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 68.199.96.18 (talk) at 22:53, 6 July 2015 (→‎Discussion: Because... ???). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. ~ RobTalk 19:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. ~ RobTalk 14:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
It was a 5-4 decision. Who were the four against it? Titus III (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The usual suspects: The Chief, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. ~ RobTalk 15:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. ~ RobTalk 19:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. ~ RobTalk 21:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Rob. Much cleaner. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree that the tables are probably no longer necessary. Moving some information to the "Before Obergefell" section with a link to Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state (which itself has further links to detailed information by state) serves the same encyclopedic purpose without providing undue weight to the legal status of gay marriage at a somewhat arbitrarily chosen point in history. ~ RobTalk 01:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a simpler chart of the states that legalized SSM prior to Obergefell, the date, and the method of legalization?
States legalizing same-sex marriage before Obergefell ruling
State or territory Date Effective Legalization method Notes
Massachusetts May 17, 2004 State court decision
California June 16, 2008
June 18, 2013 		State court decision
Federal court decision 		State court decision overturned by Proposition 8 (2008)
Prop 8 nullified by federal courts
Connecticut November 12, 2008 State court decision
The population data and details of specific rulings/statutes can be excluded - they're already amply explained in the history section. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really like that. If no one has objections I think we should do that. The chart we have now is too large. Readers can click on the wiki-links to the respective page for each state on the chart. Gabe (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obergefell legal grounding.

The leading paragraph on the recent SCOTUS case seems to misstate the the Constitutional grounds cited in the Obergefell opinion. It states that the court accepted marriage equality on the ground of Equal Protection (14th Am.) In close reading of the opinion one finds that the primary ground cited is substantive Due Process (14th Am.), with Equal Protection as a secondary ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.170.65 (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No original research. We have to go by what reliable sources say rather than making our own interpretations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

State Law Chart

Could we remove the state law chart, or replace it with a historical version (labeled as such) from before Obergefell? The changes on this one (not to mention the footnotes) are out of control and really not helping the article. Difbobatl (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Where is there consensus to remove the map? Is it really that much trouble to maintain it just a bit longer? Dustin (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As has been shown by numerous people (and backed up by sources), there is no need for it any more. SSM is legal nationwide. Difbobatl (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion on this talk page establishing consensus, so the article should be reverted to the status quo. Dustin (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has only been four days since the ruling, and this map has been updated for years. It's ridiculous that Wikipedia should't just wait the slightest bit longer. Dustin (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And regardless of the de jure state of matters, SSM is still de facto not legal in certain territories and parts of Kansas, even if that may soon change. As a result, the map is still useful, so removing it now is premature. Dustin (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, any difference in "de jure" and "de facto" is willful violation of the law and due process. This is happening in drips and drabs and there is no point in trying to crystallize it on a map when the map will pretty much always be wrong. 72.162.1.252 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Even if you assume they are all blantantly violating the law, it apparently does not apply to American Samoa, and the map serves the purpose of presenting to readers the real state of affairs, not just what is "official". Dustin (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I see the potential for maybe three different colors: dark blue for compliance with the ruling, a second color for not yet complying but will eventually have to, and a third color for American Samoa which does not appear to have a legal requirement to comply. Dustin (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support this with it labeled related to recognition. 72.162.1.252 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The map is useful so then readers know where same-sex marriage isn't fully legal. The map shouldn't have been removed! Prcc27 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. IT IS FULLY LEGAL! 72.162.1.252 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, all the map is doing is tracking recognition of SSM, so it should be labeled as such... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Umm.. some territories haven't issued any same-sex marriage licenses yet. Prcc27 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's time for the map and its tome of footnotes to go. We've had enough time to bask in the sea of blue. LA and KS will get their acts together soon enough, and the territories... well, they're territories, mention them in the text. The celebration is over, the rainbows have been swept up... time to move on. This map is wholly irrelevant. Njsustain (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No the map needs to stay there until every single state has recognized the same-sex marriage ruling and is complying with the ruling in its entirety. Kansas apparently is purple and Puerto Rico is light blue. This map is actually something I refer to in order to see the current situation that is going on so it's important to me at least to leave it up there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.213.230 (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time for Some Major Restructuring

Date of same-sex marriage legalization in the United States.
