Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States

Alaska stay denied - Same-sex marriage gets a green light from SCOTUS

The Court has refused to stay the district court's ruling. The state can now be painted dark blue. https://www.scribd.com/doc/243367900/Alaska-Marriage-Stay-Denied

Dated info in politicians/media figures section

I question the relevance of the Sarah Palin quote from 2008. Info about whether her runningmate John McCain, or subsequent prez/VP candidates Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan, support(ed) gay marriage is not included; why is Palin so important? Also, the quotes from Limbaugh/Beck are from like five years ago. No one even cares about Glenn Beck anymore. Can we not find any, more contemporary quotes from media figures? --SchutteGod (not logged in) 174.68.103.237 (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because "no one even cares about Glenn Beck anymore" does not mean he did not say this. He is a prime example of the attitude at the time. If we start making everything contemporary, then a lot of Wikipedia pages need to be updated when it comes to quotations. I agree on the McCain/Romney/Ryan inclusions, however, their statements are just as valid for inclusion as Palin's. And with the eye on WP:NPOV I say they should be included, so as not to just point the finger at Palin. Kumorifox (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of the section is to reflect attitudes of public figures "at the time"; it's to reflect attitudes that exist now. Sarah Palin while she was running for VP the better part of a decade ago isn't it. --SchutteGod (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Guam

Time to keep eyes on Guam. It looks like a court case is pending there. [1] Kumorifox (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Not only is the case not pending, it hasn't even been filed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Case filed, Aguero v. Calvo. [2] Kumorifox (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the Guam recognize SSM? Why it is light blue on the map?? M.Karelin (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Guam recognises, but does not perform, according to its statutes. It was discussed on the map's talk page. Kumorifox (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Then why in the article we have such a sentence: Three territories (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) do not have any law prohibiting or recognizing same-sex marriage.[d] Even with no prohibition, none of these territories license same-sex marriage or recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. It should be changed then. M.Karelin (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no good evidence that Guam recognizes marriages from other jurisdictions in fact. Reading and interpreting statutes is something courts do. Many states, starting with MA and VT, didn't mention sex in their statutes but still in practice only licensed and recognized opposite-sex marriages. Anyone have a source for what Guam actually does? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Second thought. I've just seen some interesting evidence. In the lawsuit filed today seeking a marriage license, the plaintiffs (in their statement of facts) say: "While Kate and Lo could travel thousands of miles to another state where same-sex marriage is recognized to get married, such travel would be costly...." There's no reason they would mention that if Guam didn't recognize marriages from other jurisdictions. There's no advantage in bringing it up unless they expect the defense to do say: "go get a license somewhere else". Here's their complaint. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand they say near the end of their brief: "GovGuam will incur little to no burden in allowing same-sex couples to marry and in recognizing the valid marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions on the same terms as different-sex couples". Which implies that Guam does not do so now. And they go one in their "prayer for relief" to ask the court to stop enforcement of any Guam laws that exclude same-sex couples from marriage or "bar recognition of valid marriage of same-sex couples entered into in another jurisdiction". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't get to that part. There was a reference in the map talk page discussion that suggested (but apparently did not prove) a same-sex couple was married in NY and was recognised as such. I must have misinterpreted that then. In that case, the map should be changed back, maybe even have Guam changed to red. Kumorifox (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If this is the discussion in question File_talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States.svg#Guam, I don't see anything about a NY couple. There's a ref to a story about the marriage license denial that mentions a couple married in Washington state, after which the reporter, citing no source, asserts that Guam recognizes SSMs from other jurisdictions. I didn't think it credible and today's lawsuit doesn't change that. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, meant WA, said NY by mistake. And in that case, the original story is clearly not credible and Guam should actually be coloured red. Kumorifox (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

And I think it's worth noting that the Associated Press version of the story about license denial reads like a rewrite of the story I cited above, but drops the line about recognition. here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done: Reliable sources report that the Guamanian attorney general ordered same-sex marriage licenses to be processed and issued effective immediately, and Guam has been added to the table and otherwise received the obligatory updates. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The reliable source cited says that the AG's order is not being followed. All reports say so. Once again, WP reports wishful thinking, rather than fact. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

