending appeal. Regardless, thanks for listening and responding to my arguments. Jono52795 (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


Same-sex marriage is legal in Alaska. [1] Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Marriages were performed in Alaska and they have not yet been invalidated. Could we please get AK added to the list at the end of the template? Apparently we have to have a multi-day discussion about everything now before simple changes can be made... [2] Difbobatl (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2014[edit]

Please add Alaska to the list of states which allow same sex marriage Same-sex marriage in Alaska[AK] (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I support this edit. Prcc27 (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I too support this edit and believe it should be done expeditiously. Jono52795 (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
It appears this template has been temporarily protected due to edit warring, a VERY QUICK search seems like this state may still be contentious as well? CNN reports that "Alaska could soon legalize" this union. — xaosflux Talk 05:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't contentious at all. This is the order, copied verbatim from the District Court's ruling, pg 25: The Court IMMEDIATELY ENJOINS the state of Alaska, including state officers, personnel, agents, government divisions, and other political entities, from enforcing Alaska Constitution Article 1, Section 25 and Alaska Statute Sections 25.05.011 and 25.05.013 to the extent that the laws prohibit otherwise qualified same-sex couples from marriage and refusing to recognize lawful same-sex marriages entered in other states. IT IS SO ORDERED. Source. Though the state has announced plans to appeal, there is no stay granted in the district judge's ruling, nor is there likely to be one granted from the 9th circuit or SCOTUS. Thus why I say, as of now, there is no legal impediment to SSM in Alaska. It should be added to the template in my view. Jono52795 (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2014[edit] (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Alaska has officially legalized same-sex marriage.

X mark.svg Not done duplicate of above request. — xaosflux Talk 04:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2014[edit]

While most of the US states are ordered by the state's full name, the Ns seem to be ordered by their abbreviation (i.e. North Carolina before New Hampshire, Nevada in between New Mexico and New York.) FagusNigra (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Judging by other states - particularly those in the I's and M's - and as happened in three of these four edits, the established order is alpha by full name, so Yes check.svg Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Change list position of DC[edit]

Move DC to the end of the states, just before the tribal law listing, to keep it sort of separate. DC is not a true state, though it should be listed as it is a region with its own laws. Kumorifox (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Changing the order of listing so that it goes against an established pattern should be discussed. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The pattern is already prevalent in the pages detailing SSM in the United States; states are listed without including DC among them, and DC is always added at the end. Kumorifox (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


Pedantic, but it should be "Previously performed *and* not invalidated". There is no contradiction. Or, maybe better, "Previously performed and still valid". (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2014[edit]

Idaho marriages are now set to begin again today (Wednesday 10-15-2014) per 9th circuit order. See Same-sex marriage in Idaho page. I already changed the global map. Following up on others as well. Thanks! Chase1493 (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I support this edit. Difbobatl (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove asterisk from Idaho. It's past 10 am MDT; marriage is now legal there. Tinmanic (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I support this edit. Difbobatl (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ID needs to loose the * and be removed from the list of states where marriages occurred before they were legal, since same-sex marriage is now actively legal in Idaho. Difbobatl (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Difbobatl (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In the United States section, Idaho hasn't been updated as yet. The asterisk is no longer an asterisk. Thanks.

Randy Kryn (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I support this edit. Difbobatl (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage licenses are now being issued in Idaho, so the asterisk next to the "ID" under "United States" should be removed. Skbl17 (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Skbl17 (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And a source: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765661222/Idaho-begins-issuing-same-sex-marriage-licenses.html
Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I support this edit. Difbobatl (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: How can we be sure that it won't change again? The way things have been recently, it could cease again any time now. Also, don't request the same edit five times. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Redrose64, you state "it could cease again any time now." Please provide evidence for this claim. The Ninth Circuit dissolved its stay, the U.S. Supreme Court dissolved its stay, the Ninth Circuit turned down Governor Otter's request for an additional stay, Governor Otter has said he is giving up for now, and most importantly, marriages in Idaho are happening. The asterisk is for states where same-sex marriage is not yet in effect. It is in effect in Idaho. The asterisk should be removed. Please tell me whom your decision can be appealed to. Tinmanic (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems a bit disingenuous. We do seem to have a consensus, as well as pictures of actual weddings. You could make the argument that any ruling anywhere in our judicial system could be changed any time now... Please make the change to reflect reality! Difbobatl (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. If it changes, then we change the template to match. That's the entire point of having a wiki. Redrose, if you're not competent to handle this template, please hand it off to someone who is. (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How does one appeal the decisions of a moderator on a power trip? DB (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be happy to file an RfC appealing the excessive protection time (one week) and the refusal to make a necessary template edit. Tinmanic (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I support removing the asterisk from Idaho. It should be removed immediately. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64: The stay was dissolved by the Ninth Court of Appeals, meaning the only court that could theoretically stop Idaho marriages is the Supreme Court, which has already denied Idaho's emergency stay request last week. There is no feasible way Idaho would be stopped, and the asterisk is now inappropriate. Dralwik|Have a Chat 19:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Redrose64: The asterisk on ID and listing at the bottom of the template contradicts the article on same-sex marriage in the US (including the other graphics linked at that page) and the article on same-sex marriage in Idaho. Refusing this edit request leads to inconsistency! Difbobatl (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have filed an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Redrose64. It requires endorsement from at least one other user at that link. Tinmanic (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It should not require a formal RfC to get the asterisk removed from the template. Redrose64 is abusing his authority as an admin by not allowing a clear consensus to be implemented immediately on a time-sensitive matter such as this. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I too support a removal of the asterisk for all the aforementioned reasons. It would factually incorrect to not do so. Redrose64 speculation should never replace hard fact on Wikipedia. Make the change. Jono52795 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I also support the removal of the asterisk from Idaho in the template. Leaving it in is factually incorrect as of this time. Claiming "it might change again at any time" applies to all of Wikipedia's articles dealing with current events. Kumorifox (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I add my voice to those supporting this change. The current status is factually incorrect. If we bar from Wikipedia things that may not be true in the future, we remove just about everything written in the present tense. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also pretty clearly a WP:Crystal violation. An admin should know better. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, even the Spanish Wikipedia has this corrected: [3] Difbobatl (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this edit. The admin acting here is clearly inept. Considering they don't have a damn clue about about US same-sex marriage laws, they should not be protecting this template. Their refusal to listen to consensus is clearly abuse of power. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There are over 1,000 admins. You'd think we could find at least one that had some common sense who is willing to change the template in the face of overwhelming consensus to do so. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I support removing Idaho's asterisk and support adding an asterisk to Alaska ([4]). Prcc27 (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. There is broad support for this change, the consensus is quite apparent. I've gone ahead and made the requested change. Shereth 05:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @Shereth: Where did you make the request..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Prcc27:I did not make the request, I completed the request. Shereth 06:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Shereth: Oh okay, Thanks!
      • @Shereth: Hey, could you also remove Idaho from the previously performed..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Sure, that's logical. Shereth 07:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2014[edit]

The list of U.S. states looks good when there are 6 states per line, but with 7, at least on my browser, one wraps and it's ugly. Also, it's almost but not quite in alphabetical order.

Currently the infobox lists:

· AK, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC,
· HI, ID*, IL, IN, IA, ME, MD,
· MA, MN, NV, NH, NJ, NM,
· NY, NC, OK, OR, PA, RI,
· UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI,
· 10 tribes

DC, IA, MA, and NV are out of alphabetical order, and that second line has too many states. Even though the Is make it narrower than the Ms in the third line, MD still wraps onto a line of its own. Please alphabetize it and break it up so so it looks like

· AK, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE,
· HI, IA, ID*, IL, IN, MA,
· MD, ME, MN, NC, NH, NJ,
· NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA,
· RI, UT, VT, VA, WA, WI,
· WV, 10 tribes

The edited wikitext (for ease of cut & paste) is:

· AK, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE,
· HI, IA, ID*, IL, IN, MA,
· MD, ME, MN, NC, NH, NJ,
· NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA,
· RI, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV,
· WI, 10 tribes (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The established order is alphabetical by state name not abbreviation, see higher up this page. Also, whether it wraps or not is very much dependent upon circumstances like: browser; installed fonts; screen resolution; the skin that you're using. Fonts are particularly influential here because if the capital I has no serifs, the abbreviations from HI to IN inclusive are all narrower than normal, so for many people, seven on row 2 will fit in the same space as six on the other rows. Fixing for one person will make it worse for somebody else. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
(I was writing this while you replied; and got delayed by an edit conflict, sorry.)
Oops! I came here because of the wrap issue, and didn't see the discussion of alphabetization order above. (I clicked straight on "submit an edit request" which took me straight to adding a new section to the talk page.) Me, I think sorting by abbreviation makes it easiest to find things, and I would go ahead and WP:Be Bold and make the edit. In a library, where there are multiple possible abbreviations and you don't know which is used in any given document, you sort by unabbreviated because that's the unique form, but the two-letter state abbreviations are themselves unique, so that doesn't apply. Someone who doesn't know the abbreviations and is hovering over the abbreviations to see them expanded will search a little bit longer, but I think it'll be easier for the people who know the US well enough to care about state-by-state details. But feel free to disagree.
But anyway, if you want to stick with the current order, the wikitext would be:

· AK, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC,
· HI, ID*, IL, IN, IA, ME,
· MD, MA, MN, NV, NH, NJ,
· NM, NY, NC, OK, OR, PA,
· RI, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV,
· WI, 10 tribes

I agree that it's hard to get everything right, but having six states per line consistently doesn't "break" anything for other people, other than having a slightly different right margin. It's not like moving WI to the last line makes the infobox any taller. I'm using stock Firefox, which seems popular enough.
A better solution would be to borrow the idea from the sandbox and just say:

· 30 states, 10 tribes

(I've also made the same edit to the sandbox.)
As a final note, and a separate edit request, I agree that the asterisk on Idaho should be removed. It was on hold, but the deadline has passed, the stay has been lifted, and there are plenty of reliable sources documenting that the state has started issuing marriage licenses. It's no longer "not yet in effect". (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2014[edit]

Remove the star from Idaho. It's no longer not in effect. :) (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC) X mark.svg Not done Duplicate of more detailed request below. — xaosflux Talk 23:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2014[edit]

Idaho should no longer have an asterisk by it and should be removed from the 'previously performed but invalidated' section. Bigdaddybrabantio (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this request. Difbobatl (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I support this request as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • X mark.svg Not done There is already an open edit request on Idaho above, and edit warring about Idaho was the cause of the protection. Please see the active discussion above. — xaosflux Talk 23:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it was not due to edit warring. Edit warring is when users intentionally engage in conflict by constantly reverting each other's changes. Edit warring is not when different people unintentionally make the same change due to lack of information and those changes get reverted. Tinmanic (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Xaosflux, please fulfill the edit request above. We are all trying to make this obvious, factual change and redrose won't allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talkcontribs) 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, there is no edit war. Everyone agrees the change should be made, except for admins it seems. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2014[edit]

Alaska should (in my view) be removed. The 9th Circuit court has issued a temporary stay preventing the state from enforcing the pro-gay marriage ruling in the Alaska District Court. So long as the stay is in effect, Alaska's anti gay marriage law is technically still valid. Stay is in effect until 12pm on 17 October, unless SCOTUS decides otherwise. See here: [5] Jono52795 (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Asterisk is better solution. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done There were atleast 15 reverts on Idaho alone. There was an edit war going on. There clearly wasn't consensus during the war and there isn't consensus now. I'd like to thank Jono52795 and Tinmanic for their thought out responses instead of the usual emotional ones on this page. Could Prcc twenty-seven and L.tak chime in as they were for the asterisk on Idaho. L.tak's previous comments for the asterisk from five days ago are here. Per protocol, template stays as is until consensus is reached. There are two different proposals, one for Idaho and one for Alaska. Please make sure you separate your comments, one for each state. Please keep calm. The judicial process in the U.S. has taken years on this subject and it will not be settled overnight here either. Bgwhite (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. There is consensus, at least on the Idaho asterisk. Comments from 5 days ago are irrelevant. 5 days ago is an eternity given the subject matter that we are talking about. Reality has changed and you are stuck in the past. This is exactly why this template should not be protected, because it needs to be updated regularly and swiftly, and admins are apparently too stuck on bureaucracy to fix it in a timely manner. An edit war would be preferable to this. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I support removing Idaho's asterisk, oppose removing Alaska, and support adding an asterisk to Alaska. Prcc27 (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2014[edit]

Same-sex marriages are now taking place in Idaho: http://news.yahoo.com/alaskas-1st-known-gay-marriage-arctic-town-080749479.html Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 04:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support removing Idaho's asterisk. Prcc27 (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2014[edit]

Hi. Same-sex marriage is now in effect in Idaho. Please would you edit the template accordingly. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC) RomanSpa (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support removing Idaho's asterisk. Prcc27 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2014[edit]

Please remove Idaho from the previously performed section. Same-sex marriage is currently performed there.. Prcc27 (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Prcc27 (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2014[edit]

Alaska should be added to previously performed: [6] Prcc27 (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this request. It is a fact that marriages were performed in Alaska when it was legal. Difbobatl (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Padlock-bronze-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest moving DC to the end of the list[edit]

Instead of making it a request, I'll start a discussion on this instead. On the main "SSM in the US page", numbers of states with marriage legality were being changed a lot (much like Idaho on the template). I don't know if that was because Idaho was listed on the template and people didn't see the asterisk, or if people were counting DC as a state. Would moving DC to the end of the list help avoid this possible confusion? Moreover, would separating DC from the actual states be a good idea as DC isn't a true state as such? On the main pages, DC is always added at the end (like "[list of states] and the District of Columbia recognise/perform same-sex marriage"), so there is already precedent there. What do other people think of this? Kumorifox (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If so, we may want to give it its own bullet with a fuller name to effectively separate it from the list of states (either District of Columbia or Washington, DC.) Although really, I think it time to get past listing states, just bring it down to:
  • 29 out of 50 states
  • Washington, DC
  • 10 tribes
--Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, the whole listing of every state is a mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That works too, especially since the tribes are not listed separately either. Though the link would have to direct to a succinct summary of which states currently have legality, along with links to the relevant states' SSM pages. And this summary will need to be updated regularly, with the eye on further developments. Kumorifox (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with just listing a number of states. The point is not to "keep score", but to be able to see what each state's status is with a handy link to that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talkcontribs) 16:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I support moving DC down separate from the states. However, removing the individual states' articles has already been proposed and failed here, here, and here. Prcc27 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I support this idea. Also, shouldn't Aruba, Curacao, and Sint Maarten be moved to the actual Netherlands listing and not be a footnote then? (especially because the Netherlands listing has a "netherlands proper" bullet point to begin withBigdaddybrabantio (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The article explains how same-sex marriage is different in Aruba, Curacao, and Sint Maarten. Prcc27 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, we'd have to do the same thing with Mexico and their capital... Prcc27 (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bigdaddybrabantio: No, since Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten do not fall directly under Dutch jurisdiction. Much like England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are separated, and not collectively called the UK in the template. They are the same country, but have different rules. Kumorifox (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage isn't fully legal in Aruba, Curaçao, and St. Maarten like it is in the rest of the country; that's why the footnote is there. Prcc27 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the concept that eliminating the individual state listings "failed" doesn't reflect the actual conversations; it looks like that change was getting majority support overall, just wasn't implemented. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so far we have 2 clear supporting votes for separating DC (and by extension, separating Mexico City, as Prcc27 stated) and none against. I doubt that's good enough for now, but let's please keep the discussion on track for the moment, as I don't know when to call consensus if there are no clearly opposing voices to this issue. The whole "messy large number of states" is a different matter. Kumorifox (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Edits like this one are reasons why I proposed this change. It's a minor issue but might avoid a lot of well-intentioned but unnecessary edits with just a simple rearrangement. Kumorifox (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Not yet in effect (revisited)[edit]