Method of same-sex marriage legalization in the United States.

Before making my case, I'd like to point you to the article Interracial marriage in the United States. Please take a moment to review it, as I believe it to offers a very reasonable template for this present Wikipedia article and provides the right context and perspective. Now for my case: there is an extraordinary amount of information in this article couched in terms of "prior to Obergefell..."; I believe the continued presence of much of that information violates WP:Notability/Historical/Importance. It was certainly notable before the decision, but the release of the decision reverses that reality. In a fun twist, the Traditional purpose of this article (as a locus of developing information on the topic of SSM in the USA) has been superseded by a new understanding of what its purpose should be (as a record of how SSM came to be in USA and a repository for various facts and stats [see link in first sentence]). More specifically I think the following sections should be completely removed:

Information to be saved can be moved to Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States and History of same-sex marriage in the United States, and information that violates WP:Notability/Historical/Importance can simply be discarded. Additionally, the infamous map, as many have pointed out, is already or will soon be completely useless. I believe it should be replaced by a map that isn't useless, perhaps a similar one to the interracial marriage map, and I provide two examples of such maps at the left. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a point at which the map is no longer useful, but that time is not now. Dustin (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate thought pattern is not "is the old map useful?" but rather "are there other maps that are more useful?" Within 25 days, every last state will be dark blue. One could imagine making a map that only includes territories at that point, and it would then be untenable to support the present map over the hypothetical one restricted to territories. But regardless of the map, could you offer an opinion on the removal of the two sections mentioned above? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It almost goes without saying, at this point, that a timeline map is immensely more useful than the current status map. In the given example, states that are not currently offering SSM are indicated, thus no information would be lost by replacing the map. I think it could do with a little simplification - rather than striped states I would prefer to see a decision made to color a state based upon when SSM was either first legalized or finally legalized - but that may be a discussion more for the map itself than on this page. A version of the "legalization method" map might be useful, although in its current form it suffers from too much specificity and information overload and I feel it's inclusion as-is might not be worth it. Shereth 20:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not solely on the status of same-sex marriage in the United States, it is also on the history of same-sex marriage in the United States, a history that has some fascinating aspects that I suspect will draw attention for a long time to come. Ideally, I'd love to see the map animated, showing not just the status but the progression from the turn of this century to the situation as it will be in a month... but I realize that is not a trivial undertaking. Barring that, a single map where color indicates the year of legalization would be better than none. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please have more discussion on the proposed removable sections rather than the maps? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked. The "In Litigation" section is now pretty superfluous, and could be safely removed - the information on the individual cases would not be lost, as it would still be available on the pages for the cases themselves. The "Local laws" section you might have a harder time convincing folks to remove but I sympathize as well, as the information is largely superfluous, and probably better suited to the individual articles about the status/history of SSM on a state by state basis. Shereth 20:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep the local laws prior to Obergefell section because it has important information. Prcc27 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In Litigation can go, as there is no more effective litigation, though Local Laws prior to Obergefell should stay. Kumorifox (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the restructuring proposed by 0nlyth3truth. Difbobatl (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that restructuring is needed, but there is WP:NODEADLINE. There's a lot of attention to this topic and article right now, and emotions are running high. Any attempt to make major edits will lead to lots of unnecessary bickering and even more pointless spilled (digital) ink. Wait a few weeks for the 25-day period to expire and the various protesting politicians to fade out of the news cycle, give the editors that have been dutifully updating the maps and lists their chance to see it all blue, and then go for the makeover. In the meantime, start sandboxing a new version of the article somewhere in Draft: space. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be wrongly thinking there is some 25 day period before SCOTUS decisions go into effect. That is not the case. It is law now and anyone not following it is in violation of the constitution and their oath of office. Please stop refering to 25 days as some waiting-period. Difbobatl (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:NODEADLINE is a not a Wikipedia guideline or policy. WP:BOLD is, so I'm going to be bold and remove the "In litigation" section but retain the other section given the concerns raised by a few. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't making a policy-based argument. Yes, there's no policy reason to not update the page now. I was, however, making a diplomacy-based argument. It's just not worth the hassle when this stuff will all be resolved in a few weeks, and you can use that time to draft a much better article somewhere other than the live article where you will be subject to constant arguments and reversions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we need a better map that shows the timeline of legalization. The one there is now has just shades of blue that makes it difficult to see the differences. Rather than just using the shades of one color, I think it's better to follow the model used in say the interracial marriage legalization map. Perhaps 2004-2009, 2010-Windsor, Windsor-Obergefell, post-Obergefell. Something of that nature. What do you all think? Gabe (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reservations about using Windsor as a breakpoint in the timeline, as it was a decision relating to the federal DOMA laws and not, directly, the legalization of same-sex marriage; doing so seems arbitrary and subjective. Shereth 23:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Windsor only struck down a federal law and didn't directly affect or legalize SSM in any state but it did so indirectly. It was marking a new timeline of legalizing. With the exception of Illinois and Hawaii (possibly New Mexico as well), Windsor marked the tidal wave of SSM becoming legal in nearly 20 states that the ruling indirectly created. Indirect, but certainly was the primary reason why it happened. Gabe (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish someone would BE BOLD and get rid of the state map. It really serves no purpose anymore, but to cause disputes... Difbobatl (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who does will immediately get reverted and someone will whine about "consensus". Maybe it's time to talk about WP: Ownership (you can look up the wikilink yourself, pals). Njsustain (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone a head and done it. Looks like a developing consensus here on the talk page, and in any event, displaying a map that is one color except for a single state holdout is no longer useful. This information is now better conveyed in other formats, such as simple text. Shereth 18:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try not to say I told you so...oops. Njsustain (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly consensus here. It should be done (and wouldn't even be bold at this point). If someone complains, at this point they are wrong about consensus. People can just undo their undo. There IS consensus now if we have to involve higher powers to over-ride the person that thinks they own this. Difbobatl (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

State Law v. Territory Law

OK, so now we have all the states (and DC) recognizing SSM, so the state recognition section is very simple except what history needs to be kept and labeled as such. There is a separate section for Tribal Law, could we not have a section for Territory Law to deal with all our complications? If so, the map could be moved there, since the non-territory part of it should just be a sea of dark blue. This would make it much more useful. Difbobatl (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, but unfortunately some people think "consensus " means "only when everyone agrees with me. " Come on folks... compromise. Make KS blue. Enjoy it a couple days, then face reality... it's law and the map is of no encyclopedic value. Njsustain (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect and are presenting misleading information to make Kansas blue when those people there are not receiving recognition of their same-sex marriages. It is misinformation to pretend that equality already exists in Kansas when it still fails to recognize marriages there. Dustin (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a newspaper (as per WP standards). No one is saying they won't comply, so it isn't misinformation. Brown vs. Board of Ed took years for full compliance. It's been 4 business days, and you're claiming my information is incorrect, as if this is a news source instead of an encyclopedic article. You have your head buried in the sand if you think KS can keep benefits from anyone for significantly longer. Njsustain (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your "head in the sand" metaphor. Just because Kansas is certainly going to have to comply at some point doesn't mean the map should be changed to reflect a state of affairs that isn't even true yet. There is not indication that they won't comply, but there is no indication that Kansas is complying because it isn't complying as of the last update. Dustin (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't justify having an entire map in this article just for one state not quite in 100% compliance (oh, and a couple of territories with a [non-voting] population the size of an apartment building). Njsustain (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are underrating the importance of the territories. Puerto Rico has a population higher than several states, and tens of thousands live elsewhere. Regardless of what you think of this as a person, think of it from an editor's standpoint. Dustin (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the map isn't useless until every jurisdiction is colored dark blue. Otherwise, it's important information and should stay on the article. Prcc27 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PR's compliance is a done deal, so that part of your argument is moot, or a lame duck at best. And from an editor's point of view, I would not put in a full map of the U.S. to show that KS is not in full compliance. Here's how I would do it, as an editor: Say "Kansas is not yet in full compliance." Njsustain (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But same-sex marriage isn't being enforced in PR, and the other territories haven't legalized same-sex marriage yet. And