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 Newsboy85 (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 23 May 2013 (→The count of states is incorrect.: Changes not in effect yet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rhode Island

Legislation passed 26-12 in Rhode Island Senate. News to publish soon. Just saying. Teammm talk
email 21:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Rhode Island Snapshot[reply]

Handled. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition groups?

Couldn't the information in these paragraphs be put into the "opposition" section for more cohesion?

It doesn't make sense to have a separate Opposition Groups section when you only have one Support and Opposition section.

It would be redundant to have a Support groups and Support section............ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.170.105 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polls and secondary sources

An edit was just rejected because it cited poll results directly from the polling organization (Fox News). However, our polling results are mostly sourced to the polling organizations (ABC and that Washington Post for ABC/Washington Post polls; Gallup for Gallup polls). Such sources are quite handy on polls, as they tend to have the fuller poll results. Citing an organization on their claimed poll results would seem to be similar to citing them on their opinion... but in any case, if we're to reject this one sources simply on its primary nature, we should be consistent. Otherwise, it creates the appearance that we're cherry-picking polls. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I updated the Fox poll info and re-wrote it to reflect that paragraph's theme, which is not the absolute level of opinion at any point but how public opinion has been changing over time. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ABC-Post poll was cited by a secondary sources (TPM). In my mind, that should be the minimal threshold of inclusion for this type of politicized topic. I have no objections to re-adding the Fox News poll, provided that we can find at least one corroborating source. My concern is that their poll results seem to be very different from other recent polls, such that I am skeptical as to their validity. - MrX 15:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/03/composite-polling-confirms-same-sex-marriage-support/ Quote: "The closest gap in any poll was in a recent Fox News survey that found that 49 percent of people supported same-sex marriages, while 46 percent opposed them..... Even in the Fox News poll, long-term changes in public opinion were apparent. In 2004, only 20 percent of people polled by Fox supported same-sex marriages."
See http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/25/why-do-polls-show-support-for-gay-marriage-when-state-election-results-reveal-otherwise/ Quote "Indeed, rarely have polls from all sides of the political spectrum lined up so tightly with even the Fox Poll out a few days ago indicating that more Americans support same sex marriage than those who oppose it." links to the Fox poll in question. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm content with your last edit. - MrX 16:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Equality

I disagree that "marriage equality" is a biased/POV term, although I might have agreed with that notion a year ago. There is an upward trend in the usage of the term as can be seen here: [1]. Even right-leaning news sources use the term, for example [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8].

I would like to understand the argument for "marriage equality" being a non-neutral term. - MrX 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only read one, so sorry if it's not representative of the others, but the no.3 source has an author who is clearly writing in favour of SSM. Seeteet (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Fox news sources are all opinion pieces, the WSJ states "nationwide marriage equality, as proponents call the issue"... which shows the point. This is terminology basically used by one side of the discussion. Claims that this is "marriage equality", as opposed to everyone can equally marry someone of the opposite sex being "marriage equality", is a POV... one I happen to share, but it's not neutral language. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an exclusive term. Marriage equality means that people have the (equal) right to marry irrespective of the gender of their partner. Limiting marriage only to different sex couples is inequality. - MrX 18:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a loaded POV term, irrespective of whether some think it should be seen in its literal meaning. "Equality" has been a loaded word for a long time. Seeteet (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I find your bare declaration unconvincing. - MrX 18:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever anything is said concerning gay rights, the word "equality" is nearly always used. Hence, it's a loaded, political and biased word that shouldn't be used except through attribution on Wikipedia's articles concerning anything LGBT. Seeteet (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that is the spin that same-sex marriage proponents wish to put on that combination of words. That does not make it any more a neutral term to use than homosexual "marriage" would be. -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it that way, but we can agree to disagree. Just so I understand though, is it your position that the term is non-neutral in the current cultural context/usage, or simply that it is non-neutral, period, and therefore should never be used in Wikipedia (unless attributed)? - MrX 20:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All language may change. You may want to note that there is nothing inherent in the term that means that it refers to the relationship of same-sex marriage to sex-mixing marriage; we recently had an editor on the same-sex marriage article suggest that the article should cover polygamy as well, since the term "marriage equality" currently redirects there and polygamy is a type of marriage that is currently not treated as equal to two-person-exclusive marriage. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) People who don't support SSM reject the notion that it is about equality. For them, it is corrupting an institution rather than granting equality of access to it. For Wikipedia to use the term strongly implies that we, as a project, support same-sex marriage because we would be adopting language used by the proponents and rejected by opponents. -Rrius (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I would analyze the situation as Rrius states. There is no reason to insist the term 'marriage quality' be used. 'Same-sex marriage' is fine on Wikipedia. I don't mind and save myself the argument. Teammm talk
email 21:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I don't intend to push the issue, as it's really not that important for Wikipedia's purpose. - MrX 21:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this was already discussed long ago, yes Marriage Equality is as much of a POV term as fag or homosexuial marriage is. per the reasons stated above I do not think placing it in the article is the right thing to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comparison is a bit exaggerated, but I get the point. I raised the issue because language does change, and this term is being used much more often than it has in the past. - MrX 21:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

