Talk:Same-sex marriage

Domestic Partnership History in America

The Transgender Center Archive in Houston, TX has uncovered a 1846 American newspaper reporting on the “domestic co-partnership” of two “Millerite” women. Please look at including this under the history heading: http://www.tgctr.org/2008/12/03/transgender-archive-sheds-historical-perspective-on-prop-8-and-gay-marriage/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.19.41 (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Same sex marriage is a law in Argentina

At 4.oo am local time, same sex marriage became a law approved by the senate. So the "Legal recognition of same-sex couples" part should be modified adding Argentina to it. It's for the whole country.Ursinism (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Recognition of Foreign Marriages in Mexico, Really?

What is the basis for indicating on the world map that Mexico (outside Mexico City) recognizes foreign same-sex marriages? I seriously doubt the accuracy of that categorization. Civil codes outside Mexico City do not provide for same-sex marriage, and I'm not aware of any authority supporting recognition of foreign same-sex marriages in those other states. If there's no authority for the proposition, most of Mexico should be gray, not light blue on the world map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.73.44 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Debate USA

Oddly there is no mention of the Bill passed in the Hawaii legislature in April 2010 which sat on Govenor Linda Lingle's Desk for nearly 2 1/2 months. To the chagrin of supporters of same sex marriage, the bill was vetoed on 06 July 2010. Opponets of gay rights sang in the Hawaii Capital Routunda, "How Great Thou Art" for hours the entire day that the bill was vetoed. It is further suggested that an amendment to the Hawaii state constitution be added to ban the rights of same-sex couples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.69.242 (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That failure to change the law to enact civil unions in a single state, while quite vital in its own context, is too small a ripple in regards to this overall article. As you can see in the debate section, there are dozens of attempts to change state laws that are just refered to in a count or summary. However, it should be (and is) covered in the Same-sex marriage in Hawaii article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada in history section

I've moved the following paragraph here:

The Canadian Parliament approved the granting and recognition of same-sex marriages by defining marriage as “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others” in July 2005. A Conservative Government motion inviting MPs to request repeal of same-sex marriage in Canada failed in December 2006, so same-sex marriages continue to be honored throughout the nation.

References

In my view it is far too much detail on one country in a two-paragraph summary on the modern history of same-sex marriage. Gabbe (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Parenting

I think we should mention Stephen Nock's views on the quality of the researches on the subject, as they're mentioned in the LGBT parenting page. Does anyone mind if I add a few lines here (or, more generally, few lines about methodological questions on those studies)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.160.48.140 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We needn't (and shouldn't) mention everything that's mentioned on the LGBT parenting article... and certainly don't have to mention something that's mentioned in one sentence in that article... and in this case, a sentence whose value is greatly questionable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nat Gertler here w.r.t. Nock, and would add two comments. First, it seems to me that the parenting section of this article has grown beyond a useful size--to the extent that LGBT parenting is a contect fork of same-sex marriage shouldn't we limit the summary to a paragraph or two? --j⚛e decker^talk 23:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I agree the parenting section has grown beyond a readable size. I still think we should point out in th article that some scholars question the methodology of those studies. A bare sentence could do it, for completeness' sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.161.42.51 (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nock is totally incompetent to provide expert opinion on issue beyond his education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_parenting#Nock --Destinero (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, seems like you have my opinion fleshed out with data and WP policy. Agreed completely. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, destinero. A better sentence would be "other scholars question Nock's questions". To say "is totally incompetent" doesn't seem very NPOV to me. Can't we just have those two opinions in the article?

Moving "Marriage Privitazation" section

The marriage privitization section does not appear, to me, to make sense as being part of the Parenting section. I suggest moving it out of that section and up a level. No? Yes? More importantly, if yes, where does it belong? (e.g., between what major sections, or in what major section?) --j⚛e decker^talk 00:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved as above. I'm tempted to suggest the 2nd paragraph of this section is speculative/OR, any opinions? It's unsourced, I've marked it asking for citations. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why has Argentina been removed from the list?

The Predident has said she will sign it, and the law is slated to take effect on August 13. Please correct accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.147.193 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The table on the right is actually being included from here: Template:Same-sex unions. There's a discussion on the discussion page about this very topic, essentially, Argentina will be readded the moment the bill is signed. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)