Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States

CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND SAME SEX MARRIAGE

First of all, in the United States, we all are suppose to have equal rights. That being true then the right to marry is the right of all persons without regard to gender or sexual orientation. It is not only a civil right but also a human right. However, there are those who wrongly think it is their right to take away rights from others and impose their religious beliefs upon others: before the 20th century it was blacks and women and of course Gay People notably the Oscar Wilde case. These thiefs of liberty always seem to claim tradition as a legitimate reason and try to back it by religious beliefs and more often than not these religious beliefs and traditions rest on unproven facts and fallacies.

In the United States; Church and State are separate but there are factions who are always trying to make them the same. In this light; Churches and religious groups in the United States should have no legal power to marry people irregardless of gender or sexual orientation. This should be a State matter in which a couple is legally married before a Justice of the Peace first. THEN if they want a Church wedding after being legally married may have a Church Wedding whether they are heterosexual or same sex couple if the Church allows. This is the way it is done in France and has worked well for some 200 years.

Most traditions often have no logical reason for existing and marriage ONLY between heterosexuals is just one of them. Such traditions are often both ethically and morally wrong because among other things they involve discriminatory practices: engaging in and keeping slaves; denying women thier right to an education as well as black people supposedly either because they are suppose to be the weaker sex or they are suppose to be an inferior race. The list goes on an on and none of these traditions have any good reason to exist or justify the customs that they impose.

There is no logical reason in Civil Law to deny the Equal Rights to Gay People. The opponents will cite the religious dogma that Marriage is for the purpose of creating stable enviroment to raise and have children in and since Adam and Steve can not biologically have children then they should not be able to enjoy the benefits of Marriage. Such is the view of the Roman Catholic Church which is a fallacy.  There are many heterosexual couples who do not get married for the purpose of having children, many do not want them and others want them but can not have them and are thus the same situation also exists among gay couples.  Also gay couple can adopt children or through the miracles of modern reproductive biology can have their own biological children and gay people can form just as stable if not more stable relationships than heterosexuals if not at least equal. Some have been together for more than 40 years. Marriage should be a choice and an option opened for both heterosexual and same sex couples.

Despite the ignorance of many people on gay marriage (who seem to think it is some sort of an attempt at Social revolution); it has always existed throughout Western Society. After the fall of Rome; the Roman Catholic Church sanctioned same sex marriages and had a liturgy for it. In other societies also same sex marriages have occured in all cultures. Julius Caesar was married to Augustus Caesar and also adopted him as his son. In ancient Greece; marriages between same sexes existed.

If gay marriage were made legal throughout the United States the world would go on as it always has. The objectors are the same folks who in the South beat up and arrested mixed race married couples in the South during the segregation era. They are the same mean spirited people who objected to women advancing themselves et al. These are the same people who between 1860 to 1961 went to Church on Sunday and prayed to God and then came home and lynched black people. They are the people who hypocritically wear their religion on their sleeves.

Why should gay marriage be allowed or even better why should heterosexual marriage be allowed? The answer lies in the equal rights amendment. It will allow gay people to enjoy the same rights and priviledges that heterosexuals enjoy and take for granite. Despite what the opponents say; children of gay people often come out better as adults than heterosexual couples. Gay couples often have firmer and more stable relationships than apparently heterosexuals because heterosexuals are under the pressures to get married by the 30s.

As this is being written the Bush administration, one of the most worst,shameful and disgraceful Presidencies that the US has witnessed since the days of Andrew Jackson, is trying to get an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage and making second class citizens of gay people. This movement is lead by the traditionalist school of one man and one woman and the Christian religious fundamentalists who brainlessly follow the Bible unthinkingly. Their entire movement reeks of Nazism and Fascism; yet they have the nerve to criticize the Islamic Taliban groups as barbaric. It has not occured to them that they are just as bigoted and barbaric. Their behavior against gay people recalls the days when Reichstag passed similar laws when Hitler came to power which not only sent Jews to the Ovens but also gay people and other minorities. Today throughout Europe and in Germany; it is a condition of the EU to accept fully the equal rights of gay people. Why is it that the United States seems so Socially backward and narrow minded??? User: Ludwig 6 June 2006.

