Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MatLocke (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 29 October 2009 (→Legal issues: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New Layout

So what happened to the old picture of the ceremony, etc? It looked really good, and the new map's colors are hard to read. Thanks. 68.60.76.178 (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have to agree too. The old one was more poignant and celebratory, and it didn't make it so political. Especially since marriage doesn't depend on the state recognizing it; people have them regardless (although I realize that that is what the article is primarily about). It still would look better with actual people, etc I feel. Yankhill (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I boldly put the wedding image back on top. Niew (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that. I think it looks great, and I hope many more feel so too. Thanks again. Yankhill (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to delete the incorrect part about Rhode Island. The other wiki page on Rhode Island is also wrong. The truth is Rhode Island does not recognize Massachusetts same-sex marriage or anywhere else's. The opinion of the Attorney General is just that, a stated opinion. The Rhode Island court has ruled NOT to recognize. So stop posting that it is recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodan812 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire

New Hampshire legislature just passed amended same-sex marriage bill, Gov. John Lynch is expected to sign later today!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUUXsl3sakXbS8W1AYb4xSxxEMIgD98JCGPG3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.217.136 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bill has passed both houses of the NH legislature, and Governor John Lynch will sign it into law in EIGHT MINUTES at 5:15PM EDT!!! Update this page and the map!

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5526NV20090603 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.217.136 (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Language

The movement to obtain marriages rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the early 1970s. The issue became a prominent one in U.S. politics in the 1990s, with New England being the center of same-sex marriage legalization in the United States. The issue remains politically divisive in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

I have an issue with this. The issue became prominent in the 1990's starting with a court case in Hawaii. The Mormon Church successfully beat that effort down after a court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, and then DOMA happened. Following this, Vermont approved civil unions in an effort to deflect national controversy. Ra-ra New England all you like, but the FACT is that HI was first, then VT, then various DP battles all over the country (including CO, CA, etc). Looking at a map, it is clear that following HI, the hot spots were northern New England, NYC, CA, and Chicago. Boulder, CO independently played a role. I think that even in a brief historical summary it is appropriate to give half a sentence to HI because the battle was fought there first. --nosig, read my IP, yo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.7.205 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward wording, I agree. Someone just wanted to link to their new article, Same-sex marriage in New England. One of the major shortcomings of this article is that there is no history section. If there were one, it would start not with Hawaii, but with Minnesota in Baker v. Nelson. But about Hawaii, the court didn't rule "in favor" of it; it wasn't going to legalize it. It asked the legislature to produce a minimal rational basis for its discrimination, and it did (ignoring the DOMA for a minute). So did Alaska, in fact. Whether it started the movement is debatable, but that's where the state DOMAs came from. I don't think the 1990s are being linked to New England, rather the issue, and of its undisputed firsts in legalizing it. Fortuynist (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the importance of the history of the movement- being a historian myself and feel that a history section could be created by us- however, I do feel that the statement is correct. New England has primarily become the epicenter of the movement currently, especially after the enactment of Prop 8 in California removing the right in the state. Furthermore, no further action as taken place in the state of Hawaii. The state is still not even willing to pass civil unions or expand their limited domestic partnership benefits. So no, I have to concur with the opening paragraph and say that the movement as of 2009 is focused primarily in New England. And it is hoping to branch out from there in New York and New Jersey. Let's hope the strong anti-Prop 8 movement is able to reinstate marriage rights in California soon. Yankhill (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can there also be a sentence in the intro paragraph that reflects the fact that same-sex couples get married in their own private ceremonies regardless of whether the government recognizes it or not. Then also begin the importance of the government recognizing it, etc. I mean it could somehow be in other words like the difference between a couple's religious/personal marriage and their civil one in the eyes of the law.
I have friends, gay friends, who are younger and with the rhetoric, think they cannot have their own marriage ceremony. That somehow it is "illegal" to do this in your own way because the state does not recognize it. It's sad, really sad, and yes a little pathetic. And from personal experience, I have been to two marriages already that my state (Michigan) does not recognize, but it is recognized by the couple, family, and friends- and by the their community. Yankhill (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wisconsin

hey wisconcin should be added to the list of ssm debated because the constitutional amendment banning it is being chalenged in court (it is true this wouldn't make it legal but yet but it is an argument and thus a debate) The truth maker (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for the template is here, but I don't believe a court case verifies the threshold for inclusion. Fortuynist (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wisconsin

The new map revisions look great!