Adding anything "Not yet in effect" violates WP:CRYSTAL and should not be added to the template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Could we please have a discussion about this first? The template has worked this way quite some time. Difbobatl (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • There was no consensus I can see anywhere on this page to add speculation in direct violation of WP:CRYSTAL. We can absolutely discuss it, and I'm guessing that it will require an RFC to acquire outside input before there is a resolution (since you appear to think that this template should be exempt from a policy that applies to all other pages/templates, it's scope is larger than the contributors of this talk page). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 12:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Maybe not name it as "not yet in effect" but as something different? For example, Luxembourg has signed the law, meaning the country is on course to have marriage accessible in 2015, but it has to go through the waiting period (for want of a better term). I believe such pending accessibility should be highlighted in the template. Maybe not in the main body, but as a footnote or at the end of the list instead? As for Alaska, I support temporary removal and including the state in the "previously performed" section instead. There is no direct law there as of yet (at least, not as far as I am aware), and the current stay means marriages are not performed there right now, so putting it in the main body of the template is incorrect, in my eyes.
        Addendum: or create a separate section, like we have marriage, recognition, and previously performed but not invalidated. Maybe call it something like "Approved by law, not yet in effect" instead? Kumorifox (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
        • "Not yet in effect" just means that the law was passed but goes into effect on such and such date. It means that licenses aren't being issued but they are scheduled to be issued sometime in the future. The same wording is used for Template:Samesex marriage in USA map Prcc27 (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
          • I see your point, but only for places like Luxembourg and Scotland, where the laws are signed and are to go into effect, but there has not been marriage legality before. Places like Alaska should then be (re)moved and no longer marked with an asterisk, as those laws or rulings were in effect, then halted, and they are in limbo, and not "not yet in effect". Would that be more acceptable? Kumorifox (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Alaska was in effect- but they are also not yet in effect because it's currently illegal but soon to be legal. Prcc27 (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Technical 13: I am absolutely certain this has been discussed before (there are many archives of this talk page). If you are of the opinion that it violates WP:CRYSTAL, let's please discuss that and do not assume that your opinion is the only right one. We are not asking this template to be exempt from a policy for the simple reason that we are of the opinion that the policy does not apply here. So please prove your point; what exactly is speculation about a law which merely takes effect on a later date? Imho it is clearly not speculation since the law WILL take effect on the date mentioned in the law (and as reported in many verifiable sources). If you read the first point on WP:CRYSTAL, it should be very obvious it is included under "almost certain to take place". Otherwise all future elections would also be "speculation". To be clear, I am talking about Luxembourg, Scotland, etc; I am not going to bother about the U.S. situation since that is developing quickly. Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Agreed. It is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to say that the law exists but is not yet in force, when it has been enacted and the date of commencement has been officially pronounced, as in the case of Luxembourg or Scotland. (One might argue that it is CRYSTALish to imply that the law may not come into force, since that can't happen without a repealing law.) I make no comment about the American "is it stayed or isn't it" situations, where the outcome is not determined. - htonl (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
          • I tried to remove the redundant "not yet in effect" but accidentally messed up the format. Could someone help me..? Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Already done. Face-smile.svg - htonl (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Technical 13: You seem to have made numerous edits to this template today that go against the longstanding consensus. This consensus is shown, at the very least, by the fact that editors have long followed the practice that the template should include jurisdictions where laws have been passed or non-stayed court decisions have been issued. If you'd like to attempt to form a new consensus before making further changes to the template, you are of course free to do so. Tinmanic (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The template claimed (until I recently fixed it), that all of the places listed legally recognized SSM. This was blatantly false in the cases I was removing. If it is not yet in effect, then it is not legally recognized and claiming it is constitutes a direct violation of WP:FUTURE. The long standing consensus by the community (the local consensus on this template does not supersede this community consensus) is that violations of WP:FUTURE be reverted. Insistence on reinstating the lies that where in the template despite being told they are against global consensus constitutes vandalism. I'm tempted to request indef full page protection for vandalism until a full fledged RFC can be completed (lasting 30 days) and grant the template exclusion from being required to be accurate and not full of speculation. Let's please not take it to this level. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree that the "Not yet in effect" wording should go, it adds nothing but false hope to people who watch these type of things and also is a violation of our policy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Knowledgekid87: So what do you propose we do about the transition color on Template:Samesex marriage in USA map? "Same-sex marriage legalization pending, but not yet in effect". We have to be consistent, if we remove "not yet in effect" from this template, then we are going to have to change something about the transition color on the US same-sex marriage map. Prcc27 (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • It has to be changed then, Technical brings up some valid points the wording "Not yet in effect" can imply that SSM is legally recognized. I wouldn't be opposed to an RfC here as you pointed out this will effect the map. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Technical 13: A few things:
        • (1) You state: "The template claimed (until I recently fixed it), that all of the places listed legally recognized SSM." Actually, the template makes very clear that jurisdictions with an asterisk are places where same-sex marriage has been legalized but the law is not yet in effect. Therefore, the template doesn't claim that all of the places listed legally recognize same-sex marriage.
        • (2) You state: "If it is not yet in effect, it is not legally recognized and claiming it is constitutes a direct violation of WP:FUTURE." Actually, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball states: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable." Laws and court decisions about same-sex marriage are clearly verifiable by reliable sources and therefore don't violate WP:FUTURE. Therefore, the consensus for this template remains the governing consensus.
        • (3) You state: "Insistence on reinstating the lies that where in the template despite being told they are against global consensus constitutes vandalism" (my emphasis). One, "lies" is not the appropriate word for something that is (a) clearly marked in the template as "not yet in effect," (b) does not deceive, and (c) does not intend to deceive. Two, "vandalism" is not the appropriate word here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism states that vandalism is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." It also states, "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
      • Knowledgekid87: How is it the case that "the wording 'Not yet in effect' can imply that SSM is legally recognized"? Seems to me the exact opposite is true. Given that there is a consensus that the map and the template are OK and that WP:FUTURE is not being violated, does your opinion change? Tinmanic (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Like I stated here, how can someone ask for protection of a template so then edits can only be made when there's clear consensus when they're editing without clear consensus themselves? "Not yet in effect" implies that same-sex marriage is not legal, but will be sometime in the future. Prcc27 (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Which is the exact opposite of the title of the template "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships". Are they legal or aren't they, you can not have both without making Wikipedia look like a joke. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 21:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
            • It is legal in the sense that same-sex relationships are recognised by law, that they are "enshrined" into law, but the provisions of the law merely take practical effect on a future date. When the consensus is that this situation warrants a mention in the template, then this does not mean we are making Wikipedia look like a joke. I seriously dislike your tone; we were trying to have a normal discussion here, and you simply tried to impose your opinion. SPQRobin (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Technical 13 removed the title from the template. There is no consensus for such a drastic edit, so I have reverted it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, that's why Knowledgekid87 said "'Not yet in effect' can imply that SSM is legally recognized".. After all, the title of this template is "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships"- so it doesn't make much sense to list jurisdictions that don't recognize same-sex relationships yet. Maybe it's not the "not yet in effect" that's the problem- but rather the title. What if we changed it to "Legal status of same-sex relationships"..? To clarify, I'm not suggesting we remove "not yet in effect" jurisdictions; instead, I'm suggesting that we change the title so then it's more inclusive towards such jurisdictions. Prcc27 (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree. The "not yet in effect" was here for a long time; and before: after a law as passed (including being signed by the governor etc) it would be listed anyway (without the "*" even!), so there is a long (years) standing consensus to have "not yet in effect" when the law is passed and there is no way (no stays etc) that can be used. I do agree however talk page use has been minimal until the use of the full protection. I explained a revert last week, and was only answered y by an IP, while edits on the very subject went on (but this type of behaviour also happened when Brazil things changed, so it will calm down after the US things have settled down a bit).... L.tak (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      @L.tak: The template has not been full-protected since the prot imposed 20:02, 8 January 2012 expired 20:02, 11 January 2012. The prot log is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • you're right... didn't realize it was a template-editor only protection; but that was what I meant... L.tak (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


