Talk:Same-sex marriage

RfC: Is Same-Sex-Marriage legal nationwide in the United States?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the timeline found under the History section, we indicate that same-sex-marriage is legal "[nationwide]" in the United States despite the fact that it remains illegal in the US Territory of American Samoa. What is the best way for us to address this without misleading readers, or unnecessarily complicating the table?

1. Leave it as is.
2. Remove "[nationwide]".
3. Add a footnote indicating that it remains illegal in American Samoa.
4. Remove "[nationwide]" and add a footnote.
5. Other suggestion.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and input.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Leave it as is This would appear to depend on whether American Samoa is part of the "nation" of the United States. I'd say not. Note in particular that Samoans are generally not US citizens. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• 4-Remove "[nationwide]" and add a footnote (or alternatively 2 or 3) - American Samoa is a United States Territory and forms part of the nation of the United States. While it is true that not all American Samoans are citizens at birth (most are American "nationals"), the territory is part of United States' territory and under its jurisdiction. The US Congress can make laws concerning the Territory and SCOTUS has jurisdiction to determine what laws apply to the territory and preform judicial review as it does over any other US State or Territory. The territory like any other (except Washington DC, in part) does not have voting representation in the US Congress and does not get to vote for President. Nonetheless, it is part of the United States. It seems factually incorrect and lazy for us to gloss over this detail.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• 3 or 4 - The fact that same-sex marriage is illegal in American Samoa definitely needs to be mentioned. From a purely factual point of view, American Samoa is a US territory and as such, part of the US as a nation. For that reason, I view option 4 to be applicable. At the same time, from an encyclopedic point of view, I consider it acceptible to leave it as "nationwide", so long as a note is added to explain the situation around American Samoa, rather than having to list "Legal in all 50 states, District of Columbia, XYZ territories, etc", just to ommit American Samoa. I believe that the main goal of an encyclopedia would be to be factually correct and easily readable. For that reason, I view option 3 as also applicable. Goodposts (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Leave as is. There is a nationwide ruling thru SCOTUS, so it's 'nationwide'. We already have a footnote in the info box, so we don't need one here. This list is a summary. We leave out all sorts of details. E.g., SSM was legalized in California years before the date listed here. But we leave out such distracting details in the interest of brevity. Really, do we want a footnote that California legalized SSM, then overturned it, then reinstated it? Same with Bermuda? Same with Sonora? Same with the Caymans when that happens? If we're going give all the details for one polity, we need to do it for all of them. The table would be chock-full of footnotes. How does that help the reader?

I also don't understand Darryl's obsession with American Samoa. There are lots of places in the US where you can't get married. Navajo, for example. But evidently Injuns aren't real Americans, so they don't count. But American Samoans -- who do not want US law to apply to their country -- are somehow being abused. They could petition the US Congress to overturn the treaty that prevents them from being US citizens, but they don't want to! It would mean abrogating much of their local sovereignty if they did. (E.g., controlling immigration and preventing outsiders from buying up all the property.) So they'll stay the way they are for the time being, thank you very much. Similarly with Puerto Rico -- they could vote to become a state if they wanted to, but they don't. Where Darryl has a point is Guam, which should be a commonwealth except that the US Congress refuses to act on their wishes. But that has nothing to do with this article. And we don't need paternalistic protection of people who don't want to be protected. Regardless, whether Darryl is upset that American Samoans are being abused by an oppressive state is not reason to make a jumble of a summary table. All the details are in the main history article linked at the top of the section. — kwami (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have an obsession with American Samoa. I have never been. What I do have a bit of an obsession with is creating an accurate encyclopedia. The truth is SSM is not legal nationwide in the US. We do a disservice to our readers to suggest otherwise. While some want to be able to say SSM is legal nationwide in the US for reasons of patriotism or due to some political or social agenda. It is not our job to appease such sentiments. Our job is to create an accurate encyclopedia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

But the person we'd be appeasing is you, and your anger/agenda. It's a summary table. The details are in the main article linked at the top of the section. It would create a mess to add a footnote for every little detail in every country, which in the interests of accuracy, we would need to do if we wanted to make it more than a summary. As for 'nationwide', SCOTUS made a nationwide ruling. That's pretty simple. And American Samoa is its own nation, as Navajo is. If the UK passed a 'nationwide' law that didn't affect their colonies, we'd say 'nationwide' for the UK too, since the colonies aren't in the UK. Yeah, it's colonialism, which seems to be driving you on this, but that's the world we live in. And frankly, the fact that Mayotte voted to stay with France despite the Comoros screaming 'colonialism', or Puerto Rico with the US, is hardly an abusive situation, certainly not compared to West Papua or Chechnya or Xinjiang. All of which is beside the point.