Page is Getting Big

We're getting up near 32k now -- does anyone have any thoughts about breaking the page up at all? - Ray Radlein 24 March 2004

--solution-- State Articles

It appears that the article is getting very long. How about having indiviidual state articles? (At least for prominant states on the issue) Simply pad it out, explaining the state constitution, court rulings, individual examples etc. I'd be willing to help out. --OldakQuill 06:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Moved this up under my original page-length section:--Ray Radlein 06:46, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

In a nod to the effectiveness of Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts ... methinks the time has come to create Same-sex marriage in California and possibly Same-sex marriage in New York articles to thin this beast down. - Davodd 18:39, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Religion and Gay Marriage IT often seems that the objectors of gay marriage and gay people always want to bring religion into the matter. Most of these people who are Christian do not know the Bible as they claim that they do. They do not speak or understand the languages of the Bible and if their mother tongue is English wrongly think that they Bible was always in English. They seem to think that what they read is the original Bible of which there is not original Bible. The opponents/objectors often belong to Churches with a non-central Government and anyone can be a Pastor without any seminary traning or education at all: such as the Southern Baptist Church in the United States which has a tendency to have their beliefs (which would be canon laws in other Christian Churches) made into State Laws which they do subtly and under the separation of Church and State Clause is illegal and an abuse of Church and State relations.

However, the Bible says absolutely nothing against gay people and nothing about gay marriage especially when the science of linquistics is applied--word usage and meanings change over time (for instance in 1940 the word gay was an adjective describing someone who was overjoyed but in 1960 it came to mean a person whose sexual preference was their own gender. To understand what is being said we must not only count the words and examine if they mean the same thing in other passages.

The famous Leviticus passage is not about gay people but one of the laws of purity and the other OT passages are about hospitality. (We have similar passages in Genesis about marrying foreign women. If Adam and Eve and thier children were the only people in the world at that time --how could they be foreign women?) Christians are not beholden to them by reason of the Council of Jerusalem which was called by James Brother of Jesus. However, it says that slavery is ok (when according to modern morals is not) and other immoralities are ok and sanctioned (to get married in Solomon---one must go out and beat up 100 men, circumsize them and bring their foreskins to the father in law to be for example). The New Testament says nothing against gay people and certainly Jesus did not. The Apostle Paul (who was very sexually repressed) did warn heterosexuals from engaging in sexual activities that are against the heterosexual nature which were common in the temples of Venus and Aphrodite of the time in which sacred harlots worked and sex was part of the religious ritual. In Christianity, the banned against gay people goes back to Emperor Constantine's wife who developed a particular dislike of gay men--probally because they would not have sex with her. Constantine's wife was known for her orgies which involved having every body orfice of her body sexually penetrated.

Only the most extreame Jews these days follow the laws of purity. Jews study the texts and have a long history of their meanings which Christians do not. Again there is nothing against gay people in the Bible. (user Ludwig 6 June 2006)

Arrgh

Next time I'm present at an historical event, I will remember to bring a bloody camera, so I can take some pictures for the 'pedia. Sigh. Tualha 15:15, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are congratulations in order? :) - UtherSRG 15:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Didn't notice this until now - no, I was just a spectator and cheerer-on. Thanks for asking though :) Tualha (Talk) 04:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Pics

Hey, Tualha, I have you covered. I got a couple while I was there. And , yes, that marriage license is mine. ;-) Davodd 01:20, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations to the happy couple! - jredmond 21:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New York

I removed the link to Donald Williams, the DA who is pressing charges against Mayor Jason West, because there is a former astronaut of the same name who just got an entry, and I don't think that the DA really rates a disambiguation page to distinguish him from the astronaut. Reasonable? - Ray Radlein 04 Mar 2004

Oregon

Hey, Davodd, did you mean to make the section heading for Oregon into a reference link? - Ray Radlein 03 Mar 2004

Nope. Davodd 18:37, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove the link, then. - Ray Radlein 03 Mar 2004

Hawaii

This item has been bugging me ever since the Massachusetts' supreme Court ruling: wasn't Hawaii the first state to recognize same-sex marriages? ISTR some hullabaloo in the news years ago -- previous to Vermont's civil union law. But according to a chance mention above, it was a proposed law that failed to pass.