then there's American Samoa which will likely be without same-sex marriage for a while. Also, KS's non-compliance is important to note because same-sex couples don't receive benefits and recognition. All they get is a piece of paper that says they're married and federal recognition. As a result, the map still serves an important purpose. Prcc27 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, these things are worth mentioning, but that does not translate into having a map. Sir or Madam, I greatly appreciate all the hard work you have done keeping this map updated over the months and years. It was the most accurate and up to date source of what was going on. But a few Kansas state agencies and a couple of territories does not justify having an entire map of the US on this page. You are of course free to discuss the minutia on the acutual map page, for what it's worth, but like Bobby Jindal, it is time to let it go. Njsustain (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sympathetic toward this point of view. A map - or any graphic, for that matter - is only useful insofar as its presentation of information is superior to other methods. When there were dozens of states in different categories, a map made a whole lot of sense; that is no longer the case. A map is not required to convey a single outlier state and a few territories. This could easily be covered in text or with a small table whose entries could simply be removed when the corresponding state/territory "goes blue" so to speak. Shereth 21:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't get is why we can't just have patience and wait just a few weeks more to maintain this map. It has been years; I'm not saying your logic doesn't have a point, and could work for the main article maybe, but I at least don't think we should remove the map for the SSM by state page until only American Samoa remains. Some people don't want to read; that's another thing to take note of. I still argue that we aren't quite at the point that a few notes provide information more quickly than a glance at a map and a few territories. Patience is key here. Dustin (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, maps are supposed to be a visual guide to the situation of same-sex marriage in the United States. There are still a few jurisdictions that aren't dark blue and the map makes it easier to keep track of which jurisdictions don't have full same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... VISUAL guide. So we have one rectangular state, and some teeny, weeny, tiny (on the map) territories that no one outside of an upper level college geography class would recognize, if they could even see them. This isn't consensus... this is YOU grasping at straws. Give it up already! Njsustain (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure most Americans know what Puerto Rico looks like, I sure do! But even if they don't know what the other territories look like- the people in those territories know what it looks like and those readers are interested in their territory's status. Prcc27 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Njsustain: You lose credibility when you shout. And your "grasping at straws" statement takes me to the verge of just not wanting to listen to you. (edit conflict) All that aside, you haven't actually provided any valid reason. Just because someone does not agree with you doesn't mean said person is grasping at straws. I also don't think you have to be in any "upper level college geography class" to recognize at least some of the territories of the United States (especially Puerto Rico). Dustin (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. V.S., you lose credibility by confronting me AND (sorry if I was shouting) not addressing my points. Njsustain (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. It isn't the end of the world here. Please use italics rather than capital letters for emphasis. You are not conveying the right message to me in your comments at the current time. Dustin (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing any actual editing as it would only result in an edit war with people taking ownership of the article. I don't see that there is consensus to keep the map on this page. Prcc27, can you please give me one good reason why a table listing the few holdouts would not better convey the information better than your precious map? (And that someone doesn't like my tone is not a valid reason.) Njsustain (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we have to chose between having one or the other? We have had a table and a map for very, very long. These two things obviously serve different purposes. A map is visual and conveys the gist of the situation without being verbose. For those that only skim the article, this is ideal. A table goes more into depth about the situation and is more verbose. But a table would still be more verbose and not everyone will want to take the time to read it. Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I'm inclined to agree as well that this map is virtually useless at this point and the arguments presented for retaining it are grasping at straws. Also, it's potentially misleading as it signals out Kansas as having a unique "complication" not present in any other state; this does not seem to be supported by a reliable source. The "complicated legal status" claim appears to be nothing short of original research. Gay marriage is being practiced in every county in Kansas and the state govt is not explicitly rejecting recognition of same sex marriages; in fact both the state AG and the Gov's office have acknowledged that they must abide by the ruling. The issue here is that the departmental policies at the state government level simply have not been updated following the ruling as the state administration is still 'reviewing' the ruling and determining what changes need to be made. Kansas is not the only state yet to make all the governmental adjustments to comply with the ruling so the map is misleading.

