Talk:Same-sex marriage

NOTE: This is not a page for debating same-sex marriage. It is a page for discussion of Wikipedia's NPOV article on the topic.

Discussions about whether same-sex marriage is a good idea are off-topic.

Bible citations in religious arguments section

The statement "Other passages are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and in the New Testament of the Bible, First Corinthians 6:8-10 and Romans 1:24-27, although none of these outright define marriage in a purely heterosexual way" seems misleading to me. What of Matthew 19:3-6:

55 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The reference here ("Have ye not read") is to Genesis 2:24. Mark 10:2-9 covers the same ground, and all these would seem to me to be defining marriage in a purely heterosexual way. Without entering into debate on the merits of gay marriage in violation of the guidelines for this page, I will mention that I am myself gay and not a Christian, and, unsurprisingly, in favour of full marriage rights for gay people. That doesn't mean that I want to see Wikipedia making an assertion which to me clearly leaves out relevant matter and is, in effect, not factual. In view of the controversy surrounding the subject and, seemingly, the page, I thought I would raise a query rather than make an edit. Apologies if it has been raised before, but none of the subject headings seemed to indicate that it had.

86.163.173.224 (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This could be a useful link.

http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf Outlines non-religious arguments on the topic.

--69.234.222.230 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think that those arguments would be useful for inclusion in the article, why aren't they being included? In addition, they haven't included all right-wing arguments against seeing interracial marriage as parallel to gay marriage. For example, one can make a case for interracial marriage using the Bible, while one can make a case against homosexual acts using the Bible. Examples of successful interracial marriages are Joseph and that Egyptian, Ruth the Moabite and Boaz the Israelite, and the Song of Solomon. In addition, Jesus never condemned Samaritans, who are Israelites mixed with something else. --69.234.194.85 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Etiquette

I have removed the comment about same-sex couple surnames from the bottom of the page. It adds nothing to the page and is an unverifiable comment. I push for it to stay removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.37.24.95 (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems an odd deletion as forms of address for same sex married couples seems relevant to gay marriage and is verified by reference to the Washington Post of 2004. I have undone this deletion as the rationale for deletion is so unclear. Ashley VH (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to first comment's note, the section is highly opinion based and does noy flow with the body of the text. Removed it again.--Ignatiusantioch (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal status

Canada and Spain are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. Other nations all have residency requirements that apply to same-sex marriage that do not apply to opposite-sex marriage.

This doesn't seem to be in agreement with Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, which says:

Same-sex marriages are fully equivalent to opposite-sex marriages in the Netherlands with one restriction relating to adoption of children. [...]

Which is correct? René van Buuren (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Both are. The Netherlands is not exactly the same, due to the restriction on adoption. Jeffpw (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't have extra residency requirements, does it? "Other nations all have residency requirements [...]" René van Buuren (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked, and in Holland at least one partner has to have citizenship or be a resident. It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but that's the long and short of it. The page on marriage did not make a distinction between male-female marriage and same-sex marriage, so I would think it is the same rule for both. The only clear difference is the adoption requirement, but that would still make it different than Canada and Spain, where it is exactly the same. Perhaps the article needs to be somewhat differently worded for clarity, but the thrust seems clear and accurate to me. I'll delete ther word "residency". If anyone objects, feel free to revert me. Jeffpw (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that only Canada, Spain and soon South Africa grant the same "legal status" to same sex couples is technically not true. The legal status of same sex couples is exactly the same as opposite sex couples in at least the Netherlands and Belgium while the respective couples are inside the country; however, the so-called "residency requirements" are not directly imposed by either of these countries; rather, the resulting restriction is a result of the function of international private law whereby the Dutch and Belgian IPL only allows citizens of those countries which would recognize the marriage to marry. This is not in any way a restriction only to same sex couple, rather a restriction to all couples who cannot marry in their countries of citizenship. For example, a citizen of Canada can marry a citizen of Belgium in the Netherlands, as the IPR of the Netherlands only requires that EITHER the countries of the parties allow the marriage OR the parties be residents of the Netherlands. This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.96.229 (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Maps