Why are we adding this? Are we really 100% sure that it will come into effect and not some legal avenue will be found (or sought) that will lead to further litigation? I would like to avoid that we state the prediction that it will be legal (which is Crtystal balling) instead of the knowledge this will happen as only a pure technicality has to be performed.... L.tak (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Ignoring the fact that the governor said they won't appeal.. temporary stays are treated as "legalization not yet in effect" on the U.S. same-sex marriage map. In order to be consistent, we must do the same thing here. It doesn't mean that same-sex marriage will be legal in Wyoming (even though it probably will); it just means that same-sex marriage was "legalized" and set to take effect. Prcc27 (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for replying here. Well, what happens on other pages we have no control over, but here we have to deal with an international template, that must be applied in a consistent manner, otherwise the reverts will be all over the place in the next country... The consistent way to do this was always e.g. to wait until the president etc had signed a law, or until the governor had signed it, even if he had indicated that would be a formality only. Who knows what will happen? Maybe he can be forced to appeal? Or citizens can appeal on his behalf? Or he is pressured? I have no idea? But legal procedures have not finished and come to a definite conclusion, so I oppose adding i. L.tak (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @L.tak:The U.S. same-sex marriage map appears on several Wikipedia articles in many different languages. It also appears on the same articles this template does. We can not having conflicting information, especially on the same article. Also, even when same-sex marriage is legal and same-sex marriages begin, in some cases- the case is still being appealed and there hasn't been a "definite conclusion" yet. Whatever we do, we must be consistent on all templates that deal with same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I agree that consistency is valuable, but the main point here is internal consistency and adhering to the wikipedia policies and the policies of this template; and to be sure we have a thorough basis for information; I am not sure if we could suggest single country templates to follow this template, but that is not always successful (as was the case with the south America template). But on to the factual matter: if "the case is still being appealed and there hasn't been a "definite conclusion" yet", as you say, then why should we mention it on this template stating "not yet in effect" (which is meant for: 100% sure to be effective, but just not yet). That's against the ideas stated on the left side of the template page; and it would also be crystal balling and/or original research. Again, I appreciate the bold move of adding it by whover that was, but I have until now seen no good factual reasons, nor consensus for its inclusion... L.tak (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit lost with these three new states.
      • Arizona = no stay, Attorney won't appeal, but what for Governor who found the decision "disappointing"? = SSM legal for the moment?
      • Alaska = stay denied by SCOTUS, Governor will appeal (am I right?) = SSM legal until the appeal is made?
      • Wyoming = stay, Governor won't appeal, but what for Attorney? = SSM not legal until the stay ends (~20 October)?
      • Thank you for your help. Titanicophile (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titanicophile (talkcontribs)
        • @Titanicophile: Same-sex marriage is legal in Arizona and the governor won't appeal (even though they want to) because it would be a waste of time and money (basically, they know they won't win).
        • The governor of Alaska tried to appeal the decision, but since SCOTUS denied it- same-sex marriage is legal there.
        • Wyoming is stayed until October 23 or until the defendants tell the court they won't appeal the decision. The governor announced that they won't appeal. Prcc27 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think a state should be added until there is a definite ruling. Not just the governor and/or AG saying there will be no appeal, as switches in stance have been made before. I know the 10th ruling is supposed to affect Wyoming (as well as Kansas) but these states were being difficult, and a mere mention that there will be no appeal isn't exactly saying it will happen.
    Otherwise, we might simply add all of the US at once, since it is pretty much inevitable that marriage equality will occur all over anyway. Kumorifox (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kumorifox: You are misunderstanding, Wyoming's ban was struck down and the stay expires very soon. Wyoming not appealing has nothing to do with anything.. Prcc27 (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the addition of Wyoming, as there seems to be no consensus yet for its inclusion. That may change of course, but please do not add before consensus is clearly established in the case.... L.tak (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @L.talk: There is consensus for Wyoming because many other states in the same situation were added as "not yet in effect." Prcc27 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • A revert again... Could you demonstrate this consensus? I didn't see it and it is also not in the template text left of the template (only in the case of a denial of a stay be SCOTUS it is said there)? What happened in the last week was heavily disputed and edit warred and can not be considered proper consensus building. It is extremely hard not to get into an edit war with you I must say, when you do not agree to go back to an old situation while resolving a dispute. I am happy that you are now engaging on the talk page instead of ignoring (like with my ohio edit+talk page discussion), but reverting is not the solution. L.tak (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • @L.tak: Since you reverted first, I reverted the template back to the statusquo per WP:STATUSQUO until you get consensus to remove Wyoming. Adding a state with a temporary stay is consensus because that's what's been practiced for a while. I feel that if we are going to do away with Wyoming on this template then the same must be done for the U.S. ssm map. This should be discussed in conjunction with the U.S. map. Prcc27 (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I reverted the bold addition of Wyoming (that was 1); and you ververted my revert (2); and we disagree what was the status quo... Again and again, could you point me to the consensus you are referring to? I am not seeing it? So I am going with the template text (left of the template on the main page). The discussion in conjunction with the US map: that would be helpful, but this is an international template, and we cannot accommodate country specific interpretations of policy, as internal consistency is much more important... could you please also indicate to me why you think this is not crystal balling? as Kumorifox and I have pointed out? L.tak (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Kentucky, Virginia, and many other states were added when there was a temporary stay. There is consensus for Wyoming per WP:EDITCONSENSUS (common practice). On the U.S. map it was argued that it violates WP:CRYSTAL to assume that something will happen to prevent the ruling from going into effect when it is set to expire. Prcc27 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Was this from the past 14 days and the ensuing edit wars? Or was it longer? L.tak (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
              • Adding temporary stays has been the consensus way before the edit wars. Prcc27 (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
              • I'll wait and get some more input from other people here, so we can see where we stand. I think your and my points are clear; but they unfortunately have not come closer together in this discussion.... L.tak (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27: "Wyoming's ban was struck down and the stay expires very soon." Thank you, that's what I needed to know. In cases like that, where the ban really was struck and stayed only temporarily, I think the relevant state should be added to the template to reflect current events. I was unaware that the Wyoming ban was completely struck, not only by precedent, but also at state level, hence my confusion. Therefore, I support the addition of Wyoming to the template as it reflects current events; it can always be changed later if other developments arise, but such developments cannot be predicted and so should not be anticipated in the template by omission of the state. Kumorifox (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I support leaving WY with the asterisk until the stay is lifted. Difbobatl (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@L.tak: I saw you changed the template criteria to say, "also stays of orders of a court of appeal have been considered a reason for inclusion." I'm not sure what you mean there. Wyoming is included because of a trial court decision that conforms with appeals court precedent. There was no order from a court of appeal, there was no stay of an order of a court of appeal, and Wyoming is included not because of the stay, but despite the stay -- because it's only a temporary stay with a definite end date. Tinmanic (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Too Many States (Again!)[edit]

Well over half of all states in the USA now have legal same-sex marriage. Perhaps the time has come to consider making a change to the template, so that it says something like "All states, except...". As additional states change their stance we could simply delete them from the list of exceptions.

(Similarly, once same-sex marriage is introduced in Scotland, we might simply say "legal in the UK, except Northern Ireland". I'm not sure about the politics, but I suppose that if Ireland (Eire) adopts same-sex marriage then Northern Ireland will not be too far behind.)

I'd be interested to read other people's comments. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Of course with the other counties with exceptions (Denmark, except Greenland, etc), there are only one or two exceptions. I saw we wait until the number goes below ten. Czolgolz (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position on whether or not we should make that change, but it would also have to take into account territories, such as PR, VI, etc., where there is no same-sex marriage. Tinmanic (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm personnly against the "United States except [...]", even if there are 48 states on 50 in a near future.. Titanicophile (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Unless we can find a way to quickly link people to the relevant states, I oppose the "all states except..." proposal. The template mentions where marriage is recognised and/or performed, or soon will be in some cases, not where it is not recognised. I agree that it will get messy over time, especially when more countries with separate regions will get disparity (like Mexico), but I believe it is still the best way of providing the facts where people can marry, not where they can't. That should be a separate template or page, in my opinion. Apparently there is a US template already, which is good enough for me. Kumorifox (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@RomanSpa: Do not confuse politics in Ireland with politics in Northern Ireland. Whatever Ireland does has no impact and little influence on the north; we might get marriage equality here in Ireland, but the north will just do their own thing, and if they refuse it, it's not going to happen regardless of what Ireland itself does. Kumorifox (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeat, the US is getting too much weight like this; and it is time to change. Luckily, we have a dedicated US template, so from every US page there is a direct link. There is no real need to have a direct link from Luembourg to -say- Maine and the intermediate step via the US-article is good enough... For the UK, we could do the same, but it is less urgent, as they use up only three lines now... L.tak (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Perfect! A dedicated US template would solve a lot of trouble! Just link the overall template to the US version, and include the US template on US-related pages, either instead of, or in addition to the world-wide template. Kumorifox (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
A template isn't necessary. All that is necessary is a link to a list. The text here could look something like—
United States:

· 31 states and DC

Not yet in effect in one state.