Likewise, the map is misleading in claiming that there is a unique legal situation in the territories. The source provided explicitly makes clear that the ruling applies to all of the territories, the only possible exception being American Samoa. The issue there is not clear as it is not necessarily subject to the constitution in every way. This is worth mentioning. But a map of the whole country is not necessary to demonstrate that it's legal everywhere except for possibly one island with a population of 55,000 is not necessary. The unique legal situations singled out on the map appear to be arbitrary original research on the part of a couple editors. Please correct me if I'm factually wrong on any of these points, but it would appear that the map is not only unnecessary at this point, but misleading, arbitrary and not reliably sourced. It should absolutely come down if no one can present a compelling counterpoint. Swarm we ♥ our hive 00:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is it original research? Kansas has yet to recognize same-sex marriages [2]. Unless you have a source that says otherwise you are the one violating WP:OR! The state is still "reviewing" the ruling, but hasn't implemented same-sex marriage recognition yet. Kansas has not conceded that same-sex marriage is legal like the other states have so dark blue would be inappropriate for Kansas. But obviously this discussion belongs on the map's talk page. Where exactly does the map say that there is a unique legal situation in the territories? The only territory colored purple is American Samoa which you seem to agree has a unique legal situation. Same-sex marriage isn't legal in Kansas and many of the territories (including Puerto Rico) so the map is necessary. Here's a reliable source for Puerto Rico not being dark blue: [3]. And you can find reliable sources for the other territories either on the map's talk page or on the map's edit history on Commons. Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absurd. Absolutely absurd. What you're trying to say is not reflected in reality. You're quite simply wrong. It's obvious to pretty much everyone that the anti-gay marriage governor's administration is deliberately taking its time in adjusting to and extending benefits, but they quite simply are, and have acknowledged that they are, subject to the SCOTUS ruling. They are not openly refusing to recognize same-sex marriage, in defiance of SCOTUS, as you're trying to allege here. In fact, the source you've presented says "The conservative governor said the state will move “as expeditiously as we can” to make changes, but he didn’t have a timetable." So right there you have a quote from the governor saying that they will make the changes, they just have not done so yet. The given reasoning? "You have to understand and get the mechanisms in place...We’ve had meetings with the attorney general, with the relevant Cabinet agencies. We want to make sure to do this right.” Yeah, many people think they're deliberately dragging their heels on the matter, but that's the administration's given position and the state is issuing marriage licenses, assigning the claim that the state gov is "refusing to recognize same sex marriage" is misleading, non-neutral, and not entirely true. The article can discuss this controversy but it's not relevant to the map and does not change the fact that same-sex marriage is legal there, even if the state gov has not fully extended benefits to same-sex couples yet. We operate based on reliable sources here, plain and simple, and none of the arguments for the map have refuted the facts that bring its accuracy into question. I am not involved in the map's maintenance, I am merely pointing out that those who are are not doing a good job right now and even if they were it's not necessary for this article. Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're wrong. They are refusing to recognize same-sex marriages because well that's what they've been doing every since a federal district ruled that their ban is unconstitutional. But know that SCOUTS has ruled they are "reviewing" the implications of the ruling before recognizing same-sex marriages. Just because they will make the changes doesn't mean they did make the changes. The map is supposed to reflect the current status of same-sex marriage and since same-sex couples aren't being recognized dark blue is grossly inaccurate. The footnote does not say "refusing to recognize same-sex marriage" it says "does not recognize same-sex marriage" which is accurate according to the reliable sources. Prcc27 (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The map is *supposed to* convey information better than the manner text would at THIS point, and regardless of how one classifies Kansas, the map is no longer serving that purpose. There is clearly no longer consensus to keep this map in the article. As things are clearly different now since the SCOTUS decision, it is now the burden of those who wish to keep the map to make a compelling argument why rather than to maintain the *former* status quo that no longer exists. You haven't addressed the map's current benefit, just gone on and on about the minutia on Kansas and the tiny, literally and figuratively, territories. The map needs to go, and now. Njsustain (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Puerto Rico has over 3.5 million people, which is more than some states (including Kansas)!!! And the reason I was talking about Kansas was because you seemed to think it should be dark blue which isn't the case. And you haven't addressed how removing the map would benefit the article. What good would it do? You are equally responsible for making a compelling argument as I am. At this point, it is still easier to look at the map and get the gist of the situation than read the article and try to figure out who's complying and who's not. Prcc27 (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please avoid unnecessary capitalization per WP:SHOUT. Prcc27 (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you're repeating yourself, also shouting with other formating and punctuation marks, and have given no reason whatsoever