Who created those maps? The data is incorrect. There is no seperation between Church and state in many of the European nations and thus are opposed to the idea. WHoever labeled those nations orange is showing their bias on the issue.Thright (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you perhaps make your objections more specific? I didn't notice any particular inconsistencies, and nothing seemed obviously false. Is the "orange" you refer to on the maps or the table headings? Are there any particular instances where you know the data to be incorrect? Zahnrad (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

please READ subject line. WP:soapbox, maps are self created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I did read the subject line. Would you please re-read WP:SOAP and tell me how the creation of a map to represent data in a table falls into that category? I don't quite see the connection, but maybe I'm just missing it. I also would recommend reading WP:CIV if you have not done so, as it's pretty important to maintain civility. Zahnrad (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:) answered on your talk page. I did not mean to sound rude. SorryThright (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue was resolved. I noticed you removed the maps from the article, but I don't think everybody agrees that this action is fair. I followed your conversations around, and it seems like you ended the conversation with "I'm not interest in pushing this at the momment." [1] Any thoughts? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not restore the maps because I did not want to risk breaking the 3RR, and I was pretty sure my view would be the consensus one, so I expected that someone else would restore them (which they did). I do agree that sources should be indicated, but I think that obviously the fact that the maps are self-created is not a reason to delete them.Zahnrad (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the edit summary for the most recent removal, and it doesn't make much sense to me. What I got out of the discussion (which was largely between two people, which I'm pretty sure isn't enough for consensus) was not that the maps do not meet "wiki standards" and should be deleted. My impression was that Thright thought they should be removed but was not going to pursue it further, because he didn't think it was a big enough issue.Zahnrad (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I see another problem with the map. The legend says "red = same sex marriage banned". This seems nonsense, as either the laws allow for same sex marriage (violet) or they don't (everything else). If they do not allow for it, you cannot say it is banned - it just doesn't exist. SSM is no more banned in Poland than it is in Germany - it just doesn't exist.

Also, both the European and the US map should conform in regard what the colours mean - the current state makes it quite confusing.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned means the state constitution explicitly bans it, instead of not mentioning it at all. The difference is if a SSM case is made to the court, and it isn't banned, the court can rule a local ban on marriage unconstitutional. MantisEars (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

California

The California Supreme Court won't be in effect until next month. We should wait until same-sex marriage licenses are legally granted in California before saying that same-sex marriage is legal there. NoIdeaNick (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is not yet legal in California. To quote from the LA Times [2] "Paul Drugan, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder, said the county was not immediately granting same-sex marriage licenses, noting that the court's decision would take effect in 30 days." NoIdeaNick (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, since for non-lawyers, the edit here is very hard to understand, there is euphoria everywhere since they thought it to be a done deal. But it is not: split decision 4-3. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruling is not yet final until 30 days

Lest non-lawyers readers be misled, the court decision 4-3, is not yet final, since it is highly divided, and one vote can change. So, under CA rules, an appeal or motion can be filed withing 30 days to stay it, and after May 15, as of now, no marriage can still be held pending the finality. Besides the November ballot might reverse or avoid this ruling by Constitutional amendment. I am a lawyer/judge, and our Philippine laws were copied from California federal rules of service. I repeat, just one vote can can change the 4-3 judgment. So I added this: Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that reversed interracial marriages ban, the Republican-dominated California Supreme Court, (in a 4-3 ruling, penned by Chief Justice Ronald George) struck down California's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar voter-approved 2000 law (passed with 61%). The judgment is not final, for the ruling can be reconsidered upon filing of appeal or motion within 30 days, as the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, inter aila, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. If the court denies the plea, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days. The 2006 census figures indicate that, California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households.news.yahoo.com, California's top court legalizes gay marriage Same-sex marriage opponents announced, however, that they gathered 1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to define marriage as between a man and woman, to effectively annul the decision.nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling --Florentino floro (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are a judge who also claims to be a psychic. Anyhow, I think it's highly unlikely that any of the justices will change their mind. Certainly, it is possible (although unlikely) that a stay will be granted, but it seems almost impossible that the opinion will be changed. Supreme court rulings are pretty much final.

