Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States

Overreferencing?

In the last section of the article, there are three links supporting the statement that Bush supports civil unions. After I fixed the mangled templates to view the articles, it appears that all three reference the same interview on Good Morning America. Since I am not a regular editor of this page or of related topics, I decided to just leave a note on the talk page pointing out that three links is probably overkill, and since this covers an event that happened over four years ago, these articles are not likely to disappear behind a pay firewall. Perhaps the regular editors can choose which of the three to retain, and jettison the other two as redundant. Horologium (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I added the three Bush reference links after I noticed Bush's name had repeatedly been removed by misguided editors. Yes, it's a kind of overkill, but for this politically charged issue I figured 3 reliable references might be enough to deter future edits of that kind; so far, it seems to have worked.Textorus (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

the effective date of CA's legalization of gay marriage is incorrect

on the right-hand side of the article, there is a separate box that talks about the types of gay marriages/unions/arrangements in different states/countries.

It says "United States (MA, CA eff. 6/14/2008)"

the effective date should be 5/14/2008, not 6/14/2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.114.88 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've been informed that it starts 30 days from now. i feel dumb :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.114.88 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Like here in Philippines whose laws and Rules of Court were borrowed from CA Rules of Federal Service, the edit here, must be vague for a layman. So, all decisions of court, here and CA are final after 30 days, if there is not appeal filed. So, the 4-3 ruling is split decision and many things can happen. It has no effect but mere euphoria for all those who were relieved or had respite of the tense legal status. - --Florentino floro (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So I added this:

Ruling not final until after 30 days and if there is not appeal or motion

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) 06:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of holding the number of same-sex couples in contrast with the ballot signatures? More people than just those in same-sex couples favor same-sex marriage. --Jfruh (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this Field poll, which would put a last nail to the coffin of those who oppose this ruling. I am wondering, why all these and reports would deal on ballot. Why don't they appeal the CA ruling to the USA S.C. Court, anyway, it is split judgment of 4-3. Like in the Money Laundering twin decisions the other day, the USA S.C. reversed the district court. 9-0 and 5-4, I added this here:[1].latimes.com, California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage A Field poll in late May, however reported that "51% of registered voters in the state favored the right of same-sex couples to marry, with 42 percent opposed.".nytimes.com, Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriages--Florentino floro (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Supporters and Opponents

I just removed the lists of supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage. In a comment above, it was noted that the lists were interesting. Even if they are, it is not clear that they are encyclopedic. A description of the types of organizations and people that take each side might have value as may a discussion which churches solemnize same-sex marriages. -Rrius (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

History of 2004 marriages

Am I missing it, or does this article completely ignore the actions of Portland OR and San Francisco city halls in solemnizing same-sex marriages in 2004? It seems like this is a crucial piece of the history of this subject. Msalt (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of Supporters and Opponents

I just reinstated the lists of supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage. I believe that they are both appropriate and encyclopedic. If anyone does not agree that these lists should be present (or thinks that there is an effective way to summarize them), let's discuss the issue rather than simply removing entire sections of the article.

SCBC (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing the section and putting a note on the talk page is a time-honored way of starting the discussion. Getting down to it, how exactly are the lists beneficial? They can never be exhaustive, so what criteria is used to pick who makes each list? Even if there is a point to the list, why shouldn't it be spun-out into a separate article? As it stands, the list is 45% of the article text. Some of these are essentially duplicative. How many (insert name of state) Family Policy Councils need to be mentioned? How many churches and groups with names of churches need to be included. Why is it not sufficient to state that many churches and religious organizations, such as A, B, and C, and public figures such as X, Y, and Z, oppose same-sex marriage. By the same token, the support paragraph need only say that gay rights and other civil rights and public figures support it. -Rrius (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the viewpoint that organizations like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association's support of SSM is notable, though I do not favor a seperate section for organizations that support/oppose SSM, because in the list style we have now, there is no consistent criteria for notability. Only the big names associated with changes in popular opinion/legislation should be included.

Furthermore, they need to be properly integrated into the article, the churches if there is a part explaining religious opposition to SSM, the medical organizations are pretty versatile if you take things from their rationale, and civil rights groups could be included in a section having to do with important court cases they were a part of. ⁽Дҭї₎ 04:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States --> Same-sex unions in the United States

I moved Same-sex marriage in the United States to Same-sex unions in the United States in that the article should touch an all topics of same-sex unions in the United States, and not just same sex-marriage. Other forms of same-sex unions include, Same-sex Civil Unions and Same-sex Domestic Partnerships. Please help and change any former statements that need to be updated to fit with the change. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this necessary? There are separate pages for Civil unions in the United States and Domestic partnership in the United States. Why should there not be a separate page for Same-sex marriage in the United States? Frankly, a move should have been discussed first for an article of this significance. -Rrius (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the page back to Same-sex marriage in the United States per Rrius. Дҭї 09:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i could not find those pages, but thank you for showing them to me... But there should still be a "Same-sex unions in the United States" article.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of "gay marriage" in the lead

Yesterday, the first sentence of the lead read as follows:

Same-sex marriage, also referred to as gay marriage, is a marriage between two persons of the same sex.

