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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by S51438 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Guam's population doesn't count?

Why is the population of Guam not included in the total for Americans living in states/territories allowing same-sex marriage (i.e.: "165,124 (not included in population total)" on the first table)? People in Guam are clearly Americans, and it's not like it is impossible for us count the populations of the territories, given that they too responded to the 2010 Census and are treated statistically by the Census Bureau for purposes of estimating population change between censuses? - S201676 (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Because the source we're using for population says "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico" so our census data does't include Guam. Prcc27 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Presumably we could make use of a more comprehensive source so that a less pathetic answer than that can be given? The CIA World Factbook entry for Guam somehow manages to have a inter-census population estimate? - S201676 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the decision expected tomorrow?

Today SCOTUS published 2 decision (including landmark King v. Burwell about Obamacare), but Obergefell is not among them. I looked in SCOTUS's official web site and found out that tomorrow is last day for publishing opinions, but they also have 29th of June for conference day. So, have anyone an information about exact day of decision publication (??) - would it be tomorrow or on 29th?? M.Karelin (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUSBlog said in their live feed today that Friday and Monday will both be opinion days. It could be either day. There are 5 opinions left. Folks seem to think SSM will be on Monday (but then again they thought King would be tomorrow). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Any opinion can be published on any opinion day. Additionally, it's very possible that the court will add a third opinion day. I wouldn't say it's too likely because they have only 5 opinions left, but if they really need some extra time to write up the decisions on SSM, they could throw a decision day on next Thursday, for instance. That's not out of the question since SSM was only argued in April, very late in the term. Personally, I expect SSM on their last decision day. ~ Rob^Talk 19:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Decision is out

5-4 ruling, states must license same-sex marriages - http://www.theguardian.com/law/live/2015/jun/26/supreme-court-rules-same-sex-marriage - htonl (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a broad ruling, and undoubtedly, many states and counties will either announce their compliance; others will insist on plaintiffs bringing a court case, in which judges will likely defer automatically to what is now a controlling federal court opinion applicable to the entire United States. I'm on the fence whether to update the article to reflect the specific bans struck down by the Supreme Court or simply to note that the institution of marriage was opened to same-sex couples by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2015. Thoughts? -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

For all legal purposes, the institution of marriage is now open to all same-sex couples. If individual towns, counties, or states decide to fight it to the bitter end in the sense that they force someone to bring a lawsuit, that's just them putting on a show. As far as the judicial system goes, what the Supreme Court says is law. Legally speaking, all same-sex couples can be married. It's just a matter of whether local and state governments comply immediately or take time. I'd go with the latter. ~ Rob^Talk 14:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree, unless one of our resident legal eagles tells us otherwise. For all intents and purposes, the Kennedy ruling in Obergefell settles this one. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The ruling finally settles the issue. The pre-Obergefell status quo is no longer relevant, and the lead should be modeled on those of other articles about countries that have recognized same-sex marriage (e.g., Canada, Iceland). It should note that the U.S. became the 18th country to recognize same-sex marriage on June 26, 2015, and briefly state the circumstances around that recognition. All of the stuff about which states recognized what before this decision should be moved to the body of the article SS451 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

But that wouldn't be accurate; the US government was recognizing same-sex marriages before this. They just weren't compelling the states to grant it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• According to this AP article, "The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration." —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It was a 5-4 decision. Who were the four against it? Titus III (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The usual suspects: The Chief, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. ~ Rob^Talk 15:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody have any credible sources on whether this decision would apply to the unincorporated territories? Those US citizens have dutifully been tracked on the maps; presumably the status of marriage equality there is still an open question? -VJ (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

AP article at [1]. Puerto Rico is bound by the decision. Don't know about other territories. Cinteotl (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The residents of American Samoa are not citizens, and do not have the full protection of the Constitution. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to them. Unless AM volunteers to sign on to SSM, it might require a separate SCOTUS court case, since there is no circuit court of appeals for AM. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I really am struggling to understand why the main map still has KS, LA & MS colored. Correct me if I am wrong, but their defiance of the Supreme Courts ruling doesn't mean anything. All 50 states must now respect the decision, thus all should be colored dark blue, no? 4jonah (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. However, LA is waiting to issue until SCOTUS issues their mandate, which is 25 days from the ruling, so light blue is the right colour for it. MS is still stayed under the 5th CCoA, and it is unknown how the 5th will act, whether it will lift the stay and abide by SCOTUS immediately, or issue its own mandate. KS was already a patchwork of counties issuing or not, and there has not been any news about new counties issuing, so purple is still the best colour for it until we hear more. Kumorifox (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to explain the issue a bit more, the Supreme Court's decision is not immediately in effect. They offer a chance for anyone to request that they reconsider (especially third parties). It's not required, but it's a courtesy they usually offer for all opinions. Most states have started issuing immediately because it's recognized that issuing same-sex marriage licenses is inevitable for them at this point, but the few that have chosen not to yet are not violating the Supreme Court's decision because it is not yet in effect. ~ Rob^Talk 19:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer(s), but just to confirm, these states WILL have to acquiesce at some point, right? They cannot keep this up forever...4jonah (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Protect the articles

This article was vandalized once today, and Obergefell v. Hodges is under heavy attack now. Please somone arrange for semi-protection of both articles. M.Karelin (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Obergefell vandalism was largely one very persistent IP. At least one IP (12.180.133.18) is making an effort to be constructive. Pending changes maybe, but I'm not yet sure semi-protection is warranted after one super-vandal. Dustin (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should neutralize the article. I feel it is in a way supporting same sex marriage Mikhail.bulgakov (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Nationwide or worldwide

See the following sentence: "the United States became the twenty-first country to recognize same-sex marriage worldwide"

This is ambiguous. If we say nationwide, it makes it seem as though it is the "21st country in the nation" which makes no sense, but if we make it say worldwide, while it should be pretty clear what it means, it might be construed as to refer to recognition within the United States of same-sex marriage elsewhere. Comments? Dustin (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Globally or worldwide sound the best. I see what you're saying about a possible misconception, but I don't know if that is really a problem. Not sure if there's an actual conflict where US wouldn't recognize same-sex marriages abroad. The only time a marriage is not recognized by U.S. is when it is against U.S. law. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend just removing worldwide. "The United States became the twenty-first country to recognize same-sex marriage" has an unambiguous meaning, which seems to be the intended meaning. ~ Rob^Talk 21:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Rob. Much cleaner. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@70.36.233.104: Maybe you didn't notice, but I applied the suggested change to the article. Dustin (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Charts

Now that Obergefell has been ruled, I think it's safe to say these charts of states being legalized or stayed rulings are unnecessary now. They can be replaced perhaps with a very brief expansion of history section. But they now seem to be a huge waste of space. Suggestions? Gabe (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)