Template talk:Same-sex unions

USA - too many states?

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)

• That's actually not true... DOMA was passed by congress and the Respect for Marriage Act was already proposed in Congress. Congress does have jurisdiction over state marriage laws because federal law overrules state law (Supremacy Clause). Prcc twenty-seven (talk)

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)

Not yet in effect

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

Religious Recognition

This template lists where same-sex marriages or similar unions are either performed or recognized by the state. I am aware that various religions perform same-sex weddings as part of their faith. Shall we create a new section on the template listing them?

Pros: 1. This directly relates to recognition of same-sex unions

2. It would be educational

3. It is involved in the legal debate as a federal lawsuit on religious freedom in North Carolina is being brought forward by the United Church of Christ and other ministers in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper http://www.ucc.org/news/free-religion-lawsuit-alliance-baptists-06052014.html http://www.freedomtomarry.org/litigation/entry/north-carolina

Cons: 1. May change the template, as there is currently a monopoly held on the template by legal issues in states, countries, and other sovereign states.

2. Certain denominations as a whole would definitely be listed, but confusion may ensue as many denominations (as a whole) that do not recognize/ bless same-sex unions have inside groups trying to change church policy and may independently perform them and bless them on their own without official denomination approval. The Reconciling Ministries Network within the United Methodist Church is one of many examples.

I think that if religious recognition is added, that these informal groups should not be included, for better or for worse. An alternative idea that is inclusive could involve creating a link that shows a list of informal religious sub-organizations that do bless unions, without full church support.

Note that since this template only includes places that recognize or perform unions, therefore listing churches that do recognize/ perform/bless same-sex unions not would not be necessary.

I also note that church changes on this subject are rare so it would not need frequent revisions, unlike pages like "Same-sex Marriage in the United States."

Proposed additions below:

Christian denominations

Episcopal Church

Friends General Conference (Quakers)

Metropolitan Community Churches

Unitarian Universalist Association

United Church of Christ

Unity

Source http://www.believeoutloud.com/background/christianity-and-lgbt-equality

Jewish Movements:

Reform

Reconstructionist

Conservative

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/07/religious-groups-official-positions-on-same-sex-marriage/

Note the above link iis from 2012, and there may be changes.

This is not a comprehensive list, as it is hard to research this topic, many religions exist, not all support, and some have no position or are in the midst of a debate. If anyone can improve this, please, go ahead and update it. I don't want to leave out religions that do affirm, for the sake of truth, inclusion, and political correctness. Please cite your source in any discussion.

I recognize this is a divisive idea to add this and I welcome respectful debate on this sensitive topic. The conditions following this apply:

1. Do not insult any religions mentioned

2. This is not a place to debate whether homosexuality should be religiously recognized, this is a debate over whether religions shall be included on the template that already bless same-sex unions.

I am aware that Wikipedia pages on this topic already exist, the question is whether to put it in the template or not.

Thank you all!

166.147.104.162 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have thoughts? I posted this about a month ago. Also, I'm not an editor, so I can't make the actual changes.98.253.175.243 (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I think it'd be much simpler to limit this template to geographic jurisdictions. With religious denominations, we'd have to track down which ones support equal marriage and to keep an eye on new announcements which often don't get the media attention of when a country legalizes it. If you want to try a template of such denominations, that could be a really nice way to track them. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that it would run into difficulties of scale - while we can obviously point to some big groups, there are a g-dzillion little groups and independent churches worldwide. We've been lucky on the political situation in that it has mostly been decided on the national level, rather than on the sub-national level. Not all of these groups are top-down; while Roman Catholicism may have a central planning point that makes the big policy decisions and overrides the local groups, other groups are more organizations of cooperative independents joined by common interests, where the group exists to do things that are useful in coordination, but doesn't so much dictate what the individual churches do. You point to Jewish movements, but while those movements may have groups within them that temples are commonly members of, not even all US temples that practice Conservative Judaism are part of United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. So we have questions of how granular we get, and how overwhelming this addition might be... and unlike political boundaries, one cannot quickly do a map summary. If this were to be done, there would have to be some practical limit (groups whose membership represent .1% or more of the world population, say) or organizational method in place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC) (Just to illustrate the complexity, I quote this from Conservative Judaism: "In December 2006, a responsum was adopted by the Committee that approved the ordination of gay and lesbian rabbis and permitted commitment ceremonies for lesbian and gay Jews (but not same-sex marriage), while maintaining the traditional prohibition against anal sex between men.[25] An opposing responsum, that maintained the traditional prohibitions against ordinations and commitment ceremonies, was also approved. Both responsa were enacted as majority opinions, with some members of the Committee voting for both.") --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Too Many States Revisited

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)

Coahuila

I don't know how the legislative process works in Mexican states, but according to this source, the law takes effect in one week. It is unclear whether the governor has signed it, nor if he even has to at all. In any case, he supports it (this source doesn't mention anything on a governor's signature). The state's Civil Code can be found here, which should be updated soon I suppose (for example, article 253 will be changed to "El matrimonio es la unión libre y con el pleno consentimiento de dos personas [...]"). SPQRobin (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this is the law, entering into force on the day following publication in the state's official gazette (see September). SPQRobin (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing Clutter

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)

Florida

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. 76.105.127.56 (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)

Adoption

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?98.253.175.243 (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)

Estonia

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)

Idaho

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. 50.167.191.11 (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. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2014

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

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 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)

Alaska

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

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2014

Please add Alaska to the list of states which allow same sex marriage Same-sex marriage in Alaska[AK] 107.2.70.190 (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

24.34.200.133 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Alaska has officially legalized same-sex marriage.

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

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2014

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 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Change list position of DC

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)

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)

Wording

Pedantic, but it should be "Previously performed *and* not invalidated". There is no contradiction. Or, maybe better, "Previously performed and still valid". 207.192.243.66 (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

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)

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. 207.192.243.66 (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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

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

71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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".

71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

Remove the star from Idaho. It's no longer not in effect. :) 8.12.99.4 (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)