I'd appreciate a discussion of this in the article from someone who knows the details. I'm sure there are a number of people like me who vaguely remember hearing something about it. -- llywrch 17:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. In 1996 Hawaii voters amended their state constitution, allowing the state legislature to bypass protections against sex discrimination and to be able to define marriage as "one man and one woman." The state now has a system called "reciprocal beneficiaries." Not marriage. Davodd 18:36, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

You're probably right (I'm quoting from memory, & I wouldn't dare contribute to Wikipedia from such an unreliable source) but what I'm thinking about happened within the last 5 years, & should be in the article -- even if to correct faulty memories like mine. And didn't Hawaii's action contribute to the enactment of the DOMA law? -- llywrch 20:37, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IIRC Alaska had a similar situation - there was a state Supreme Court decision against heterosexual-only marriage laws, and the state Constitution was amended to "fix" that. Hawaii was first, though, and IIRC that did prompt DOMA. Whether Alaska was involved in the debate or not, though, Hawaii should at least receive mention. - jredmond 21:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Hawaii was long thought the state most-likely to be first to recognize same-sex marriage in the mid-1990s, which resulted in DOMA being passed. That controversy is essential to the topic on this page.

By the way, this page is getting so long and convoluted (like a patch-work quilt), it is in need of a major overhaul for cohesive clarity. Davodd 21:44, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe these are of interest:

Hawaii court findings

Alaska court findings

Listing of SSM status around the world (US states listed at the end)

(warning, this site is rather POV (ie. pro-marriage))

-- Kimiko 22:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Popularity contest

According to: This link
The Same-sex marriage in the United States page was the #106 most-read WP page in February 2004 -- with 5,280 hits.

How many of those are all of us re-re-re-editing it to keep up with the changing news? :-) - Ray Radlein 04 Mar 2004

makes me busy updating the version in Chinese. ;p --Yacht 17:33, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Canada

y Canada is here? --Yacht 03:55, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

That has been bothering me, too. I believe it is an arifact fromthe days when not much was going on in the U.S. Davodd 18:57, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Also, the presence of legal gay marriage in Canada has been a significant factor in public perception in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest; many of the couples getting married, or agititating for it, in Oregon, Washington, the Bay Area, and upstate New York have been making calculations about whether to go to Canada or to stay home (immigration and naturalization concerns vis-a-vis Canada and the US are also a factor for some couples). Ray Radlein 11 Mar 2004

Yes, there is a separate Canada article, this paragraph seems to be about the impact that the Canadian situation had on the US. Mark Richards 00:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, the pic should be updated now that Canada has gay marriage nationwide. Nifboy 09:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

&mdash

What's this: "and sue the state in Monmouth County Superior Court to have the licenses &mdash along with the one marriage which was actually performed &mdash declared valid"? (in section New Jersey). :O --Yacht 02:39, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

The Asbury Park City Council voted to freeze all pending licenses and to sue the state (etc.) Think I'd better start cleaning that sentence. - jredmond 02:49, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

It should be "and sue the state in Monmouth County Superior Court to have the licenses — along with the one marriage which was actually performed — declared valid"

Which reads as:

"and sue the state in Monmouth County Superior Court to have the licenses — along with the one marriage which was actually performed — declared valid"

The purpose of the em dash, as it is called, is explaind here.

Acegikmo1 03:00, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Uh, thanks for fixing my faulty em dashes, Acegikmo1.  :) That paragraph still needs work, though. - jredmond

oh, i have to modify what i have translated. thanks guys. ;) --Yacht 04:15, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Source for Multnomah County Update

Sunday Oregonian, 28 March 2004, had an article in the Metro section, "Gay Marriage: who did, didn't and why" by Laura Gunderson. (For some reason, there's no online version of the article.) I believe it adds some material that explains the human side of the issue. -- llywrch 18:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removal of spurious "arguments"

The previous three edits after 10:13, Mar 31, 2004 are REALLY borderline edits. First, not all the local government rulings have been ruled in a court of law to be a violation of the law. Second, citing the spurious arguments put forward by the Federal Marriage Amendment advocates by simply couching it as "some people say" is no different than quoting the flat-earthers manifesto and couching it as "some say". I could easily start posting GLBT literature sources and couch it as "some people say" as well and the endless ensuing spiral would render the topic nothing more than a flame war between opposing camps.

