Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States

Request: Recognition of same-sex unions in Indiana

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

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

Debate --> Opposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAME-SEX MARRIAGES RESUME IN CALIFORNIA

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

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

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

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

Voting on Same-Sex Marriage

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

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

Recognition of same-sex marriage in Maryland

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

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

Public opinion

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

The map should be changed

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

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

Opposition to SSM Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

Lack's a neutral pov

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

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

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

Update New Mexico's Status until further notice

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

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

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

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

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

Organization sections

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

False 31 states claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for comment

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

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

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

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

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

• Support in the lede. It accurately & most importantly succinctly reflects the sources. Obviously the overall picture of the voting is relevant in the lede. Lionel (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Openly Gay"

Why is it overtly mentioned that Barney Frank and Rachel Maddow are "openly gay?" Obviously, they are biased in the fact that they have a vested interest in allowing gay marriage. Straight people have no personal interest in giving gays the right to marry. Following that logic, shouldn't the article also mention the fact that Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are straight? By mentioning those people's orientations the article is framing (subtly) the issue to be something from the "gay agenda." You can see it as pro-gay marriage seeing the issue as one of equal rights and anti-gay marriage seeing it as one just for the gays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.173.148 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What you're saying makes sense. We don't mention straight commenters' sexuality in the article, there is no need to mention gay people's. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

People are going to assume someone is straight, until they read otherwise. CTJF83 20:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but why is it important in this article? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems important to me to know the orientation of the people supporting/opposing marriage. I can't decide if the IPs comments are disrupting to prove a point or genuine. CTJF83 21:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The point being made in the tortured sentence at issue ("Openly gay Congressman Barney Frank voiced his concern...) is that not all proponents of gay rights support attempts to repeal DOMA at this time. If it were any standard member of Congress, we wouldn't be citing his/her opinion at all. His sexual orientation is included because the opinion of a gay Congressman demonstrates a point, while the opinion of, say, Nancy Pelosi, would not illustrate that point. And we really do have to assume that not everyone who might read this article knows who Barney Frank is. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)