for why a map conveys this information better --- the population of p.r. being a completely specious reason for an image being required over text. you're frankly embarrassing yourself at this point. please call a request for comment or administrative intervention If you don't see consensus for removing the map. there is certainly none for keeping it. you repeating the same specious facts is not consensus. Njsustain (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I mentioned PR's population because I thought that you were under the impression that the territories are a bunch of small, sparsely populated islands that don't really matter. That's not my argument for keeping the map, I was just letting you know that the territories are more important than you think. As a result, my point about PR is not embarrassing.. I will start an RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have little interest in continuing this discussion considering Njsustain's rude behavior and refusal to accept that other people disagreeing with him/her are not idiots. I am not a hypocrite for pointing this out as Njsustain seems to think. This isn't a reason for or against removal, but a reason to leave this horrendous discussion thread. Dustin (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toward the Future

Well everyone, this has been a long time coming and I'm glad that we have made it to this point of finality. I may have been a little late to the editing fun, but you have become a community to me; as well as a source of knowledge. I know we aren't technically supposed to put random banter here, but I would like to thank all of you for helping me get familiarized with Wikipedia; as well as keeping the legal situation of LGBT rights in the United States the most accurate on the internet. I won't be around this page too much anymore; I also know many of you will continue to enhance the LGBT pages for other countries and I hope many of you who haven't considered it join us. The U.S. did get a lot of attention, primarily because of its importance globally. However, there is so much more to do for the vast majority of countries and I hope your talents can find a place with some of them. Let's not have bickering over a map be the way we end this decade's worth of a journey. Happy editing and hats off to all of you who contributed! Chase1493 (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear, and I support your comment staying. The U.S. discussion was very important as it is to date the largest country to legalize SSM. Njsustain (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Same-sex marriage map

Status of same-sex marriage in the United States
  Performed and recognized
  Recognized when performed elsewhere
  Recognized by state and federal governments, but not by tribal government
  (mixed jurisdiction; not performed by tribal government)
  (mixed jurisdiction; not performed or recognized by tribal government)

Should the map on the left stay on this article? (Btw, this has already been discussed a little bit here). Prcc27 (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do we need an RfC? By the time this RfC expires in one month, SSM should be legal in Kansas and (I believe) all territories but American Samoa. With regard to removing the map: patience, patience, patience! Just a few weeks remain. This map has existed for years, so the waiting period is insignificant. Plus, has not there been a table and map for an extended period of time? Why do people hate the map so much that they can't wait an insignificant amount of time at the end of which they would not even need arguments to remove the map? 15:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Remove. I think your point is making the very case for removal, i.e that any remnants of non-compliance in the one state are inevitably to be resolved, within a short period of time. Why have a map of the entire country just to clarify that one state government hasn't quite dotted all its "i"s yet? And I agree with Kudzu below that even if we could see and distinguish the territories from one another, their compliance is both inevitable and imminent, and is not enough of a reason to keep a map of the entire country to clarify the nearly settled situation on the ground. I want to add that as far as I have ever known, the length of time a certain feature has been on WP has no relevance as to whether it should still be in an article, especially in light of a drastic change in information, as has occurred since June 26. Njsustain (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map has served its purpose and it is time for it to be retired. We should have a new map that shows when each state legalized same-sex marriage, but there is no point in taking up real estate on this page with a much-contested map showing that everywhere in the United States, except for one state (where all counties are issuing licenses) and a few territories (which have promised to comply) that are taking their time, has recognized same-sex marriage. It is especially absurd to cite the territories as a rationale for keeping the map, considering most people probably can't distinguish them from their tiny outlines in the bottom right corner here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove This map is not conveying useful information at the moment, a table is more useful. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 20:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The map no longer serves a useful purpose. It would be better to have a section on territories in text. We could remove it now. There seems to be consensus. Difbobatl (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: We should keep this map. Yes the United States was more divided on same-sex marriage legality in the past, but just because most jurisdictions (but not all) are dark blue doesn't mean we should get rid of the map. I'm pretty sure the readers want to see how this plays out until it gets to the last holdout, heck they might even want to see the entire country dark blue (at that point the map wouldn't be that useful though). And not all territories have promised to comply like Kudzu1 suggested i.e. American Samoa. And even though the other one's did, who knows how long it will be before they have same-sex marriage (with the exception of PR which will have it soon). But please tell me how removing the map will benefit the article because AFAIC it will actually negatively affect it! And replacing the map with a table makes no sense to me when we've had both tables and a map on the article for a very long time. Also, the map should not be removed until there is a clear consensus and the RfC has been closed. Prcc27 (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • An RfC you started with no consensus to do so, and in fact, the only editor who has posted here in support of your position pointed out that it's completely unnecessary. This is just pointlessly tying up the article in red tape. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, and trout the OP - per my extensive reasoning given above. Map is no longer necessary and not accurate. This RfC is nothing short of procedural bullshit from an editor who can't argue against the obvious, factual merits already presented in favor of removing it, yet, for some bizarre reason, is clinging to the false notion that the map is serving some sort of important purpose. For common sense, Swarm we ♥ our hive 23:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Njsustain: is the one who suggested the RfC- so I created it per their request. The map is accurate, and if it isn't then that can be discussed at the map's talk page. As I stated before the map is a good visual and good for viewers that skim the article instead of reading the entire thing. There has been no meritorious explanation on how it will benefit the article if it is removed. Prcc27 (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excuse me. I suggested it – I did not create it. I suggested it because *you* continued to revert everyone's changes and have utterly failed to make any sensible argument for keeping the map. There doesn't need a reason to keep something *out* of an article. You need to show a sensible reason for keeping it *in* the article, and have not been able to. Njsustain (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This map has been on this article for many years and thus has consensus. As a result, it should remain on the article until you make a sensible argument for removing the map. Prcc27 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are being disruptive now. If you revert the article again, I strongly suggest that someone request administrative intervention. You need to accept this and move on. Njsustain (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If starting an RfC is disruptive then you shouldn't have suggested it! Prcc27 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for improving this article by moving the confusing information to text instead of the map - that while was good work and once useful - which no longer helped the article. Difbobatl (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still don't see the table that people proposed to take the place of the map..! Prcc27 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then make one. Okay, folks, before logging off I'm just going to say that I smell a sock puppet. Happy Independence Day and good luck, folks. Njsustain (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Njsustain: Oh heck no; I know you did not just call me a sock puppet! SMH. Prcc27 (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has this really been removed after a day of comments over a holiday weekend? What is wrong with leaving the map in the article until the remaining areas (except perhaps the American Somoa) have applied the decision? I found the map a useful "check" to see how things were progressing, and I doubt I'm the only one...although I see that the map has already been removed and edit wars have insued... Bridger (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Bridge Partner, I always come here to see how things are going. I believe the map should stay until every state and territory have comply.I am pretty sure it only will take a few more days so why don't we just wait until all the map is blue. I am not sure why people want to take it out so quickly.Its has been for years, lets end it until it ends when the final territory or state comply.--Allan120102 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The map is still being updated regularly and still serves a useful purpose. The map will likely become obsolete in a matter of weeks once every jurisdiction falls in line. But until then, removing the map is premature. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - the map has served its purpose. Everything this maps shows can be summed up in 2-3 sentences. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let me just say that I'm glad the map was re-added because it was removed prematurely. People should have waited for consensus to fully develop before removing it. But I just thought of another reason why the map is very helpful. Yes, people read (or skim) the article. But they are not going to read it everyday. The map is helpful because once they see a jurisdiction change to a different color- then they know that they need to re-read the article to get more information and see what changed in that jurisdiction. Without the map a lot of viewers would not bother to re-read the article. Also, I do not appreciate the sock puppetry accusation- that was really uncalled for. Prcc27 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. A lot of readers probably just skim through, and a visual reference like a map that they can return to to quickly identify what has changed without reading through the entire article repeatedly is an advantage of keeping the map. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that the "vote" is 5-4 (hilariously appropriate as that may be), but looking at the whole page I see 10 people making comments in favor of getting rid of the state status map as it is. @EvergreenFir, BU Rob13, 4jonah, Brainboy109, 0nlyth3truth, Shereth, and Chase1493: just haven't done so under this RfC - mainly because it occurred after their comments.