Should we start listing the litany of hate-speech and "points" raised by people such as Fred Phelps here as well but then couch it in the subterfuge of "some people say" and also link to PDFs of arguments from www.godhatesfags.com ...?

Lestatdelc 06:31, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Rearrange

The layout of this article (mainly the position of the pics) looks terrible. anyone has any idea how to improve that, or rearrange the pics? --Yacht (talk) 15:40, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Future of this??

What is the most probable future of same-sex marriage, several decades from now?? Georgia guy 22:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I say it's the new civil rights movement: in twenty years it will be legal in almost every state. Czolgolz 13:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The discussion is interesting, but I don't think it belongs here.Emmett5 03:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Marriage status maps

I notice and interesting thing, the map of the US showing the legal status of SSM in each state seems to carry an inherent bias. States with 1M/1W by constitution are bright green, as if for "home free". 1M/1W by legislation are a less comforting green, as in going the right way but still not totally safe. States with civil unions are ornage - think increasing danger. And Mass is Red for Danger. Contrast this to the similar map of Canada where the colours don't convey any obvious symbolic opinion about the import of whether or not a jurisdiction has gay marriage, it just indicates. I consider the very perceivable colour symbolism of the US map to be an unfortunate taint to the principle of neutrality. Someone might want to think of revisiting this.

--Steve D 00:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like it the way it is. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it. I like the new version much better because it lacks any colour symbolism that could undermine the Wikipedia principle of neutrality. The two blues are hard to distinguish, though, that's the only thing. It would be better if they contrasted more. --Steve D 00:38, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC-7)

State bans

I see there is a section on how voters voted in various states to ban same-sex marriage. This article is getting really large, maybe this section can be spun off into its own article? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 7 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Other problems: The chart is wrong with respect to Maryland. For decades Maryland has legislatively defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Additionally, laws that are not passed should not be listed as support. Again, the laws with respect to Maryland are incorrect. I do not know how many other states info is also incorrect. --Noitall

Furthermore, I've looked around a little on other pages on the issue on the internet, and from what I've seen, the table of bans is incomplete and factually wrong... and not up-to-date, either. (There are about a dozen more bans pending voter approval, for instance; and in Hawaii, there has been some sort of ban before the introduction of domestic partnerships.) I don't really feel as if I actually know enough about what's correct and what's not (some of the pages I've found directly contradict each other), so I'm posting this as a request for someone with more certain information to rework the section on bans. Nightstallion 07:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The data used to make the table of bans is from CNN.COM and there is nothing wrong with the numbers. Hope that helps. And on Hawaii I belive you are right, there was some type of ban, although CNN.COM's archives do not go past 2000, I was unable to locate the additional data so I have not included it. 70.57.82.114 22:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

On the second point. Yes, there are some pending bans awaiting voter approval, I will add them as my time permits. 70.57.82.114 22:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Charts

We do not need another column to state the obvious, you can see whether a ban passed or failed just buy glancing at the numbers. 67.41.236.211 00:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

A chart should make things clear and neat and informative, and my edit does all the above. Making the reader figure it out does not help anyone. In addition, your argument implies a real POV. --Noitall 00:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The new column is redundant, its states a second time information already there. I think you did it to stress a POV, mainly the no same-sex union view as you did not bother repeating the information when legislation is passed against your POV. Globeism 00:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. Let's not be a reactionary reverter here. I modified 2 charts. On chart #1, I accept your modification. Chart #2 seems pretty good to me. Make a modification if you think you can improve it. But don't be a reactionary reverter. --Noitall 00:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it looks pretty good right now. Nice edits. --Noitall 05:36, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Maps

We have a nice map of where same-sex marriages and civil unions are recognized. It would be nice to have a similar map where various bans against these things have been enacted. -- Beland 23:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I found one and added. -- Beland 03:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Civil unions vs. Mass. marriages

Quoth the article:

"Outside of Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is now legal, Vermont, California, New Jersey, District of Columbia and Connecticut are the only U.S. states to offer same-sex couples all of the state-level rights and benefits of heterosexual couples. They do not use the word "marriage", however, but call such unions civil unions and domestic partnerships. These arrangements do not, however, provide the federal-level rights, benefits and protections that come with a civil marriage license, nor will they necessarily be recognized in States that have no such laws."