Of course, we still have to find or create an appropriate list. -Rrius (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree; I think simply saying "X states, DC and X tribes" is the best option. As for a link, we could take Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state or List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions though those aren't the best articles imho. We can also just link it to Same-sex marriage in the United States as well, it doesn't have to be different. SPQRobin (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this change. Just saying how many states does not tell you which states. By the same logic, why don't we just say "X number of countries" and not list each country individually? The purpose of a nav template like this is to give all the information and links, not just summarize it. Many U.S. states have more population than many of the countries listed individually on the template, thus impacting more people and being of more interest to our readers. And since this is an English Wikipedia template, being able to see which specific U.S. states have legal same-sex marriage and having the links to those specific articles is probably of higher interest to the average English Wikipedia reader than most of the other countries listed in the template. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
By that logic, why don't we use the full names of the U.S. states? Not all people know all the abbreviations. Anyway, there is an obvious difference in that the U.S. states are not sovereign states so "X number of countries" is not a fair comparison (and the point of this template would be lost). I understand your point about this being the English Wikipedia and the large population of the U.S., but the U.S. states currently take up about 1/4 of the marriage section (and increasing), which is arguably disproportionally much. SPQRobin (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, American readers are probably over 1/4 of the people who read the English Wikipedia, so that seems pretty reasonable to me. And it is true that U.S. states are not sovereign states, but then again neither is Scotland. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@SPQRobin: Then what do you suggest instead? Yes, I agree that listing every state is messy, but it's the best way I know to show the full information. If you know of a better way, then please, by all means, suggest it. There was mention of a dedicated template for the US, does that actually exist, yes or no? Because now I'm confused (again). If it does, I prefer we use that, or at least link to it, to avoid the mess in this template with ever increasing state numbers, and it would be a precedent for once other countries with separate districts/states/whatever legalise marriage only in certain parts. If this template or an equivalent does not exist, then either someone make it (I don't know how to make a template, though I can edit its contents) or keep the status quo, but let's avoid reporting confusing, incomplete, or inaccurate information (such as simply listing "United States" while it is not 100% legal there). We all want to resolve this issue, and we all want to keep the quality of the information as complete and accurate as possible. But unless new alternatives are offered (since simply removing the states has hit a lot of resistance, and I agree with that sentiment, as omission is not an accurate way of reporting facts), we'll just keep going around in circles with these discussions. Kumorifox (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, as I said I agree with putting "X states, DC, X tribes"; I don't see any other good alternatives. I would absolutely be against just listing "United States" without any further information concerning the states. And there is a detailed U.S. template {{Same-sex unions in the United States}} which is however put at the bottom of the page. SPQRobin (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
If we do that for the U.S., then for consistency, under Mexico we should say "3 states" and under the UK we should say "3 countries". Rreagan007 (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Then that is the template that should be used, in my opinion. The proposed link in the Same-sex Unions template saying "X states" should then link to the template you mentioned, meaning people might have to click twice instead of once to get to the state of interest, but it will give a much neater template here. Though similar implementations will then have to be carried out for other multi-region countries, like Mexico (I'm avoiding the UK since I believe the autonomy level in the UK is higher than that of US states and each part warrants its own mention for now, but I could be wrong; if I am, the UK should also be treated as a single country linked to its own summary or template). If this linking system can be implemented smoothly, then it seems to be the cleanest option; if not, then my preference is the (albeit slightly messy) status quo. Kumorifox (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong actually. From a legal standpoint, a U.S. state actually has more sovereignty than does a constituent country of the UK. The U.S. is a federal system with sovereignty shared between the states and the federal government, whereas the UK is a unitary state with all sovereignty vested in the British Parliament. Despite recent devolution to Scottish and Northern Irish Parliaments, the British Parliament still retains full sovereignty, as they can undo that devolution at any time through a simple act of Parliament. The U.S. federal government can't dissolve state governments. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
While you are right, in my opinion that is not that relevant. The problem at hand is that we have a long list of U.S. states making the template less user-friendly, whereas listing the few Mexican states and the UK countries don't make a practical difference. I would prefer to be pragmatic here and not be too detailed on which countries or jurisdictions are more important. SPQRobin (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess that is where we disagree. I think listing all the states individually and linking to their respective articles makes the template more user friendly and practical. Most peoples' main objection seems to boil down to aesthetics, that listing them all takes up space and some people think it looks "cluttered" and don't like the way it looks. I don't think that is a good enough reason to remove relevant and useful information from the template. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If a federal court has said it is unconstitutional to not allow SSM, then there is no reason to list any state, period. It's the whole country. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Try to get a same sex marriage license in Missouri or Alabama and tell us it's the whole country. The court said the federal government will recognize SSM marriage that is legal in a particular state, but it's not legal in all states. Czolgolz (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Technical 13, that is not how the federal court system works. The only federal court whose decisions apply to the whole country is the U.S. Supreme Court. Tinmanic (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That is not how the U.S. judicial system works. I really hope you are just joking about this, because if you are serious then it shows a complete lack of understanding on your part. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Not this proposal again.. I oppose listing the exceptions because those states don't have relevant same-sex marriage pages and states with ssm do. I oppose just stating the number of states as well. Prcc27 (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I support the removal of the list of states, and encourage the "31 of 50 states" format instead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I also Support the removal of all the states enough is enough it looks like a mess and WP:UNDUE towards US coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@NatGertler: Then you would also support saying "3 of 31 states" for Mexico, and "2 of XX regions" for the UK? Not sure how many there are in the UK, a quick count gives at least 7 if you include Jersey, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. Kumorifox (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
No, because it would not save significant space. If 27 of the US states were to suddenly repeal SSM somehow, then I'd be fine with listing the remaining states (though sad over the situation). The US has hundred of possible jurisdictions to cover, given the >500 Native American tribes and villages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so at what number do individual articles take up "too much space"? 5? 10? 15? 20? 25? 30? That still needs to be established.. Otherwise, we are being inconsistent. Prcc27 (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I support the removal of the list of states, it's getting way too big. It's distracting. --Freddy eduardo (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Quit proposing we condense the U.S. states into one link!!![edit]