  • You need to be careful about tagging all those people because you might be violating WP:CANVASS. Evergreenfir, BU_Rob13, 4jonah, and Chase1493 never said they were in favor of getting rid of the map on this talk page from my count! Prcc27 (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting how frequently you point out minor WP "rules" when this is probably the most blatant case of article ownership that I've ever seen. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Staying Neutral. I really don't understand why this is getting so blown out of proportion, nor do I care if it is removed or stays. My previous post was simply trying to convey my opinion that we shouldn't let something as trivial as a map be the way we end the years of construction that went into this page. Come on now, this is beginning to look childish on both sides. Find consensus and let's move on. Chase1493 (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - that there is just one state and some territories not solid blue gives an instant graphic representation of both the fact that the transition is not complete and that it is a minority of jurisdictions where it remains a concern. And as such, it remains one of the more informative images in an article that is not overburdened with images. (The "support" and "opposition" photos are pretty good, the crowd-in-front-of-Supreme-Court doesn't say that much, the heres-what-Obama-looked-like-when-talking-about-SSM says basically nothing at all that informs on the topic.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still Neutral, but thanks for giving me a good laugh. I can definitely see your point about those last two photos. Chase1493 (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Since people are just voting and not moving towards consensus, I'm thinking we might want to have a proper threaded discussion? What real useful information do the proponents of keeping the map think that this map is providing? A huge fraction of the map is the continental US, and there's exactly 1 state in there where the status is uncertain. The territories are relegated to the corner and I, personally, can't tell just based on the silhouettes what territories have what status. I might support a version of this map that covers only the overseas territories, where the territories are the primary focus of the map, but I think the territories would have to be labeled, because outside of their geographical context, it's nearly impossible for the average person to recognize them by silhouette. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 22:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A territory map may be premature because we still have 1 holdout state left. But once Kansas goes dark blue then I could support a territory only map with a footnote labeling which territory is which and another footnote that says "same-sex marriage is also legal in the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii". But since the continental US isn't entirely dark blue, I think the map should stay as is for now.. Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remove map I would say the map is no longer needed. Same-sex marriage is essentially settled as a matter of law, and is only being cleaned up as a matter of policy. We used the map previously to show the status of law, not policy. If needed we can have a map for the territories as their situation is a bit different than the states. But I do not think we need a map for the states. I support the removal of it. Gabe (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Imo once Kansas is done the map may well be taken down but if not leave it. Many people come in here and the first thing they see is the map. Sometimes when I don't have time I just see the map and then take off. A lot of people do that.Another map for the territories is not a bad idea but can we please leave the map until Kansas abide. I believe it will be pretty soon, as soon as this week.--Allan120102 (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: With Kansas now colored dark blue, the only stragglers are island territories whose outlines are not commonly recognizable. The map's utility in its present form is finished. Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land, from sea to shining sea. Let's remove the map and end the era of the status of legal marriage varying from state to state. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree. The all dark blue map is a beautiful thing, but serves no purpose. A large territorial map might be shown, but as American Samoa is a separate case and the other minor territories are complying within days, it's really not helpful. 68.199.96.18 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would like to see a dark blue map retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl (talk • contribs) 22:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you please explain what purpose it serves the article? 68.199.96.18 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Populations

I have just removed the state population/total population that allows SSM as it is now redundant. In my strong opinion we don't need a list that says 100% of the USA licenses SSM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought it was a list of states that allowed SSM prior to Obergefell. If it only lists those states then IMO it should not be removed and is not redundant. Prcc27 (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&oldid=670268001"