Don't all the caveats in the third sentence apply to Mass. gay marraiges too, though, what with DOMA? Is there really any practical difference between a same-sex Mass. marriage and a Vt. civil union or a California domestic partnership other than the name? --Jfruh 04:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

DC legislature

Just picking a nit, but the chart on state legislative action has same-sex union legislation passing in both the senate and lower house of the DC legislature, which has no such things (DC's legislature is a unicameral body). Not sure of the easiest way to illustrate this in the chart. --Jfruh 05:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Mention of the Ku Klux Klan

The KKK is a very loosely based hate group, so it does not seem apparent to me that their political views would matter or should be taken seriously. Even though I think much the same thing about other groups listed along with them in that paragraph, I feel that the KKK should be removed. Any objections? Gilliamjf 21:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That's right- there is no monolithic KKK anymore. It is a set of splinter groups. However the broader point of opposition from far-right groups might be added in a more general, less inflammatory, fashion. -Willmcw 22:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a valuable piece of information that demonstrates the view of the very extreme right. People can interpret the KKK's endorsement however they wish. I don't think this needs to be changed. --LakeHMM 08:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture update

Hey, could someone with the appropriate tools update this picture on the Commons? I believe Kansas, Texas and Alaska have also passed constitutional amendments to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages. FoekeNoppert 14:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the local version to the article. Oddly enough, it has a completely different legend and information than the Commons version, and it also seems wrong. -- Beland 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Verify

There are also several fringe groups which hope to legalize same-sex marriage as they believe that this would give more credibility to their own situations. These groups include some polygamists who seek recognition for their own marriages, as well as several advocates of pedophilia such as NAMBLA. These groups are widely denounced by the more mainstream supporters of same-sex marriage.

I visited the NAMBLA web site and it does not mention same-sex marriage. The newspaper articles I found concerning polygamist remarked that they were using legal arguments similar to those found in gay rights battles. However; it did not say that they supported same-sex marriage. In fact the FLDS, the largest American polygamist clan opposes same-sex marriage. Can someone verify the above statement? Until then I have removed it. 70.57.93.147 07:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I quickly checked around on the web and couldn't find any source for it either. BTW, always use the summary to explain the edit when deleting material. Otherwise it appears to be vandalism. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It was original research - or non-NPOV, which is not the wiki way. Davodd 14:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Cherokee update

Their high court says it won't invaldiate gay marriage: [1]. And if the link expires, here's the gist: The top court of the Cherokee Nation has declined to strike down a gay marriage in what is seen as a pioneering case in American Indian country, the couple and officials said on Wednesday.

Cherokee tribal members Kathy Reynolds, 29, and Dawn McKinley, 34, married in May 2004 in Oklahoma....Because tribal law at the time allowed same-sex marriages, a tribal clerk gave them a wedding certificate. But members in the Tribal Council sued, saying the marriage would damage the reputation of the Cherokees, and the law was later changed.

In a December 22 decision announced on Wednesday, the Judicial Appeals Tribunal of the Cherokee Nation, the tribe's highest court in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, rejected the request for an injunction against the marriage.

Washington Court Case

What is the update on the State Supreme Court case on gay marriage? tdwuhs

There is no update... the arguments were heard before the Court in March of 2005, but they haven't issued a decision as of 2/8/06. kdogg36 01:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey

With the State Supreme Court considering a gay marriage case shouldn't the article be updated? tdwuhs

Puerto Rico?

Anyone see anything wrong w/ adding a Puerto Rico section? They past a DOMA in 1998.

Extended list of parties?

Why was the extended list of parties removed as supporters of same-sex marriage? They were all cited. I can't see how reducing the amount of information is somehow helpful.

Mountain states.