Please stop proposing we replace the individual same-sex marriage articles with a wikilink. This proposal is being proposed way too many times, and has already failed here, here, here, here and was recently re-proposed here (and will probably fail). Thank you! --Prcc27 (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, now that we have significantly more U.S. states with legal same-sex marriage (thus a longer list), imho it was worth discussing again. (And please don't use bold all-caps.) Thanks, SPQRobin (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • More U.S. states legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't change the fact that there was clear opposition against removing individual articles. Why can't I use bold caps..!? Prcc27 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the section header per policy, and I'm quite disappointed with the level of OWNership this section indicates... Again, I'm tempted to have the template fully protected or the editor exhibiting the improper behavior blocked... Not sure what to do at this time, maybe someone else will help me choose... — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Technical 13: Nobody is claiming ownership, I'm politely suggesting we stop making the same pointless proposal over and over again. Also, using bold all-caps on a header isn't a good enough reason to try to get me blocked (especially since I didn't know it violated policy). Furthermore, you already tried to increase the protection level of the template and failed. Remember what CambridgeBayWeather said to you..?
If anyone should be blocked it's you... Prcc27 (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Fully-protecting a template would be a rather drastic (and unnnecessary, and improper) response to what people say on the talk page, don't you think? - htonl (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I disagree I think the template should be fully protected and we should have an official RfC on things, I feel the same discussions are spinning around like wheels here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
        • The previous flurry of editing on the template has settled down. Which of the criteria at WP:FPP do you think would apply? A flurry of discussion on the talk page does not justify protecting the template. If you want an RfC, that also does not require protection of the template. - htonl (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Discussions on the talk page do not directly impact the template; at the very least, we're discussing things before simply making changes to the template, and isn't that what WP:Consensus is about? Protection of the template seems highly unwarranted just because we keep bringing up the same issues on the talk page. Also, banning is a very drastic step. Banning someone based on a talk page discussion that is heated, but not in any way offensive or impolite, would be completely unfair. Kumorifox (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Technical 13: Your previous request to increase the protection level of this template was denied less than 2 days ago. What has changed in the last 2 days that makes you think that increasing the protection level is more warranted now? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I personally think that all the talks of banning, or protecting, just because of a somewhat spirited discussion on a talk page is completely uncalled for. I think an RfC could be helpful because we can get the opinion of more people, but I don't think protection is needed in the meantime because there's been no edit wars lately. Does anyone support or oppose? Swifty819 (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm still not sure what an RfC actually is, but yes, as detailed above I agree with this statement. Kumorifox (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
          • "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct." So we could use it to obtain template input. Swifty819 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
            @Kumorifox: You can read about RfCs at WP:RFC. You can see examples (good and bad) of open RfCs at WP:RFC/A. This was a WP:RFC/U that is very much related to the above, but as others have opined, one of the two matters discussed there would probably have been better taken straight to WP:RFPU, and the other was not a RFC/U matter at all but something for this talk page - where it had already been discussed. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Creating a new section on the talk page with ALL CAPS demanding that everyone stop proposing to make changes to a page is an indicator of OWNership. Insisting on reverting every single edit by another editor who has REVERTed all of your BOLD edits that there is no consensus to add on the talk page and has attempted to start DISCUSSing for you, is an indicator of OWNership and VANDALISM. Insisting that places that do not currently recognize same sex marriage on a template that is specifically only for places that do currently recognize SSM is an indicator of someone who feels their OWNership justifies VANDALISM to support their edits that go against FUTURE and the need to gain a CONSENSUS on the talk page first. These are the reasons this template needs to be protected. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: "Insisting that places that do not currently recognize same sex marriage on a template that is specifically only for places that do currently recognize SSM" This again? How about adding a new section at the bottom of the template, or a part at the bottom of each section (like there are with the "recognised, not performed" states and countries) that lists countries, states, regions etc. where laws were signed, or the government decided not to appeal, or whatever, and the laws are due to go into effect at any time? It shows the legal status of SSM or similar unions in those locations, and sets them apart by showing there is some form of legality definitely pending there. Places where there is absolutely nothing pending will naturally be left out. But countries like Luxembourg, Scotland, and Estonia, and states like Florida and Wyoming must be mentioned in order to show progress with same-sex unions. The template is generally the first impression people get on this topic, and first impressions do matter, just as much on Wikipedia as outside of it, and they should give as complete a picture as possible. Kumorifox (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd have no objection I suppose to a collapsed section at the bottom of the template that was titled something like pending or predicted (or anticipated even) or some such where all of the places not currently recognizing and preforming could be listed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: Can you show me where it says we are not allowed to use all caps for headers..? If not, I'm going to re-add them. I did not "demand" anyone to stop proposing, I asked politely. I said, "Please stop proposing"; what part of "please" don't you understand..? If anyone is claiming ownership of this page it's the person saying they are going to have the page protected (you). Also, I reverted your Bold edits, not the other way around. Your edits to the template did not have consensus and per WP:BRD I did the right thing. Remember, the admin said that you were the one in an edit war, not me (because I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one reverting you). As for your vandalism accusations, WP:VANDALISM says there has to be a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" which I definitely didn't do. Furthermore, I am not the only one who supports keeping jurisdictions with laws that legalized same-sex unions but haven't gone into effect. And since there is consensus to keep Luxembourg, Wyoming, etc. on the template; you removing those jurisdictions was totally uncalled for. This template does not need to have its protection increased, the admin would agree with this statement as well as other users on this talk page. Prcc27 (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:SHOUT says ALL CAPS is not appropriate and WP:TPO#Section headings / WP:TPO#Fixing format errors say I'm allowed to change it to all normal case as long as I set an {{Anchor}} to the original version (which I did). — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • @Technical 13: Still, that's not a good enough reason to report me.. Prcc27 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • This topic kind of backfired on you, rather than just letting the discussion die, you make a big bold statement that fueled the debate more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
        • @Knowledgekid87: Not really... Once this discussion is resolved and the condensing U.S. states into one wikilink proposal fails miserably (again); it will discourage people from making the same proposal and it will strengthen the consensus for keeping the individual articles. Prcc27 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As the person who made the most recent proposal (to switch from listing US states that permit SSM to listing those that do not), it might be useful for me to make a comment. I understand the reasons why some people feel that we have not yet reached the right time to make this change. However, there will come a time when not permitting SSM will be far more exceptional and noteworthy than permitting it. We perhaps haven't reached this point yet, but I suspect we can all see it coming. When there are only a few exceptional areas - perhaps Northern Ireland in the UK, and one or two states in the USA - it seems to me that the sensible thing to do will be to have articles on the absence of SSM in those areas, explaining why this has not happened, rather than to have pointers to the states where SSM has become a normal part of the legal and cultural landscape. As an encyclopedia we will certainly have articles on how SSM came to all the places where it is legal, but what our readers are likely to want in the future, at least in the first instance, is information about the hold-outs. At some point in the future the template should reflect this, because if you live in a place where SSM is the norm - and this is increasingly true for our readership - you're unlikely to question it, any more than anyone nowadays wonders why black people and white people can get married. In time, the question people are more likely to ask is "why doesn't this place permit people of the same sex to get married?". The time may not yet be ripe to make this change, but at some stage it will be. I see no harm in discussing this topic from time to time, and reviewing whether we've yet got to the stage that it will be more helpful to our readers to make the change from listing places where SSM is permitted to listing places where SSM is not permitted. I should also note that I feel that one or two editors may be taking this topic a little personally, and may be attempting to "own" this issue. I feel this is unwise and uncollegial, and hope that a calmer mindset will prevail. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Listing exceptions would be neater, but I also think that, as of this time, we're not far enough into that with the US to warrant this proposal. It's almost half and half. Once we get to, say 25% or 20% exceptions, then I'd consider it. But even then, it might confuse people when they look at the template and expect to see places where marriages are allowed. We'd have to check closer to the time, or maybe highlight the explanation where there are exceptions, maybe bright red text for the note saying "except"? Or some other form of highlighting? Kumorifox (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
No, actually, it hasn't failed, despite that description by the editor who started some of those new discussions that he's pointing to rather than continuing the old ones. Looking at the various listed discussions:
  • Support for keeping states all listed:
    • Rreagan007, Ron 1987, Prcc27, Difbobatl
  • Support for replacing:
    • -Roentgenium111, L. Tak, Nat Gertler, Me-123567-Me (apparent support), Knowledgekid87
That one editor returns repeatedly to naysay whenever the topic is brought up does not actually mean increased support for it; there is no reason that something with a plurality support should not continue to be considered, particularly when the situation that many wish to address is just increasing as the list of states grows longer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if there's a majority for replacing the individual state articles, this isn't a vote (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). These articles are useful (whenever I try to go to a state's article I usually do this by simply clicking on the link provided by the template). Just like one user pointed out, there is plenty of room for the articles and it's not taking up any space that would be used for something else. Furthermore, as I pointed out- whatever we do to the United States' sub-jurisdictions, we must do to the other countries' sub-jurisdictions. Also, someone has yet to provide a good article to link to that provides individual links for all the ssm states. Prcc27 (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This link is why I feel comfortable condensing the states. Swifty819 (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This should really not be a huge issue here all we are talking about doing is making it easier to read, I am sure the reader has the capability to explore Wikipedia and find the articles on the states.- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be no easier to read, but it would certainly make it less useful. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I know, I thought the point of this template was to link to relevant articles on the matter. It will be much harder for the reader to find those articles.. Prcc27 (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
So what you mean by "failed" is "failed to convince you"??? No, it is not true that we have to treat different things the same. Just because we can sometimes abbreviate "September" in tables as "Sep." doesn't mean that we need to abbreviate "May"; similarly, just because we want to find a way to shorten a list of thirty-some means we need to shorten a list of three. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @NatGertler: You guys failed to come up with a valid reason why we should get rid of the individual articles when there is plenty of space. Just because some people think the individual articles take up too much space doesn't mean other people will feel the same way. There are varying degrees of what people consider to be articles taking up "too much space." Also, it is inconsistent to condense the United States and not other countries like Australia and Mexico. There doesn't even seem to be a good article to link to anyways. And what do we do when 31 states have same-sex marriage and 2 states don't (yet)..?
Would we do this:
31 states
2 states*
10 tribes?

Here's another scenario:
31 states
2 states*
2 territories
1 territory*
10 tribes
1 tribe*
Btw, you forgot to tally Kudzu1 (not that it matters, but you claimed that you guys have plurality support which may not be true). Also, I abbrev. "September" as "Sept." not "Sep."
Prcc27 (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ooooh, you put "valid" in bold, so it must be true! Oh, wait, maybe if I point out that editors have had concerns about how listing thirty-some articles for the United States distorts the template as a whole, making it seem about the US, while presenting a wall of state abbreviations that many in the US even cannot fully decipher, much less the whole English-speaking world, and that clarity and balance ARE PERFECTLY VALID CONCERNS - look, see, bold AND italics AND all-caps, so it must be truer than whatever you say - then maybe your insistence that we not notice what was actually said and shouldn't talk about it any more because you insist that it failed seems less like an attempt to reach consensus and more like an attempt to avoid one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

OK folks, we're getting petty with the language now. Let's steer this conversation back on track.
From what I can tell, we have two camps, and everyone in each camp has their own reasons for wanting to keep the states or wanting to remove them, and I include myself in this as well. Let me list some reasons I managed to comprehend from the discussions above.

  • Removing states

1/ Listing every state is messy.
2/ Listing every state puts undue emphasis on the US.

  • Keeping states

1/ It makes for easier access to each state where marriage equality is the legal rule.
2/ It is less confusing as people can see at a glance what regions have marriage equality.

Here's my personal take on this. Feel free to (dis)agree.

  • The way the template currently is written shows a lot of emphasis on the US. However, isn't that because the US has so many regions with the authority to make legal decisions? If there was a sovereignty with more than 50 regions, it would also be expanded as marriage equality progressed, correct? I personally feel that this seemingly high US emphasis isn't just because it is regarding the US, but because there is so much of it to cover. As someone said in a previous point, Mexico might be just as messy in a few years time, who knows? Will we have the same discussions then?
  • The template is messy-looking, very much so. Removing the states would definitely make it look better, but 1/ how do we explain removing the US states and not removing regions from other countries (and simply saying "there are many more US entries" is not a reason, IMO, as that is what this debate is partly about and is what we hope to get resolved), and 2/ how do we provide proper linking to the areas where marriage equality is the norm in the US (regarding point 1 in the "keep" list)? People have suggested linking to the US template, and I'm all for that, and so far, I haven't seen anyone object to that point with a reason why this should not be done; people have objected to the idea of removing the states, but remain schtumm on the template link suggestion.
  • Wikipedia is about bringing information to people in the most accessible and user-friendly way. So if we have to choose between aesthetics and access to information, what should we pick? If we can have only one and not the other, I'd pick information, as that is what Wikipedia is for. But if we can come up with a way to have both, I'd jump at that suggestion and support it whole-heartedly.