France

To the right where it lists countries that perform and recognize same-sex marriages, it is missing France. Can someone add this please? I don't have source to cite. But anyone can Google it and it is a fact. Thank you 68.101.204.30 (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Brian[reply]

No it isn't, Brian. The legislature passed the bill, but it has been referred to the Constitutional Court. -Rrius (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a talk page about same sex marriage specifically in the United States. There is a general talk page on same sex marriage where this issue is discussed.108.15.91.73 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota

House just passed the bill. It'll get signed this week. Look out for that. 184.180.233.81 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next week. It has not passed the Senate yet. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Senate meets tomorrow, so we'll just have to see. -Rrius (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has just passed the Senate 37-30. Gov has already pledged to sign bill, so it is effectively a done deal. Will take effect on August 1, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.98.145 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. Minnesota can be added to the lead once the governor signs the bill planned for May 14 at 5pm. Teammm talk
email 21:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, until the ink is dried we can not add Minnesota. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 14 May 2013

24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC) The map and the text needs to be fixed as of today Minnesota has equality.Federal and immigration law still restrict civil rights for all US citizens.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are a few hours too early. The bill will be signed at a ceremony that starts at 5 CDT. Also, this is not the place to discuss the image. To do so, click here. -Rrius (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange

When I see the map of the US, I see Minnesota is blue, but when I click on it, it is still light red. It happens both on my work and home computers, so I don't think it's a cookie issue. Anyone else having this issue? 68.109.200.178 (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That usually happens when pictures are updated. It should be fine now, I clared the cache on the Commons page CTF83! 10:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The count of states is incorrect.

I can't edit this myself because I don't know which count is wrong. The first paragraph says twelve states allow SSM.

the second paragraph has the following line:

While several jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage through court rulings, legislative action, and popular vote,[3][4] nine states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute and 30 prohibit it in their constitutions.

Either the nine or the 30 is wrong - because adding 12 to them will get 51 states. I also think that if you say twelve and nine, you should spell out thirty to be consistent. 72.74.136.148 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Jon Welch[reply]