Cooljunio removed "also referred to as gay marriage" with the following edit summary:

removed " also referred to as gay marriage" ", it can also be reffered to a million others things. the press refers to it as Same-sex marriage

I restored the original citing the use of gay marriage in thousands of online news articles including those from mainstream papers. Cooljunio restored his edit saying, "Revert to previous version by ClueBot. Same-sex marriage article does not include the 'gay marriage' and 'gay marriage' does not fall under world view and nutrality."

The term "gay marriage" may not be considered politically correct by some. This is a bit odd to me because "gay rights" seems to pass without notice. In any event, "gay marriage" is used extensively in common conversation and debate, I would argue far more often than "same-sex marriage". As it is commonly used, including in impartial news sources, it should be included in the lead as an alternative name.

The fact that a term is not repeated in the article is not relevant. Many alternative names noted in leads across Wikipedia are not used in the rest of the article.

Moreover, the term is used in the article. It is used in the Wikinews box, the external references, and footnotes. It is also, I would imagine, used extensively in the articles and pages linked to from the footnotes.

To exclude the term, rather than including it, is POV of a certain political viewpoint. For these reasons, I am once again reverting the change. -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be "gay" to be in same-sex marriage, if two heterosexual men or two men who do not classify them selves with a sexual orientation were to merry it would not be a "gay" marriage, because they do not self-identify as "gay". Same-sex is the only name that is 100% certified to describe a marriage between to people of the same-sex. And if you include "also referred to as gay marriage", I will include 100s of other things that it's "also referred to as", such as man on man marriage, woman on woman marriage, anti-god marriage, the devils marriage, Greece style marriages, queer marriage, fag marriage, California style marriage. Because those statements do fall under your logic of "also referred to as". And like i said, the same-sex marriage article doesn't even say "gay marriage", it just says same-sex marriage.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize what I say. If you want to add "commonly" to the article, fine. If you want to write about how "gay marriage" is technically inaccurate, great. The fact is, however, "gay marriage" is an exceedingly common way of describing the union. Of course, any such new sections must be verified by reliable sources. Out in Middle America, "gay marriage" is the way it is described in normal speech. That the newspapers I mentioned in my edit summary use the phrase suggests that the usage is widespread. "Same-sex marriage" is more common among activists, academics, and people in the LGBT community. The fact that you and some others think "gay marriage" is politically incorrect or inaccurate is not what matters. What matters is that "gay marriage" is commonly used, if not more so than "same-sex marriage". Your counter examples do not work because none of those terms is a commonly used alternative to "same-sex marriage". They are strictly POV and intended to be pejorative. "Gay marriage" is generally used neutrally. Most people are not aware that anyone in the LGBT community is offended by it and are probably not aware of any other name for it. If you want to advocate the position that "gay marriage" is offensive, Wikipedia is not the place for it: it is an encyclopedia. -Rrius (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage recognized, but not performed

As the months go by and more and more states recognize same-sex unions, the idea of an accurate color-coded map is becoming trickier and trickier--perhaps impossible.

New York, New Hampshire and New Jersey are great examples, since, legally, they all "recognize" same-sex marriages, in one way or another, from other states. But, while New York recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages as full-fledged marriages, NH and NJ recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as civil unions.

I think the later should clearly be delineated, while the former may NOT need any illustration on the map. It is likely that most states with civil union statues, if there were legal issues or legislative changes, would recognize same-sex marriages as civil unions. Connecticut is an interesting example of what could happen, because their civil union law does not specifically recognize same-sex marriages, but they also have a statute (passed at the same time as the civil union law) that bans same-sex marriage.

Like I said, this is a VERY tricky thing to illustrate. At this point, it almost seems necessary to have a separate Wikipedia article for Same-Sex Unions in the Northeast, although it would still seem difficult to visually illustrate the complexity involved with recognition of same-sex unions. Things will be come more complex if the Illinois legislature passes their proposed civil union law (which seems likely either later this or next year), which would not only also be open to opposite-sex couples, but would also recognize gay marriages as civil unions.

As California shows, much of the progression of this involves layering over layering of new rights. Can it all really be added to the map?

Benrw 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's quite a job to effectively display all the piecemeal legislation for and against same-sex unions across 50 states, in a way that a reader can easily comprehend. Maybe the solution is to do what HRC has done on their website here and create separate maps, that could possibly display side by side on articles where they are needed.Textorus (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the initial comment about New York's recognition of foreign same-sex marriages not needing to be included, but the New Hampshire and New Jersey recognition of foreign same-sex marriages needing inclusion. New York's recognition is weird and worthy of mention. NJ and NH are what you would expect.