So let's hear it, please. If you have a suggestion for improved aesthetics while keeping the access user-friendly, please make it. If you feel that improving aesthetics will worsen user-friendliness, say why you think this is. The main thing I want to know on this issue is why people say what they say. I can see a lot of reasons for each point listed above (and I'm sure I left out plenty of points, so feel free to add, but keep it comprehensible please, this discussion is getting confusing), and I can see the merits both for keeping and for removing the states. We just need to get to a compromising solution. Kumorifox (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the pop-up window suggestion wasn't a bad idea.. However, I will not support it unless we apply it to all countries where same-sex unions are only legal in some jurisdictions. Prcc27 (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean something like this? Template:Same-sex unions/sandbox I just tried the US for now, and it will have to be cleaned up for a better look, but it gets the idea across. Kumorifox (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not what I had in mind- but that works too... Prcc27 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Template:Same-sex unions/sandbox looks way better, let's implement it if nobody is against the idea. --Freddy eduardo (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Freddy eduardo: There's a few problems with the sandbox though. The "Not yet in effect" is different (in a bad way) and what was done to the United States has to be done to Australia, Mexico, and any other country with sub-jurisdictions. Prcc27 (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
As well as any entry in the CU/RP hidden area with multiple sub-juristiction mention. Ick.Naraht (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Prcc27: I didn't make any alterations other than adding the collapsible area, just to show how it would look and gauge people's reactions to it. The sandbox isn't up to date anyway, it's just a practice area, so don't take it to be the "final" version.
@Naraht: I'll gladly make those changes if people agree to it. Kumorifox (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
We could decide on a cut off for x number of sub-national entities being turned into a link. Fifteen is a number I like, since that's about half the number of Mexican states and thus would be a good indicator of progress in the other many-state federal country gradually legalizing marriage. Fifteen states turning from a list into a link would also collapse a sub-national list right before reaching a fourth row, which is imo a good mark of when such a list becomes unwieldy. Dralwik|Have a Chat 21:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but these states have just as much of a right to have their articles listed as Luxembourg does. Every single state in the U.S. has a higher population than Luxembourg and same-sex marriage is currently legal in all but one of the states listed whereas same-sex marriage isn't in effect yet in Luxembourg. Furthermore, Luxembourg's same-sex marriage article is a lot shorter than many of the U.S. states' articles as well. Shoot... Wyoming's article is even longer than Luxembourg's and they legalized same-sex marriage a few days ago! Also, Wyoming is the smallest state population wise. Is this what we're going to do if same-sex marriage becomes legal in 50 countries..? Prcc27 (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
realize that we have Template:Same-sex unions in the United States? Frietjes (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Frietjes: Yes, I do realize that. However, this is a template that deals with same-sex marriage internationally and like I just stated above- these states have just as much of a right to be listed on this international template as Luxembourg does. Furthermore, this template appears on more articles than the U.S. template (as far as I know...) Prcc27 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That's why the suggestion was made to make a collapsible area. Once it gets to 50 states, the states will just be removed anyway as the whole sovereign country will have marriage, and the only thing remaining will be the native American tribes. And those are kept separated on the template anyway. Collapsing will keep every area on the map accessible in a more pleasing format, and I don't mind making the changes if people are not fond of the idea of adding the code as I already applied it in the sandbox and can just copy it over. It won't take away the "right" of the valid states in any way, shape, or form. Kumorifox (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kumorifox: At that point I would either a) still keep the individual articles or b) add a wikilink that says "50 states" or "all 50 states". Remember, there are also territories that would have to legalize same-sex marriage for it to be nationwide (as well as the Native American tribes). IMO, it ain't over until every state, district, territory and native american tribe legalizes same-sex marriage; so I would be against removing the states entirely until it is legal in every jurisdiction. Prcc27 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The Indian tribes are inconsequential. If there are 2 gay Indians living on the reservation of a tribe that does not perform same-sex marriages, but in a state that does, all they have to do is drive to the nearest county courthouse to get legally married just like any other residents of the state. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That ick was in regards to what it would look like with the collapsable on all of the collapsible ones. As far as I can tell, simply due to the way that the show works, the will end up misaligned to the others. I am curious as to what it would look like, but that doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that I'd necessarily support it as a replacement.Naraht (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The U.S., Italy, and beyond![edit]

We should include local govts. in the template. Many local govts. in Italy recognize same-sex marriage and should be included as well as local govts. in Italy and the U.S. that have same-sex unions. This template has had local govts. represented before (New Mexican counties) and before you argue "there was no law for or against same-sex marriage in New Mexico" well, there is no law for or against same-sex unions in Tenn. either. Prcc27 (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is too much, we'll have billions of dots everywhere if we "accept" the cities (same for tribes, by the way)... Personnly, I prefer just showing the countries and the states, nothing more. And, in Italy, it's just symbolic, it does not grant same-sex union, actually, if I remember well. Titanicophile (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Titanicophile: This template doesn't have "dots". We would put the number of counties/cities like we did for New Mexico: "NM (8 counties)." I am strongly against removing tribes. Prcc27 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, you may do it, I'm not against, but I fear the there are too much things on the template.. Titanicophile (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean Tennessee? Isn't a constitutional ban a law against? If not, then I don't know what Tenn. stands for. Kumorifox (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Kumorifox: Tennessee has a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage, not civil unions. Prcc27 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If civil unions are performed in TN, then it should be included in the civil unions section, regardless of the number of counties that perform them; if not, then TN does not belong in the template unless there is legislation or judicial precedence paving the road to having them performed (like Florida). I think the listing of counties will make things too detailed, you might as well go down to single boroughs or villages in that case. Just because it was done previously does not mean it should be kept if it makes things way too complicated, in my opinion. Adding a footnote to explain that there are certain less autonomous regions within a state or main province or whatever the main divisions are called per country would be a lot clearer than listing every subdivision. Kumorifox (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014[edit]

Missouri judge has just overturned constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and the ruling was not stayed. Would like the page to be updated to reflect MO as performing same-sex marriage from previously recognizing marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/missouri-gay-marriage_n_6110348.html 2607:F140:400:A011:AD3B:1A2F:E95A:601F (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if the ruling applies to St. Louis only or to all of Missouri. If it is state-wide, the template should be updated with Missouri, but if St. Louis only, there should be no change to the template just yet. Kumorifox (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is from a state court for St Louis, meaning only officials in St Louis are legally bound by it;
""The Court FINDS and DECLARES that Defendant and any future Recorder of Deeds and Vital Records Registrar of the City of St. Louis has the authority to issue marriage licenses to any same sex couple that satisfies all the requirements for marriage under Missouri law, other than being of different sexes.""
ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Dralwik The ruling only applies to St. Louis (city) per ChiZeroOne. Prcc27 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
If we exclude jurisdictions that are issuing on implied precedent, note that West Virginia is still without a specific ruling. Dralwik|Have a Chat 22:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2014[edit]

Australia now recognizes same sex marriage: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/13/australia-new-south-wales-legalises-recognition-of-overseas-same-sex-marriages/ (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That's only 1 state, and only ones from overseas. Federal Australian government gives no recognition ("We call on the federal government to recognise the commitments..."). Stickee (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This is why someone should update it. We mantion these things with the US, so why not with Australia? It's also a federal country-- (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
However, they don't allow same sex marriages. They only recognize ones that have already been performed overseas. I am declining this edit request. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 19:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
We do (and did when the U.S. federal government didn't) list the U.S. states that recognize marriages of other jurisdictions. So if Australian states do as well, the IP's request is entirely correct. However, the news sources don't seem to be entirely correct since the referenced legislation has not been passed yet. The sources also say Queensland and Tasmania already recognize overseas same-sex marriages, but I didn't find much more information on that. SPQRobin (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Please place it on the map, as it did go through, judging on the government-issued document (http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/Forms/60-Rel-Reg-12Nov2014.pdf), so the law is in place right now. When it comes to Queensland, it's not recognised (http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/legalinformation/Relationships-and-children/Relationships/Pages/Marriage.aspx) and so in Tasmania (no source to confirm it). The government page on that was not updated since 2012 (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/SameSexMarriage), and is definitely out of date (it mentions only 6 states in the US having same-sex marriage, doesn't include other 7 countries). Talking about maps, User:Stickee, User:G S Palmer, User:SPQRobin: please could you update the map for EF English Proficiency Index to November 2014 results. I'd be REALLY GRATEFUL!-- (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Queesland and Tasmania are recognising marriages, BUT as CIVIL UNIONS - that is the essential information, so basically they don't recognise marriage- they just treat it as a civil partnership (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/differing-samesex-marriage-laws-create-headaches-for-couples-20140706-zsxvy.html). Now everything's clear.-- (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