The map may need to be revised if Wisconsin legalizes limited domestic partnerships, as expected. Currently, Wisconsin is listed in dark red: constitution bans same-sex unions. Perhaps a more accurate description for most states' constitutional bans on same-sex marriage/civil unions would be "Constitution bans same-sex marriage and legal equivalents." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benrw (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The legality of the Wisconsin plan is questionable, and would likely be challenged in court if it passed. I have argued for this change to legal equivalents on the map's talk page, but there seems to be no consensus. When or if Wisconsin passes the plan, the discussion will be revived and there will be changed made. Fortuynist (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Map?

What is this thing? It's awful...

All the colors are too similar. They're all dark. Light gray and dark gray? That's really smart. Please restore the old map.

SAAER45 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's incredibly clever, considering that we only had to work with 3 colors. It was designed to fix the issue of colorblind users not being able to read the map. Plus, now it moves in a logical scale, from red (complete ban) to blue (complete legalization). You really can get the feeling of the laws at a glance without memorizing the color table. Fortuynist (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of the two shades of gray either, but the new map is the result of a very long discussion and four or five different proposals over at the discussion page for the map itself. The new map is the final consensus, and I think everyone involved over there agreed that it is an improvement on the old, randomly assigned color scheme while also fixing the issues faced by colorblind users when red and green are used in the same map. Newsboy85 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the discussion on the need for a map for color blind users; however, I have to admit that I enjoy the old map better. I think it is good to keep this one up, but we can have the other perhaps and include a link to this one for color-blind users like a friend of mine.
Furthermore, the other one had a rhyme and reason to it as it went along the spectrum from one end to the other. Plus you could say it was all "gay friendly" as it basically was comprised of the colors found on the rainbow pride flag. I just like the old one for its better looks, but I do feel that a link should be included for this one for those that actually have red-green color blindness. Yankhill (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California

Shouldn't California technically be striped with dark blue? It is banned constitutionally, but the marriages before the ban still stand so those same-sex marriages are recognized. From a legal perspective same-sex marriage is both recognized and unrecognized in California.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Opposition of S.S.M Unbalanced / Split into new article talk

I have placed the tag because there are two subsections for support of SSM: "Political parties expressing support for same-sex marriage" and "Elected officials supporting same-sex marriage" and some but not enough for Opposition. If those are included for support I feel that the same must be done for the Opposition to balance the article out between the two sides, the two subsections also stand out in the table of contents. Knowledgekid87 20:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, opposing SSM is the default among politicians nowadays, isn't it? There are reactionaries for every movement and every event in history. To cover them in same or greater detail than the actual movers of change is unexciting and unhelpful to readers. Niew (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the lists of supporters of same-sex marriage should be moved to separate article, as was done with Opponents and Traditional marriage movement
2.2 Political parties expressing support for same-sex marriage
2.2.1 National
2.2.2 State
2.3 Elected officials supporting same-sex marriage
2.3.1 Governors
2.3.2 US Senators
2.3.3 Members of the US House of Representatives
2.4 Persons supporting civil unions or domestic partnerships
--Dr.enh (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.enh That would be a better idea yes, I can understand if its exciting to readers ro read about same sex marriage supporters and all Niew, but having them on the main page leaves the article unbalanced when it comes to a debate section. The same would have to go for opposition.Knowledgekid87 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea. Don't forget that support for SSM exists on a lower level than the state, with cities and towns passing resolutions and domestic partnership registries, and the support from the U.S. Conference of Mayors! You could do a little part on how in New York mayor Jason West started the movement that led to recognition of same-sex marriages performed abroad, and Gavin Newsom's pioneering 2004 weddings for California. Niew (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This also would make the debate section more broad on the S.S.M main page which is helpful. Knowledgekid87 20:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main article already suffers from United States parochialism, not in its section about laws, but the giant Criticism (Debate/"Controversy") section with interracial marriage, U.S. supreme court possibly seeing sexual orientation as a suspect class, "judicial versus legislative", marriage privatization (a fringe idea even in the United States!), etc. Niew (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we rename Traditional marriage movement as "Debate about Same-sex marriage in the United States," and combine it with Support from this article

2.2 Political parties expressing support for same-sex marriage
2.2.1 National
2.2.2 State
2.3 Elected officials supporting same-sex marriage
2.3.1 Governors
2.3.2 US Senators
2.3.3 Members of the US House of Representatives
2.4 Persons supporting civil unions or domestic partnerships

Traditional marriage movement appears actually to be about Opposition to Same-sex marriage in the United States. The current title, "Traditional marriage movement," seems to be an invention of wikipedia , not a movement documented by a reliable source. The first source in the Traditional marriage movement is about Colorado Family Action. The second source links to an article that links to [marriagemovement.org] (a broken link to a campaign that no longer exists).