I moved the reference to the mountain states back to where it belongs. Nevada, Utah, and Montana already have a Constitutional Amendment. Idaho, Arizona and Colorado have laws preventing same sex marriage. Idaho is on the verge of passing a Constitutional Amendment. Only Wyoming doesn't have either. Claiming that residents of these states generally support same sex marriage is clearly wrong.

Most states don't support same-sex marriage but many do have significant populations that support other measures equal to marriage. )(note its extending the protections of civil marriage not itself) The mountain states only had roughly 67 to 66 percent vote in favor of amendments while the south had as high as 86%. In the south no powerful elected leaders have supported same-sex marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or reciprocal beneficiary. Utah's governor supports reciprocal benefits, Salt Lake City's mayor supports same-sex marriage, Colorado's legislature is putting a domestic partnerhip question on the ballot, legislators in Arizona and Montana have introduced bills allowing domestic partnerships (which have failed). New Mexico's governor supports civil unions. Even the most conservative mountain state groups like Focus on the Family support reciprocal benefits. Idaho even defeated an attempt to pass an amendment in their legislature. The mountain states are no south. Yes. They vote Republican generally, but its much more libertarian, especially on gay rights, than the authoritative south. 144.35.254.12 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is about same-sex MARRIAGE, not civil unions. The statement would make sense on that Wiki article, not this one. If the people, in a popular vote, enact a Constitutional Amendment and/or a law, that would be a pretty good indicator if the populace "generally" supports a given issue. It should be reverted back to how it was. Idaho's DOMA will go to the voters in November ([[2]]) and it is likely to pass.

This article was merged with an article called "legal recongition of same-sex couples in the United States". The article does, indeed, encompass civil union, reciprocal benefits, domestic partnership, and same-sex marriage. And I agree about the vote point. For example Utah supported an amendment with 66% voting yes to ban the recognition of same-sex marriage; however the Salt Lake Tribune and LDS owned Deseret News (both daily newspapers) found in a poll they ran that most Utahns also support reciprocal benefits that would offer some of the protections of civil marriage which is why the governor does. While in the south the story remains much more simple with vast majorities against same-sex marriage and civil union, reciprocal benefits, and domestic partnership. That is why I am against the grouping. 71.213.46.53 18:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First, the article is NOT about reciprocal benefits. Secondly, there is a seperate Wiki article devoted to civil unions. Finally, I am not suggesting we group the mountain states w/ the southern ones. I am suggesting that if we mention anything about the mountain states and civil unions, there better be a reference to the fact that nearly everyone of them has specifically banned same-sex marriage; either by law or an Amendment. To do otherwise would be to have the article incomplete, inaccurate, and, possibly, an ommission based upon POV.

Reducing length

Once again, my edits have been reverted. I'll go through each change one step at a time and explain the reason for the deletion. The "Laws defining marriage" section is almost entirely repeated material (see Timeline section) or is nicely summarized in the table directly below it. I certainly think its not necessary to repeat information twice in the same article (especially one that is too long already). I therefore deleted all repeated information and moved non-repeated information to the appropriate section.SSouthern 23:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Groups opposing

I made an edit which I know will be controversial to some, which is why I'm discussing it here on the Talk page. I noted that the Republican Party was listed as one of the groups opposing same-sex marriage (I got here doing disambiguations) and of course this is true. However, it is just as true that the Democratic Party does as well (in fact, read Section 2 of this very article). In the interests of NPOV, both should be here, or neither, as, vis-à-vis legal recognition of same-sex marriage, the two parties' platforms are essentially the same. --Deville (Talk) 05:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[3] page 38 of the national platform clearly states that the party supports equal marriage rights for gay couples that are not called marriage and that marriage itself should be defined on a state level. it takes no position on marriage. it allows the states to decide that. it does support civil union

External links too long

List is too long and is close to becoming a "me-too" repository of links WP:NOT. It should be broken off into a List of groups advocating or opposing same-sex marriage or junked entirely as being a repository of links and counter to WP policy. - Davodd 19:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church, etc.

I moved the Westboro Baptist Church back to the sentence regarding extremist groups. If we are going to even mention them, the belong there. Doesn't the SPLC consider them as such? Grouping them in with mainstream religious organizations is wrong and likely POV.