Since Michigan's same-sex marriage ban was upheld, shouldn't it be removed from the "Previously performed and not invalidated" section..? [7] Prcc27 (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • @Dralwik: That's the same source I provided and it says the ruling invalidated the 300 marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd say not yet as the case on those specific marriages has not been decided yet. Dralwik|Have a Chat 03:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dralwik: To clarify, it says the circuit court ruling invalidated the 300 marriages. Since the ban is perfectly constitutionally (in the eyes of the Sixth Circuit) doesn't that mean that until a ruling states that those marriages are valid and should be recognized, the marriages are invalid because same-sex marriage is banned? Prcc27 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Come to think of it, since the State is refusing to recognize the marriages, it probably would be best to take them off until a ruling that Michigan must recognize them. If you remove Michigan I will not contest. Dralwik|Have a Chat 04:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Absent a specific ruling that the marriages are void, I think it would be jumping the gun a bit. Because of the principle of separation of powers, I don't think Schuette has the power to void them himself; he only has the power to not recognise them, which is a different thing entirely (one of them is a judicial decision under common law, the other is administrative). Sceptre (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sceptre: According to the sources provided and the AG, the Sixth Circuit ruling invalidated the marriages. Do you have a source that says Schuette doesn't have the power to void the marriages? Also, the wording in the template isn't "void", the wording is "invalidated" and because the Circuit Court decision trumps the District Court decision, it's as if the marriages never happened (according to one of the sources provided). Prcc27 (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
§25 of the Michigan constitution says nothing about the validity of marriages, only the recognition of them. Schuette has no power to void marriages because he's neither a judge nor has the state government of Michigan been given the power to do so. The federal government can, and almost certainly will, continue to recognise the 300 couples in Michigan as married as they were still legally entered into, even if the judgement allowing it has been overturned on appeal. Sceptre (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/16/3592750/michigan-void-marriages/; this seems to suggest that the marriages are in a "limbo" state, and not necessarily invalid (they're still being recognized by the federal government remember). I think perhaps they should be included under a different heading.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2014[edit]

please change from "10 tribes" to "11 tribes", see Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Why do we have the odd parenthetic comment on Kansas? We have not done this for other states that have had rulings against a ban where the circuit and SCOTUS have refused to hear the state's appeals. The ruling makes it clear that same-sex marriage must be allowed and recognized in Kansas. We should remove the count of counties that are actually following the ruling. Difbobatl (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • @Difbobatl: It was a preliminary injunction that only applied to two counties and one state official. Same-sex marriage is not legal statewide, nor is the state recognizing same-sex marriages. Prcc27 (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but it is legal statewide, no matter what the state officials say. The judge in Marie v. Moser found the ban unconstitutional, which was affirmed by the Circuit Court and, by having cert denied, the Supreme Court. And as John Marshall famously said 200 years ago, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is". Sceptre (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
      • @Sceptre: Just because a ban is found unconstitutional doesn't mean same-sex marriage is legalized. In Kentucky the ban was found unconstitutional but only recognition was legalized. In Cook County, Illinois the ban was found unconstitutional but same-sex marriage was only legalized in Cook County because the judge specifically said that the ruling only applied to Cook County. Limited rulings are possible and more common then you think. Prcc27 (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014[edit]

In the civil unions section, why are Gibraltar, Isle of Man, and Jersey listed separately and not under United Kingdom, as is the case with Greenland under Denmark, etc.? (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is because Jersey, Gibraltar, and the Isle of Man are not actually part of the UK. They are considered Crown Dependencies and are subject to rule of the monarchy of the UK, but are not considered part of the UK itself. See the first paragraph on [8] for details on Jersey (which also applies to Gibraltar and the Isle of Man). Kumorifox (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
They also have their own parliaments, which (unlike those of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) do not have their powers devolved from the UK Parliament at Westminster but are wholly separate; hence laws passed at Westminster have no effect in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or Gibraltar. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


Aside from this ruling only being a preliminary injunction, the same-sex marriage performance part of this ruling is stayed indefinitely: "The Circuit Clerk of Hinds County shall continue to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex applicants and only those applicants until further word from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court." Thus, same-sex marriage recognition will go into effect in two weeks but same-sex marriage performance will not go in effect until we hear from a higher court [9]. Prcc27 (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I have a secondary source to back up my same-sex marriage performance indefinitely stayed claim: [10]. Prcc27 (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Really? Because this source contradicts your source. [11] I think he was only talking about the stay time and not talking about after December 9, 2014. I'm gonna edit it to show mississippi legalizing gay marriage soon and not recognizing it from other states because you don't have a link to back that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AHC300 (talkcontribs) 16:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @AHC300: That source doesn't contradict my source. Both sources are consistent with when the stay expires, but my source notes that even when the stay expires, same-sex marriages can't be performed until we hear from a higher court. Please stop edit-warring! Prcc27 (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27: Uh yeah it does. Guess you didn't bother reading the article: "Mississippi argued that it wanted to avoid the “recent debacle in the State of Utah that resulted from the courts' 'on-again, off-again' treatment of same-sex marriage.” “[T]his Court should take action to prevent Mississippi from having to endure the same experience,” officials said." You have still yet to back up any of those sources that same-sex marriage would be recognized ONLY from different states. I would you for you to point that out for me. If the Circuit courts say otherwise in the next few days is one thing but I'm just going by the ruling he made. If it goes into effect it will. AHC300 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The order states that the State of Mississippi and all its agents, officers, employees, and subsidiaries are prevented from enforcing both the statute and the constitutional ban. The Hinds County clerk is named extra as she was also a defendant, but she is also an employee of the state, so she is already prevented from enforcing the bans. Both clauses state that out of state marriages will not be recognised in MS, but the constitutional amendment states that SSM will not be performed in MS. Since the amendment is also no longer enforceable, SSM is covered under the temporary stay.
    Additionally, the stay is pending appeal. If the state does not appeal to the 5th or to SCOTUS, the stay will simply expire. The stay might not expire on Hinds County, but once again, nothing is determined for the rest of the state, and that should be clarified if nothing is done with the 5th. Since MS already filed a notice of appeal, we can expect to hear from the 5th soon, with clarification on the stay. And while Wikipedia:CRYSTAL applies to the article, I am 99% certain that MS will soon be under a permanent stay, knowing the 5th and Justice Scalia. So let's leave it out of the template for now, as we all know what the likely outcome will be within the next 14 days. Kumorifox (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27:[12] And here is the most accurate source I could find saying it WILL go into effect on December 9/10, 2014. This is from the state of Mississippi who is fighting this case in court: "Pursuant to 5th Cir. Rule 27.3, in non-death penalty cases,motions seeking relief before the expiration of 14 days after filing are considered emergency motions and must meet the requirements of both Rule 27.3 and Fed. R. App. P. 8. The emergency arises from the fact that the temporary stay will expire on December 9, 2014. Unless this court enters an emergency stay, at that point, the preliminary injunction permitting same-sex marriage in Mississippi will go into effect.The State requests the Court enter a stay no later than December 8, 2014, effective unless and until such time as this Court rules that Mississippi’s traditional laws (and substantively identical laws in Louisiana and Texas) are prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. Absent the immediate entry of an emergency stay, at the open in of business on Wednesday, December 10, 2014, Mississippi circuit clerks will be forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in derogation of Mississippi’s strong public policy favoring traditional marriages, as reflected in state statutory and constitutional provisions." AHC300 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the point is moot, as the 5th granted a permanent stay. I took the liberty of removing MS from the template, so it is in line with TX with its permanent stay. Kumorifox (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


This vote does *not* legalize SSM in Finland, it is rather a vote to officially consider there is still a committee vote and then another vote of the entire parliament. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/141128/world-europe/article/finland-takes-first-step-towards-legalising-gay-marriage Naraht (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014[edit]

The listing for New Zealand under "Marriage" should have bullets under it that read "New Zealand proper" and "Ross Dependency" since same-sex marriage is not legal in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. This information can be found on the "Same-sex marriage in New Zealand" page. (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Good catch! I added NZ proper only, not the Ross Dependency, as it is doubtful any marriages will be performed there and it will just clog up the template. Kumorifox (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)