All sources say the AG gave an order, but it is not being followed and the department of public health has said no. Also, until there are licenses licensed I do not think we should treat Guam as if its legal. Their governor is not backing the AG's order either. As of now it is not legal in Guam. Don't let the catchy news headlines fool you. The articles say otherwise. [3], [4], [5] Gabe (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the territory is not observing the AG's order, so it should not be listed as legal. As for the map, my mistake for initially bringing up making it medium blue; it should be medium red, as Guam falls under the 9th CoA, and therefore is prohibiting marriage contrary to Circuit precedent. Kumorifox (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We have to follow what reliable sources say. That being said, it looks like a lot of them have retreated from or are hedging on their initial reports last night, which were pretty unambiguous that same-sex marriage was declared legal in Guam. That was before the governor and the health official weighed in, and I don't know why the presumption on the part of the AP, BuzzFeed, USA Today, and other credible outlets with generally strong legal reporting was that the matter was closed, especially after the Alabama fiasco.

For now, I've hidden Guam's entry in the table and changed back the text elsewhere. If Guam signals that it will implement the attorney general's order, it can be readded, but I agree that if Guam won't move forward immediately or give a timetable for doing so, it should not be listed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

how has SSM become legal?

A proper answer to this question be:

In most states where SSM is legal, that has come as the result of a federal court decision. In x states, it's been because of a state court ruling. X states have legalized SSM by enacting legislation and X by popular referendum.

Please rewrite. I think this really gets complicated if u want to do it well. NJ for example was a governor's decision not to appeal a state court. Saying it was a state court decision really doesn't tell the story.

Saying just 3 by referenda as a standalone fact, underscored by "only", as one editor wants to do, is both inadequate and tendentious. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm the editor trying (in good faith) to include a statement about how many states have passed SSM laws solely on the results of popular referenda. I believe this is a salient and illuminating fact. I also appreciate your feedback about the two sentences as being tendentious (specifically the modifier "only"). Not my intent. Yours is the first feedback that makes sense. Most of the others have rejected the statement of fact (derived directly from the nearly adjacent table in the same article) as unsourced. Even though the paragraph immediately preceding my input is also unsourced. I referenced the source, and the article was still deleted.

The fact is, the three paragraphs preceding my input are all interpreting the very same table and summarizing a specific point in words. From a "parallelism" argument, that is all my input is doing. Is my summation as relevant as the others? I think so. The lead paragraph in the "State Law" section (the section we are discussing) reads as follows:

"Prior to 2004, same-sex marriage was not performed in any U.S. jurisdiction. It has since been legalized in different jurisdictions through legislation, court rulings,[31] tribal council rulings,[32] and popular vote in statewide referenda.[33][34]"

So the lead paragraph introduces the "contentious" element. My concluding entry is the only back-up in the entire section to that lead-in. My entry is congruent. Now to eliminate the contention, I propose the following (eliminating the offending "only"):

Three states have approved same-sex marriage by direct referendum: Maine, Maryland, and Washington. Maine is the only state to approve same-sex marriage without prior legislative enactment. Refer to table below.

Puuloa (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The section that this is being added to deals largely with the status of the law in states. It is unclear to me why this one method of getting the law in place (out of the four listed, three of which apply at the state level) needs a separate count solely for it, or why the specific order of events in Maine deserves some special call out here when there are many states where the specifics are unique. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, the lead paragraph specifically defines state referenda as source of law. My edit speaks directly to this introduction. Direct vote is a bedrock element of democratic process, arguably the most fundamental element. My edit reveals the status/utility of that process in the implementation of SSM. Can you provide any state with a unique condition in such a critical arena? Uniqueness is not the issue. AGAIN: the lead paragraph in the in the section specifically introduces state referenda. Until my edit, nothing was mentioned in reference to that lead-in element of the first paragraph. Why include it in the first paragraph if it does not apply? --Puuloa (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)