Stuff that was at the top

Inasmuch as same-sex marriage is now legal in Massachusetts, someone should update this article. Someone better-informed than me, though. AJD 04:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks like Montrealais has taken care of that already --Ray Radlein 06:49, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

I think this title is somewhat misleading, since the US has not got same-sex marriage (yet). May I suggest Same-sex marriage debate in the US or the like? - Montrealais

I understand your suggestion, but I think that the topic is explained fairly well in the first sentence which says "Same-sex marriage is not currently legally available in the US" or something to that effect. I would leave it as is for now. - Jiminnyc

---

The way the following sentence is phrased makes it sound like DOMA is stupid: the thing it seeks to circumvent doesn't exist, so what's it for?

In 1996, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law; it allows U.S. states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other U.S. states (although no state currently offers same-sex marriage as an option) or other countries.

I would like to rewrite this sentence and/or provide some context which explains the act's purpose. Hawaii came close to legalizing same-sex marriage, and I think DOMA was a respones to that (kind of a "head them off at the pass" thing). Also, there's fear among conservatives that Vermont's civil union thing might evolve into same-sex marriage. The point is, the other states didn't want legalization of same-sex marriage in another state to automatically legitimize it in their own state. Am I making this clear enough? --Uncle Ed 13:33 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Seems to me that it is simple and accurate as it stands. --Tb 23:41 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Does any one have enough info on California and AB 205 to write something up on it? I'm in NYC and not too clear on the whole thing and the debate around it, so I can't do it myself. Any volunteer-type-people? Paige 16:37, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's sad that there are a lot of idiots out there vandalizing this article. Kudos to the serious wikipedians who keep on top of it to undo those vandalisms.

---

Fifth Amendment

I see someone added Fifth Amendment to the notion of due process in the Lawrence v. Texas. This really doesn't seem like a Fifth Amendment to me, but IANAL so I could be convinced otherwise. I will revert it for now.--Deville (Talk) 05:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a way late response to you, but since nobody has answered: the US supreme court has ruled that the Fifth Amendment, which makes it unconstitutional for someone to "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", by extension means that a person cannot be compelled to testify against his or her spouse. So, I suppose, the question is, since the 5th is a federal constitutional statue, can someone married in Mass. be compelled to testify against his or her same-sex spouse? And if so, does that right extend also to those in non-marriage partnerships (of the same or opposite sexes) in those states that offer them? --Jfruh (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The state of Alabama recently passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, and refusing to acknowledge same-sex marriages from other states. Therefore, I believe in Alabama it could happen under the law as it stands currently, but not before a run straight up to the Supreme Court first. --EazieCheeze 19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Groups for/against

Hi all, I was rereading the intro due to some recent edits, and it strikes me that as things stand now, the intro is a bit long with all of these groups for and against gay marriage. Also, in my opinion there are some weird choices as to which are included and may even be a bit POV. For example, Coretta Scott King and Tom Menino? Moreover, there seems to ave been some recent debate amongst editors about which should be included.

Now, I'm not suggesting that this information be removed, but I do think it shouldn't be in the introduction. The introduction is there to give a concise overview of the subject of the article. Anyway, I'm willing to do the work myself, but I didn't want to make such a massive change to the article without getting peoples' input? Anyone have any thoughts? --Deville (Talk) 12:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't belong in the intro; if even in the article. It has been a battlefild of POV edits since the page started. It's an ever changing laundry list of who is for or again the issue and doesn't really add anything substantial to the text. Maybe move it down or dump it all together.

Looks like it's gone now. Anyone know why? I concur w/ the above though. It didn't add much to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.216.252 (talk • contribs)

Well, I finally moved it about a month ago, and it looks like it's bounced around a bit in the meantime, and can now be found here: Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Groups_supporting_and_opposing_gay_marriage. I think it's better now --Deville (Talk) 03:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Washington

Any word yet from the court case? tdwuhs

News changes, Georiga ban struck down (16 May 2006) --> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/16/georgia.gay.marriage.ap/index.html

It's being appealed.

Link

The link to "A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage" only goes to Andrew Sullivan's main page, not the specific commentary itself.

It used to go straight to it. May have been moved. Anyone have an updated link?

MPA

Can anyone provide updated info regarding the Marriage Protection Amendment? It's being voted on next week.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.216.252 (talk • contribs)

The REAL "gay agenda" here from a gay man.