Hmmm.... 108,734 households means that's a minimum of 217,468 people, and this figure does not include the people who aren't registered, who are LGBT but are single or who didn't reveal the nature of their living arrangements on the last census. Furthermore, 1.1 million signatures is rather insignificant considering that my state has over 38 million people. This would mean that less than 0.03% of the people here bothered to sign. California is a heavily Democratic state, bluest of the blues, so I find it highly unlikely that the amendment would pass, and if it did, it would not take much to repeal it, as one only needs a simple majority to amend our constitution through initiative process. Those backing such a hateful amendment had better be careful, since elevating this situation to the status of a constitutional amendment would possibly mean that this would be appealed to the federal district court level, which for us would be the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has the most liberal record in the nation. It could mean not only the amendment being rejected, but other amendments passed in neighboring states could be struck down also. That would then cause an uproar that might push this matter to the United States Supreme Court, which could invalidate all of the other hateful amendments across the nation on the basis that they violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 76.171.53.59 (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find the census figure of same-sex households anywhere in the Yahoo! story. Did the writer mean to say figures from 2006 Federal income tax returns, because the United States Census is held every ten years; the last census was held in 2000, and the next census will be held in 2010. Any help clarifying this greatly appreciated. Kinkyturnip (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Final on June 16? What about appeal to USA S.C.

I am a bit excited but am also wondering, why all these news, failed to include possible appeal the the USA S. Court, to enjoin the June 16 effectivity of this 4-3 ruling. At any rate, it is like the Big Brown Triple Crown, 30 years since Affirmed, affair this June 7, and with bated breath, the whole American racing nation could not wait, for this race and for this CA ruling to be final: In a one-page Resolution, the California Supreme Court on June 4, 2008 forthwith denied all petitions for rehearing and to reconsider the May 15 ruling, as it removed the final obstacle to same-sex marriages starting on June 17. It further rejected moves to delay enforcement of the decision until after the November election, when voters will decide whether to reinstate a ban on same-sex nuptials. Chief Justice Ronald George and Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno, voted for the resolution, while dissenting or voting to reconsider the judgment, were Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan.chicagotribune.com, Calif. court refuses to stall gay marriageThe judgment stated: “The decision filed on May 15, 2008, will become final on June 16, 2008, at 5 p.m.” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that marriages would be held “5:01” on June 16.nytimes.com, Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriageslatimes.com, California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage ... But for the benefit of those against gay marriage, there is little hope: "Both sides expect the fall campaign to be expensive and hard fought. The ballot initiative, which was certified by the secretary of state this week after supporters submitted more than one million signatures, would amend the state’s Constitution to define marriage in California as “between a man and a woman.” A Field poll in late May found that 51 percent of registered voters in the state favored the right of same-sex couples to marry, with 42 percent opposed."(NYT) --Florentino floro (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Florentiono--To answer your question--it is my understanding from discussing the matter with a couple local lawyers that SCOTUS appeal isn't on the board, that the CA SC decision relies entirely on the California Constitution and law, and therefore an appeal to SCOTUS is entirely unavailable. I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like an appeal to the US Supreme Court is entirely off the table. But we should return to focusing on what should and shouldn't be in the article. --Joe Decker (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC) (Updated a few minutes later to clarify ambiguous wording.)