This change would combine two unbalanced articles: Traditional marriage movement and Same-sex marriage in the United States#Support into a single balanced article, "Debate about Same-sex marriage in the United States." --Dr.enh (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The owners of the article argued that their article had a "different scope" in the title renaming discussion I participated in with them in April, and would like duplicate articles. Niew (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the article has no owners. No one has responded yet to my observation that the "Traditional marriage movement," seems to be an invention of wikipedia, not a movement documented by a reliable source. Is anyone aware of a reliable source documenting a "Traditional marriage movement"? --Dr.enh (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that nobody has really cared about the NPOV issue reguarding the "Traditional marriage movement" topic as the tag has been in place since November 2008. Someone needs to take charge of this and to improve it so it falls within wikipedia's standards.Knowledgekid87 23:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is large enough, including details like the current state of same-sex marriage throughout the country, and it would easily withstand forking the majority of the "debate" section to its own article without sacrificing the quality. A summary can be left behind along with the "Main page" notice at the top of the section. Then, Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States can be merged into it, and the article (I suggest Same-sex marriage debate in the United States) can be balanced. I also think that the list of pro-SSM/SSU politicians should be forked off to a list and a summary of the most prominent or most active left in its place, along with the explanation (either there or in the opposition section) that the default position is anti-SSM. Arguments about undue balanceweight won't apply once the section isn't so large. - BalthCat (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record there is also a discussion going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traditional_marriage_movement about the issue.Knowledgekid87 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the supporters of same-sex marriage have been removed, shouldn't the list of those opposed also be removed? The religious denominations opposing it remain in the article whereas the religious supporters have been removed. How is that fair? And if religious and conservative leaders remain, shouldn't religious leaders in support and progressive leaders be allowed to remain?--67.197.205.57 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idea 2 for making a new article under debate

Since there appears to be no consensus so far to merge the two sides of the debate into one article I propose an article called Support for Same Sex Marriage Under the support section. This would balance out the Traditional marriage movement article and just leave the main page here talking about the debate. Knowledgekid87 11:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding Picture

So after the user, Niew, reattached the photo of a same-sex wedding to the top, the picture of the ceremony was put to thumbnail size. I thought it was too difficult to make out the detail and to appreciate it well. So I made it back to a larger size, though not as large as it was previously before it was a thumbnail. Anyone think differently? And is there a way to possibly have it be this big but have a frame around it like the thumbnail did? Yankhill (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy answer first: put the |thumb| syntax in there next to the pixel size you want, and you'll get a frame with words underneath. Read Wikipedia:Extended image syntax.
Regarding size: there are a number of reasons why a 380px image doesn't suit everybody. The main one is that users with small window sizes will have the image take over their screen. Users with visual impairment who use large type sizes will have the image crowd the text into unreadability. One solution is to use the extended image syntax |thumb|upright=1.5| to get a larger image. The upright=x part can be increased, if desired. I think upright=2 is too large, but YMMV. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I set the picture to 250px as this is the size of the other pictures in the article anyways. Knowledgekid87 21:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining and fixing it. Yankhill (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texas

A district court in Dallas just ruled that the state ban on gay marriage violates the US Constitution, which in theory legalizes same-sex marriage in the state. Not sure what's going on with that; presumably that decision will eventually be overturned, but for now Texas is at least "in flux". (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/100109dnmetgaymarriage.1d5a0d50d.html) —Verrai 03:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A district court means nothing (Kind of like indian tribes saying ok to gay marriage), if the court were more high up. or if a new law was passed it would be worth mention. - Knowledgekid87 7:06, 2 October 2009 (AT)

Rhode Island

it is mentioned that rhode island recognizes other states marriages but if so it is the wrong shade of gray on the map The truth maker (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I question, however, whether Rhode Island should be listed as a state that recognizes same-sex marriages at this point. The Supreme Court decision seems to contradict the Attorney General's opinions. I would take it off the list of "recognizing" states.

Greetings all. I and others I have debated with believe that a portion of this article should mention burden of proof- as many lawyers and legal analysts believe that U.S. law places the burden of proving no harm caused by same-sex marriage rests upon the proponents of same-sex marriage. Please help me to find the best place in the article to put this, and worded in a fair way. I believe the statement should include a link to the wiki page on burden of proof- pointing directly to the civil law section of that article. Thanks.

You can look at the debate I mentioned on the discussion page of Same-Sex marriage, but most of it deals with the appropriateness of addressing the concern (based primarily on U.S. law) in that article. (MatLocke (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&oldid=322776654"