When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences. One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.27.68 (talk • contribs)

Please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Come on...

Something has to be said about how this is an issue brought up only by social conservatives in even numbered years, if you know what I mean.

I know that many mainstream journalists have commented to this effect. It would be entirely appropriate to mention this somewhere under "The Debate" heading, but definitely provide citations. kdogg36 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Utah amendment details

I added some more details regarding the Utah amendment. Specifically, the wording of the amendment and a possible reason why only 66% were for the amendment instead of more in such a conservative state.

FMA Vote Neutrality

Quote: "On May 18 2006, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit states to recognize same-sex marriages. The measure passed by a party line vote. The measure was debated by the full United States Senate, but defeated in a 49-48 vote on June 7, 2006 [1]."

Wouldn't it be more accurate (and neutral) to post the actual vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rather than the fact that it was along party lines? --Tim4christ17 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence to be more specific (it was slightly confusing at the time). However, I don't see why you think it is not neutral to describe the vote as "along party lines". If this is correct (I've not checked it), then it is a simple fact. It is also relevant, in the sense that same-sex marriage is currently a political football in the U.S. Simply giving the vote tally would contain less information than what we have now.--Deville (Talk) 17:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is factual...my concerns are that a.) People may not know how many members from each party are on the committee, and b.) If we are going to point out that that vote was along party lines, why isn't it pointed out that the vote in the whole senate wasn't along party lines? Making the statement about only one of the two votes seems to imply that the other one was also along party lines. --Tim4christ17 08:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no problem with saying that the vote was not along party lines in the full Senate and that Republicans crossed the aisle to vote against it, or whatever you think is good. I didn't think about putting it in there now because it's pretty clear that if something fails in the full Senate, it's not possible for all Republicans to have voted for it since they have the majority. I do think that it makes sense to say the vote in committee was along party lines, since it is well-known that the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and thus have a majority on committees, and furthermore saying "along party lines" carries more information than just saying "it passed 10-8". --Deville (Talk) 00:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, because an amendment requires 2/3 of the Senate to pass, there could have been voting in the Senate along party lines and it would have still failed. I don't really see anything wrong with putting (10-8) or something after the comment that it passed the committee along party lines, assuming we discuss it at all; after all, this is an encyclopedia for all time, and the Republicans won't control the Senate for ever.

On the other hand, votes in committees are often just procedural matters, so I'm not sure how noteworthy it is at all; by saying that the main Senate voted on it, we're already essentially saying that it was passed in committee. In fact, just about every piece of legislation eventually passed by Congress was earlier passed in committee, many on party line votes. I'm reasonably sure that the only reason the info on the committee vote is in this article at all is because the information was being updated while events were happening, but now I'm not sure that it bears mention. --Jfruh (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, FWIW. --Deville (Talk) 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I notice that the timeline lists specific dates that Gay marriage was either legalized or banned. Could someone add the dates (pre-timeline) that states like Iowa, which is not on the list, defined marriage? Whether it's in a single "before-this-date" category or separated doesn't really matter...but the dates of the legal definitions of marriage should be included for all 50 states, as well as the U.S. terroritories. --Tim4christ17 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good point and a needed addition. Many states that have added laws, for or against, aren't listed.

Washington State Court Case Update

Why is it taking so long for the ruling of this case? It has been already over a year since they have heard arguments. What is the cause for the delay? tdwuhs

My friend from Washington speculates, quite reasonably, that the court may be delaying the release of a decision until after the November elections. Supreme Court justices in that state are popularly elected, so the court tends to be a little more overtly political than high courts in many other states. If you email me, I'll be sure to let you know as soon as I hear anything (kdogg36@gmail.com). kdogg36 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Their supreme court ruled yesterday that the gay marriage ban stands.

Legal recognition of same-sex couples in the United States: Separate article?

Right now, Legal recognition of same-sex couples in the United States redirects to this page. Should this perhaps be a separate article? The article could be kept short, and merely be a run-down of what statuses are available to who in what states and/or other jurisdictions. It seems wrong redirect someone who is looking for information on a broader subject to this page --Jfruh (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)