It is actually legal, the status of which could change in the future as noted. The window for a stay does not invalidate the ruling, no matter how unanimous or closely split. A stay only means a delay in the access, not a reversal of the legality. This will be moot in a few days anyway.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Handling of divorces

If you type in a search for "Gay divorce", you won't get what you expect. It would be interesting if someone can find information on how these divorces are handled. Are they all given to a specific family court judge? Do the state-by-state variations in the U.S. create ways that people use to "game the system" to get a more desirable outcome? Can people in a gay marriage file for divorce in a state that does not recognize it? In cases of child custody does the biological father or mother have a strong assurance of winning? There's all sorts of stuff that should be coming out now. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. "Gay Divorce" is, of course, the title of a marvelous Cole Porter show, renamed The Gay Divorcee when it went to film....Your questions are good ones; I've not seen any reliable sources discuss the issue, and there's probably not much case law yet regarding it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In Massachusetts, dissolutions of same-sex marriages would be just like dissolutions of opposite-sex marriages and would be handled in the same courts. States that with statutes or constitutional provisions saying same-sex marriages are not "recognized" in the state certainly won't grant same-sex divorces. Since divorce is a creature of statute and since divorce statutes are often part of the marriage statute, courts will likely say they don't have jurisdiction to grant divorces to same-sex couples. That is what happened in Rhode Island. Chambers v. Ormiston, 935 A.2d 956 (R.I. 2007). -Rrius (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Having been involved in the litigation of a couple gay divorces (as the lawyer, not the spouse, oy), I can say that there's more than enough information out there for articles on Same-sex divorce in Massachusetts and Same-sex divorce generally. There's case law and commentary on child custody issues specific to LGBT parents, federal tax issues (the IRS, as a federal agency, does not recognize same-sex marriages in MA), difficulties in separating 401(k)s and other retirement plans (again, ERISA and the IRS don't recognize same-sex marriages), whether courts will recognize a couple that has been together for 20 years but only married since Goodridge as a "long term marriage", plus all the cross-state issues others have mentioned above. Fireplace (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I created a stub article on same-sex divorce. Feel free to add to it.--agr (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed text

I have removed this text from the article:

Another argument in favor of traditional marriage is that it reflects the biological imperative and construct between males and females; that despite the natural desire to procreate, there is also a biological desire to mate with the opposite gender. Hence the fundamental differences between males and females as seen as natural as the XX chromosomes of the female, and the XY chromosomes of the male, are reflected in the social structure of traditional marriage; and such exists such independently of religion or social prejudice. <ref>http://www.marriage.org.au/re_entering_the_circle_of_life.htm</ref>

because, per WP:BURDEN, "[t]he burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation[.]" The reference given is not from a reliable source (as has been pointed out in edit summaries, the home page is currently an advertisement for a hosting company, and this is some random self-published page off the site), and if we ignore the reference, then it is not appropriate to include at all, because all claims must be verifiable.

If someone actually makes this argument, cite their writings in a reliable, published source and it will be included. Until then, it shouldn't be. — confusionball (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi confusionball. I have heard this argued many times, sometimes with different terminology, but always the same argument from many people. It would have been preferable to find a source rather than simply removing the text. In any case, I would ask that you restore it with the following sources: http://media.www.ramcigar.com/media/storage/paper366/news/2004/03/17/Editorialopinion/Gay-Marriage.Is.Unnatural-634712.shtml, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3108349.stm (see unnatural). The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I should make clear (since it's not clear above) that this was actually a reversion of an attempt to add this text to the article, not extant text that I removed — although I would have done that as well. Anyway, you may have heard this argument before because it is policy (WP:V). I don't believe it is too much to ask that all claims made, especially over such a contentious issue as this, be supplied with references. (Of course, this article still has a way to go in that area.) Regardless, this text was indeed added after an editor attached a real reference to it. Cheers! — confusionball (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Norway

In one week, June 11th, a bill that recognizes same-sex marriages in Norway is expected to be passed. These are the changes made to the current law:

Marriages between two persons of the same sex will be recognized

The state church will be given the right, but not be required to marry two persons of the same sex.

The civil unions law will be removed, and it will be possible but not necessary to change registered civil unions to marriages.

Same-sex spouses will be given the same right to be evaluated as adoptive parents as other spouses.

Lesbian couples who are married or living together under marriage-like circumstances will be given the same right to be evaluated for artificial insemination as heterosexual couples.

However, the law is expected to first be in effect from 2009. Should the information be added after the bill has been passed or after the law is in effect? Harepusbrenning (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)