Talk:List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions

Merge

An article on Same-sex marriage in the United States by state was recently broken out of the previously overlong same-sex marriage in the US article. The content of that article is similar to this one, though this one, in my opinion, is a better article at this point in time.

I initially thought that these two articles should be merged, but I am starting to think that it may be good to have two separate articles - a list article with good summary information and a state by state historical article. So, I am hoping to generate some discussion/consensus on whether and how to reconcile these two articles. -Kubigula (ave) 04:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved that original article under a new heading, see the original talk page. I think this article should be retitled to cover the current status of same-sex marriage for each state including unions, partnerships, and bans.--Joshua4 10:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

@Kubigula:, @Joshua4:; I would like to bring this conversation back up. I think that this article should merge with Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state --Prcc27 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with merging the articles. As stated in "List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions", the article "... is intended only as a resource for the bottom line current legal status of same-sex unions right now regardless of pending litigation" ... a summary of where same-sex marriage is banned, where it is legal, and where it is in legal limbo while the courts sort things out. "Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state" is a detailed "chapter and verse" listing of the relevant constitutional and statutory sections. Two different purposes best addressed in two different articles. Mw843 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: That's weird, because the article actually has different colors for the different statuses of marriage including pending litigation. In my opinion, they are both articles that would compliment each other, I wasn't suggesting that they didn't have any differences whatsoever. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mw843: What is the purpose of having an article that only lists constitutional amendments and statues? Don't you think Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state needs to have more detail and reflection about the laws rather than just state the laws? These articles may have different purposes, but they're too similar to be separate articles. --Prcc27 (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27:I wasn't involved in the initial set-up of the pages, so I can't answer the first question, but I don't think the pages should be merged ... List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions is the '30,000 feet view': here's where it's legal, here's where it's banned, here's where it's in legal limbo - which is where most of the updating effort is put into. To continue the analogy, Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state is a much lower altitude view, with legislative and constitutional details, which is much less amenable to tracking the ongoing legal battles. Mw843 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Any new input or update on this? I just got pinged by SuggestBot about it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Article created

I moved and updated this article from List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions to serve as a one-stop source for the "right now" legality of same-sex unions in the U.S. by state. Please remember there are many articles on this topic, each with specific scopes of presenting the material. This article is NOT to serve as a place to note any pending, ongoing litigation, ballots, or legal battles except maybe the very most recent when relevant. See the following articles:

• Same-sex marriage in the United States
• Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
• Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by state
• Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state
• Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion
• List of benefits of marriage in the United States

--Joshua4 10:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think this is ridiculously redundant? By the way, I would have appreciated a little more discussion before you unilaterrally moved my article. --Hyphen5 07:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

49 States?

Did someone forget Alabama?

Yep. —Nightstallion (?) 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops... well, at least it wasn't Poland. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 05:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Better heading

State	Marriage			Same-sex unions				Notes
	Defined		Result	Civil Unions		Domestic Partnerships
	Constitution	Statute	Licenses	Def.	Status	Def.	Status

How about this ? --Mimich 21:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

People Should Marry Who They Want

I think people should be able to express there love by being able to marry that person no matter who he or she is. No matter if they're white, black, big, small, tall, or short. We don't make it illegal for blacks to marry whites. So why should we make it illegal for women to marry women, or men to marry men. I think we should let them marry who they love, because being married is just another way to express your love for that special someone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.3.247 (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

In the United States it was never legal for homosexuals to Marry in any state until the late 1900's. The illegality that you speak of predates many generations of people that hold your last name. Marriage as it stands is an issue for the states to resolve. Allow it? Don't? Call your state representative.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

@71.111.3.247: This is not a forum. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oregon

I thought of changing the blurb about Oregon's status by deleting any reference to civil unions. The OR statute is not like other states' civil union legislation, there are some major differences. If we want to be most accurate, the legislation is not civil union legislation that uses the term 'domestic partnership,' but rather just domestic partnership legilsation that doesn't reference and is wholly different from civil unions. Ronnotronald 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Iowa?

A judge in Polk County, Iowa recently declared Iowa's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.[1] The Iowa Supreme Court will likely be asked to settle the matter, but it seems that Polk County officials are currently giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples per the judge's order. To anyone who has spent much time working on this article in the past: how should we classify this? Should we mark same-sex marriage as legal in Iowa, or should we wait until the Supreme Court weighs in, especially since the recent ruling only applies to one county? Etphonehome 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

California overturns gay marriage ban

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF -- Frightwolf (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you wish. 70.250.209.212 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas paved the way for same-sex marriage to emerge as a hot-button political issue"

But then again lawrence vs texas only paved the way for same sex marriage to emerge as a hot button issue in approximatly 14 states because all but those 14 states didn't have sodomy laws at the time of Lawrence vs texas. Further more there is a lack of source to show that lawrence vs texas made made same sex marriage a hot button issue in even the 14 states that still had antisodomy laws. Besides one wikipedia author there is nothing at all to show that same sex marriage is a hot button issue in the USA or that Lawrence vs Texas steered it in that direction.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Map Edit

The new Illinois civil union law states that out-of-state gay marriages shall be recognized by the State of Illinois. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Illinois .) The map does not reflect this. Illinois shoudl be striped three colors: pink, blue, and dark gray.