Also, this missing the reason we said 'nationwide' in the first place. The US first legalized SSM in 2004, so technically we could put the US in that year. We don't because we chose to list only the legalizing polity, which was Massachusetts. But since we list the US for 2004 and 2008 to 2015, it would be potentially confusing -- as well as inaccurate -- to simply say 'United States'. The 'nationwide' tells the reader why the US is being listed as a whole for the first time. If you want a legalistically accurate table without doing that, then Canada needs to move to 2003, the US to 2004, Mexico to 2010, Brazil to 2012, and the UK to 2014. Either that, or clog up the table with so many footnotes that no-one's going to bother to read them. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It may be a nationwide ruling, or it may not be. What is clear is it is not being applied nationwide. At some future date SCOTUS or some other court may find Obergefell v. Hodges applies in American Samoa. Until that day or until Congress passes legislation to the same effect, SSM is not legal [nationwide].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

I suppose that depends on what you mean by a "nation". Am.Samoa are their own country. The constitution doesn't apply there. They're allowed to have discriminatory land tenure laws, where you have to be ethnically Samoan to own land. That would be illegal under the 14th amendment. And that's why the govt of Am.Samoa has never pushed for a change of status -- imagine what would happen to the Samoans if rich Americans could go in and buy up all the land. It would be like native Hawaiians in Hawaii. So they're in this limbo, sort of in the US but not really. But again, why is AS such a big deal to you when the tribal nations are not? Just because they have to get on an airplane if they wish to marry? Your POV doesn't seem to be about accuracy but only about this one polity. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

One polity that happens to be part of the United States and doesn't have SSM. There are a lot of non-sequiturs and irrelevant facts in your explanation, but none of that changes that American Samoa is part of the US and SSM is not legal there, ergo it is not legal nationwide. I have already responded to your tribal nations question before. The difference is that members of those nations can be married to a same-sex partner in the state or Territory they live (with the exception of American Samoa). Furthermore, those marriages would be recognized by the federal government and the state or territorial governments where they live. The only thing is their tribal nation would not recognize their marriage. American Samoans cannot get married in their territory at all. It is not the same thing. I suspect SSM is not permitted in the Amish communities of the US either, but that isn't really an apples to apples comparison either, now is it?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

If you can't get married on the Navajo Nation, you can't get married on the Navajo Nation. Repeatedly claiming that only the polity you're concerned with is important just emphasizes your bias. I don't know if Am.Samoans can get married in Arizona or not, the way the Navajo can, but in any case that's not your argument. It doesn't matter to you if SSM is legal nation-wide or not, as long as it's legal in this single polity. We don't need to add footnotes for any of the others, just for this one special case. Catering to that would introduce bias into the article. We already note several times that SSM is not legal in Am.Samoa. It's not like we're hiding it, just that the table is a summary and doesn't go into all the details.

BTW, you can get married in any Amish community in the US. Whether your family or church will accept it (not, for the latter) isn't a matter of law, and so irrelevant here. — kwami (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Here[1] the writer states that American Samoans can go to Hawaii and get married, return and their marriage won't be recognized. How exactly is that different from citizens of the Navajo Nation? — kwami (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Because American Samoa is a territory. It is not part of Hawaii. Navajo lands cover multiple states. In every one of them SSM is legal. It is an apples and cucumber comparison.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

By that argument (Navajo is in AZ and SSM is legal in AZ), Am.Samoa is in the US and SSM is legal in the US, so Am.Samoa is just as much a cucumber as Navajo is. They're both semi-sovereign countries which do not allow or recognize SSM. In both cases you can get married in another US polity. Why you're insisting on creating a fundamental distinction between them, why Am.Samoa should be vitally important when the hundreds of tribal nations are immaterial, is beyond me. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

So by your reasoning we should remove the "nationwide" designation because SSM remains illegal in American Samoa (a territory) AND in the Navajo Nation (an indigenous jurisdiction). I am not sure why you refer to either as a "country". Neither is an independent political state. American Samoa is a US Territory, and governs everyone that lives there (regardless of ethnicity or ancestry). The Navajo Nation is a self governing indigenous community that exists within the territory of several US States.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A country is not an independent political state. Yes, we could remove "nationwide". But then we'd need to move the US flag from 2015 to 2004, when the US first legalized SSM. I think people might object to that, especially when the only reason would be to pander to the obsession that you don't have with American Samoa. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep "nationwide" and just add another link to footnote e. Whether the Navajo Nation or American Samoa are "part of the nation" is a story that has so many asterisks, its asterisks have asterisks of their own, and the answer is always going to be "yes and no". GMG^talk 17:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we can cross-link footnotes in templates, so that should work. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Performed but not recognized anywhere, except Mexico?

Puzzled as to why Mexico is listed in "Recognized" (in the box on "Legal status of same-sex unions") when it also performs and when the list of other countries also appears in "Performed" yet none of those apparently also recognize. Presumably all of the countries that perform this type of union also recognize it? Not amended in case there is some peculiarity of the law in every performing state except Mexico which means that these marriages are performed yet not recognized in any place except Israel and Mexico including the place in which they are performed. Aspaa (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The choice of colors on maps on this page and political implications

I think it's very interesting how a deep NATO-ish colored blue is chosen for states with gay marriage (as if it is the flagship policy of some sort of western coalition) while various shades of "scary" red are reserved for countries that don't allow it. I think there are more politically-neutral colors to use. Perhaps some beiges, greys, and tans. I know the pride flag is the whole rainbow; please don't think this is a joke. Colors can be political and I think the maps on here should be more-boring colors. 76.79.113.210 (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)