In any event, this discussion does not belong here; it belongs at Image talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. -Rrius (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

Resolved

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Stay denied" :
  • {{cite web |url=http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR31-08.PDF |title=California Supreme Court Denies Rehearing and Stay in Marriage Cases |date=2008-06-04 |accessdate=2008-06-04}}
  • In addition, a Field Poll conducted in late May reported that "51% of registered voters in the state favored the right of same-sex couples to marry, with 42% opposed.".<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/05stay.html?ref=us nytimes.com, Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriages]

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The second one was the result of a <ref name=...> with the "/" left out. I have fixed it. -Rrius (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Native American Tribes

While I believe the Cherokee nation baned same-sex marriage I heard recently that a smaller tribe of Native Americans legalized them. Does anyone know more about which tribe this was, whether it actually uses the word marriage for the unions, and what the ramifications of tribal sovereignty mean for federal recognition? 24.210.40.166 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gay marriage listings

I have started a discussion here, that needs more input, regarding removing the Coquille Indian Tribe (Oregon) as a place where marriage is legal. It is not a state, and is giving undue weight to the tribe, and regarding it on the same level as a state or country. Ctjf83Talk 23:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Constitution

The US constitution says states must give full faith & credit to each other's legal decisions. A natural interpretation of this would be that all states must recognize such marriages celebrated in any of them. I can't see any mention of this issue in the article. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See the Defense of Marriage Act. -Rrius (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good article. It should be summarized in this 1. Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut

Looks like it's time to add Connecticut as a state recognizing same-sex marriage: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27117467/ Kier07 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Religions and same-sex marriages

I'd like to know more about the practice of religious same-sex marriages in the USA. Civil weddings and religious weddings are two separate beasts, one might argue, and thus the religious nature of marriages ought to be examined. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This would be a place to start: Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches. It might be useful for someone to pull US-related info from it for this article or a sub-article, but I'm not volunteering. -Rrius (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8 effect dispute

This article claims that marriage in California ended on Nov. 4. But provides no certification from the state that this is the case. As of 2:55 p.m. California time, according to the NoOnProp8.com site: "Roughly 400,000 votes separate yes from no on Prop 8 – out of 10 million votes tallied. Based on turnout estimates reported yesterday, we expect that there are more than 3 million and possibly as many as 4 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted."[2] Also if it does pass - it will have to be put into law by state action - which has not yet happened. And if that does, it may be stayed by a lawsuit: http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/legal-groups-file-lawsuit.html

- Davodd (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The article claims that same sex marriage in California is legal yet clearly, both by the constitution and by the California Family Code, it is not, according to official sources:

(NOTE: See the recent ruling of the CA Supreme Court, which was apparently directed towards at least the latter of these two references.)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310

FAMILY CODE SECTION 300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman

SECTION 308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

You might argue that the recent CA Supreme Court decision affected one or both of these, but if so, why are they still in the code?

That, however, is the least of the two arguments, for check here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?waisdocid=82496212180+0+0+0&waisaction=retrieve

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This is a fairly straightforward answer to the argument that any gender requirements for marriage are unconstitutional in California, since, CLEARLY, the Constitution does in fact require that the parties claiming to be married be one mand and one woman - or however you prefer to word it.

Now it is being argued that this somehow denies some classes "equal rights", however, there is nothing here or, for that matter, in the previously cited sections of the California Family Code which denies anyone any right. Any eligible woman is free to marry any eligible man, any eligible man is free to marry any eligible woman. All persons have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT. Any argument to the contrary that is based on behavior or choice is disingenuous at best.

Furthermore, it is now clear, both in the California Constitution, and in the California Family Code as the state now presents these legal entities, that no union that involves other than one man and one woman is recognized or valid as a marriage in California. Again, word it however you prefer but these are the essential facts.

Finally, since California law clearly states that the legislature may not overturn the will of the people expressed through the initiative process, it is obvious that this same prohibition applies to the California Courts as well, though I wholly expect those courts to carelessly disregard this simple and obvious fact. I am relatively certain they will force this matter into the U.S. Supreme Court and in so doing they will only add to their atrocious record of being the most overturned courts in the U.S. if not also in the world.

66.75.8.208 (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8

The No on Proposition 8 people have conceded: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=93497470583

The New York Times [3], LA Times [4], and San Francisco Chronicle [5] are now reporting Prop 8's defeat as a fact. It seems that Wikipedia should do the same, with a note regarding when it will take effect. Can we remove the protection on this page, or does someone disagree? -- Beland (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not a concession, it's an acknowledgement of the failure of their campaign. Proposition proponents and opponents can't concede to the other party. Also, Propostion 8's success, not defeat, is a now a fact. This bare fact can be reported here, but it is still not written into state law nor has it taken effect. It's quite possible that the proposition will never have its intended effect. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it has already had its intended effect in many counties, including Los Angeles, San Diego, and even San Francisco, where licenses have already stopped being issued to same-sex couples. Gambit2392 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision is based on the Constitution

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. Reference: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18 (Jaschu (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaschu (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Legality

Same sex-marriage is not legal in California anymore, so change the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.231.149 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

See also: Same-sex marriage in California

It is legal, though it may not be in the near future, which is what you may be confused about. The picture will be changed when the constitution is changed. Occu͡pax (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage will remain legal as guaranteed by the California Constitution Article 1 Section 7b which reads: "(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens." http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 PaxPaladin (talk) 27:36, 12 November 2008