The count of nine prohibiting by statute does seem that it will soon be incorrect. By my count, there are only six left in this category: Hawaii, Wyoming, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. This is likely a result of the recent changes to the law in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware. However, Delaware's change is not effective until July 1, and Rhode Island and Minnesota's laws change Aug. 1. The difference lies in the exact wording - those three states have legalized SSM, as the first paragraph states, but they still prohibit it by statute until the legalization goes into effect. Luckily, the problem will soon go away as the laws enter into force. At the moment, there are 30 constitutional bans, six statute bans, nine with legal SSM, three with legalization not yet in effect, one with just unions but no ban and one with no law at all, making 50.
As for the numbers, I'd actually argue to use the numeral for 12, per AP style, for the sake of consistency, but I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy is. AP calls for spelling out one through nine and numerals for 10 and up. Newsboy85 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines on this are at WP:NUMERAL, and they give us flexibility in this case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was rejected incorrectly! The number of states banning SSM by statute are 6, not 9, cause 3 of such states already passed SSM legislation. If in mentioned 3 states (recently passed SSM legislation) the ban was contitutional, it wouldn't be possible to pass such laws. Hence, the quantity of states whith constitutional ban is 30 and states with statute ban is now 6. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The recently passed laws in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware have not yet gone into effect. While SSM will be legal in these states soon, as legalization measures have been passed, it is still prohibited by statute at this time. Newsboy85 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Research

Two editors, with differing povs, resolved a sentence which now reads: "It is the first court decision to cite the "New Family Structure" research of Mark Regnerus, which research has been discredited by the American Sociological Society."

We have a long term problem, it seems to me, with all "research" into matters on family type issues involving SSM. Unlike tracking individuals and finding out about them later on a single (maybe objective) issue, we instead have a (or multiple) researchers trying to track a "family," which in modern America does not often consist of the same two parents through a child's history. At least one criticism of the research is that some of the SSM existed for a short time. Well, so do non-SSM!

When I have asked in the past, editors replied that there was "all sorts" or history on such matters with lots of children. I am not at all sure about this. SSM would have (in the past) wound up with children (their own from a non-SSM). How does a researcher select children, track them through 18 years and then ask for a subjective evaluation? (This is a rhetorical question).

And establishing criteria for a non-SSM "sample" to compare winds up with similar problems. So that any research which doesn't produce the results that one side or the other is looking for is "suspect" and is "widely criticized."

There are too many subjective criteria, too few subjects (!) to track, too long a time to track, too little experience with SSM with children, no standard agreement on what constitutes a "family" for research purposes. Must it persist intact for a child's time at home? Then, is that a "typical" family?

Having said this, there should be no "higher" standard IMO for SSM research than there is for any other family research. If single teens can raise children in a family for 18 years, then a single LGBT should be able to as well. The basis of the criticism above was that some LGBTs weren't together or LGBT the whole time. Actually, I think the "T" allows for that, doesn't it? Student7 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I"m having a little trouble following your concern here, both due to some awkward language but more due to not seeing how the sentences I do seem to understand apply to the sentence being quoted. You're repeatedly referring to SSM, but the Regenerus study was not about same-sex marriage. I'm not sure how "Transgendered" applies to the question of whether someone had shifted their sexual orientation. And if what you're saying is about what standards the American Sociological Society should have for research, I'm not sure how raising that on a Wikipedia talk page is going to change that, nor serve the purpose of the talk page.
So if there's something about the article that you wish to see changed, you might to better by suggesting a specific change and saying why you want that change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how any research pertaining to "long term effects" of SSM can be conducted, using high standards, quite possibly higher than used for non-SSM. If research denying good effects of SSM is rejected, then all long term studies should be similarly rejected.
Or both should be accepted. Different standards should not be applied because someone essentially "doesn't like it" and dreams up a reason, which may, superficially, seem valid. But would render all other long studies on all marriage invalid as well.
There should be one standard. Not two. Student7 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Regnerus study" is not about same-sex marriage or effects of same-sex marriage, so I can't see the relevance of your comment? --В и к и T 20:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex divorce

I don't have time to tackle it at the moment, but this article could use a section on the troubles with same-sex divorce due to the varying ercognitions of sch marriages within the US. Here's a usefuk source.--Nat Gertler (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made some additions to the US section of Divorce of same-sex couples. I believe what I added re DE and MN were innovations not found in earlier SSM legislation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&oldid=556453799"