"Ban ballot"?

Where did this term "ban ballot" come from? Is that simple POV pushing or POV pushing via a neologism? I'm not finding any other hits on the phrase in WP (except on this SSM status page and the SSM legislation page), and a Google search does not turn up any instances of the phrase being used without qualification for at least ten pages of results (except these WP pages). ~ MD Otley (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is currently a request for comment on what shade of blue should be used on File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg to represent full marriage equality. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ohio ruling today

Federal judge ruled that same-sex marriage in other states must be recognized by Ohio on death certificates. Story here. Need to update articles. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Consistency

If this page is supposed to be a "bottom line" legal status of same-sex marriage/unions, then why are we indicating judicial rulings and pending stays on the map at all? I think this page has too many categories... your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dialectic2012 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Judicial rulings and consistency

With regard to the judicial rulings against same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio... why colorize those states with stripes when those rulings apply only to recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages... and again, I say colorizing the pending status of states with judicial rulings doesn't indicate the "bottom line" status of recognition in that state and only adds to the inconsistency of application of anti-marriage laws across the country. We need to remove the yellow stripes altogether if consensus allows. Those are my thoughts. We need less categories, not more. The map is too messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C555:99C0:6C42:6C51:7F55:5A53 (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee

If we are colorizing Ohio and Kentucky yellow, why not Tennessee? They are the same rulings regarding out-of-state same-sex marriage recognition.

Colorado rulings

So Colorado, as I understand it, had 3 different court decisions striking down the same-sex marriage ban. I am wondering why Colorado has been changed to blue if those decisions are stayed pending appeal and the state isn't recognizing same-sex marriage yet... did I miss something in this case?

2 maps

So, if we are now using two maps... shouldn't the first one be exclusively for same-sex marriage and the second exclusively for same-sex unions that aren't marriage? We could simplify the first map further that way... comments? objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposition

In the interest of contrast and a map that's easier on the eyes, I propose the "Judicial rulings against a ban on out-of-state same-sex marriages" and the "Same-sex marriage in the process of legalization, but has not yet taken effect" be removed from the map... those are worthy of notes and commentary, but not really worthy of the map if the goal is to show "bottom line" status... Comments? Consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Errors on second map for "same-sex unions similar to marriage"

Arkansas and Michigan, according to the "State-by-state" section, do not have bans on unions similar to marriage... but the map reflects that they do and said bans on unions similar to marriage had been stuck down. I am calling attention the discrepancy, but do not know which information is accurate. If you know how to correct the errors, please do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I discovered upon further research that Arkansas and Michigan do in fact ban civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Territory status on same-sex marriage

I support adding the 5 U.S. territories to the "State-by-state" section to elaborate on updates for those places with are also involved in litigation fighting ssm bans. Any takers? Mw583? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Mississippi "unions similar to marriage" map error

"Mississippi does not permit the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state forbids, both by statute and in its constitution, the recognition of same-sex marriages and other forms of same-sex partnership solemnized in other jurisdictions.[2] The constitutional amendment defining marriage was approved in a voter referendum on November 4, 2004.[3] In 1978, a same-sex couple was refused a marriage license. In 1994, another same-sex couple in Ocean Springs, Mississippi applied for and was refused a marriage license.[4]"

Kansas

If both maps are to be accurate currently, Kansas should be grey like the 3 U.S. territories indicating they are not currently prohibiting or recognizing ssm. The second map (for ssu) should indicate Kansas in grey as well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

St Louis ssm

I was wondering if anyone knows if the State of Missouri is recognizing those marriage licenses received in St. Louis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Texas Same-sex Divorce Case

"Texas high court to consider state jurisdiction over same-sex divorces - lgbtqnation.com". AP. August 24, 2013. Retrieved December 2, 2014. - This article is extremely dated. Is there a link to a newer article that indicates this case is about to release a court ruling NOW?.......  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC) 

The case is still outstanding; closing in on 14 months since it was argued. Mw843 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Alabama unions similiar to marriage

With the ban on same-sex marriage being stuck down (twice) the Alabama ban on same-sex unions similar to marriage ban has also been stuck down as part of those rulings by default - the statute and constitutional amendment are written to include the ban on ssu similar to marriage. The color on the map should reflect this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Arkansas, South Dakota, and Texas unions similar to marriage

Arkansas, South Dakota, and Texas, per each state's respective constitutional amendment, ban unions similar to marriage irrelevant of gender (they ban all unions similar to marriage, not only same-sex unions similar to marriage). Therefore, those same-sex unions bans may not have been struck down under the orders striking down the same-sex marriage bans... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Has this page reached its "best by" date?

Given the state of affairs after the SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell, is there any usefulness to this page?

Should it be merged with Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state, as was suggested last year?

Can the maps be removed? Mw843 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Virgin Islands

http://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-virgin-islands-daily-news/20150727/281517929821418/TextView It looks like USVI is now recognizing. I'm refraining from making edits in case I'm reading too much into this, but I think this settles it. 107.199.150.70 (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)