Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Map

The map labels much of the US as "Same sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships prohibited" but that clearly can't be right. Indiana, for example, prohibits same-sex marriage but not (as of this writing) civil unions and domestic partnerships; it just doesn't offer them statewide. Either the map needs to be fixed, or the label needs to be changed. 76.214.104.2 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture update

Hey, could someone with the appropriate tools update this picture on the Commons? I believe Kansas, Texas and Alaska have also passed constitutional amendments to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages. FoekeNoppert 14:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the local version to the article. Oddly enough, it has a completely different legend and information than the Commons version, and it also seems wrong. -- Beland 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mountain states.

I moved the reference to the mountain states back to where it belongs. Nevada, Utah, and Montana already have a Constitutional Amendment. Idaho, Arizona and Colorado have laws preventing same sex marriage. Idaho is on the verge of passing a Constitutional Amendment. Only Wyoming doesn't have either. Claiming that residents of these states generally support same sex marriage is clearly wrong.

Most states don't support same-sex marriage but many do have significant populations that support other measures equal to marriage. )(note its extending the protections of civil marriage not itself) The mountain states only had roughly 67 to 66 percent vote in favor of amendments while the south had as high as 86%. In the south no powerful elected leaders have supported same-sex marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or reciprocal beneficiary. Utah's governor supports reciprocal benefits, Salt Lake City's mayor supports same-sex marriage, Colorado's legislature is putting a domestic partnerhip question on the ballot, legislators in Arizona and Montana have introduced bills allowing domestic partnerships (which have failed). New Mexico's governor supports civil unions. Even the most conservative mountain state groups like Focus on the Family support reciprocal benefits. Idaho even defeated an attempt to pass an amendment in their legislature. The mountain states are no south. Yes. They vote Republican generally, but its much more libertarian, especially on gay rights, than the authoritative south. 144.35.254.12 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is about same-sex MARRIAGE, not civil unions. The statement would make sense on that Wiki article, not this one. If the people, in a popular vote, enact a Constitutional Amendment and/or a law, that would be a pretty good indicator if the populace "generally" supports a given issue. It should be reverted back to how it was. Idaho's DOMA will go to the voters in November ([[1]]) and it is likely to pass.
This article was merged with an article called "legal recongition of same-sex couples in the United States". The article does, indeed, encompass civil union, reciprocal benefits, domestic partnership, and same-sex marriage. And I agree about the vote point. For example Utah supported an amendment with 66% voting yes to ban the recognition of same-sex marriage; however the Salt Lake Tribune and LDS owned Deseret News (both daily newspapers) found in a poll they ran that most Utahns also support reciprocal benefits that would offer some of the protections of civil marriage which is why the governor does. While in the south the story remains much more simple with vast majorities against same-sex marriage and civil union, reciprocal benefits, and domestic partnership. That is why I am against the grouping. 71.213.46.53 18:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
First, the article is NOT about reciprocal benefits. Secondly, there is a seperate Wiki article devoted to civil unions. Finally, I am not suggesting we group the mountain states w/ the southern ones. I am suggesting that if we mention anything about the mountain states and civil unions, there better be a reference to the fact that nearly everyone of them has specifically banned same-sex marriage; either by law or an Amendment. To do otherwise would be to have the article incomplete, inaccurate, and, possibly, an ommission based upon POV.

Reducing length

Once again, my edits have been reverted. I'll go through each change one step at a time and explain the reason for the deletion. The "Laws defining marriage" section is almost entirely repeated material (see Timeline section) or is nicely summarized in the table directly below it. I certainly think its not necessary to repeat information twice in the same article (especially one that is too long already). I therefore deleted all repeated information and moved non-repeated information to the appropriate section.SSouthern 23:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

External links too long

List is too long and is close to becoming a "me-too" repository of links WP:NOT. It should be broken off into a List of groups advocating or opposing same-sex marriage or junked entirely as being a repository of links and counter to WP policy. - Davodd 19:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, but since this list doesn't exist yet, should we be making:
  • List of groups advocating or opposing same-sex marriage or
  • List of groups advocating same-sex marriage and List of groups opposing same-sex marriage or
  • List of groups advocating same-sex marriage in the United States and List of groups opposing same-sex marriage in the United States ?
Another concern... there will be striking overlap with List of gay-rights organizations, is this an issue? Spacefem (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Link

The link to "A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage" only goes to Andrew Sullivan's main page, not the specific commentary itself.

It used to go straight to it. May have been moved. Anyone have an updated link?

MPA

Can anyone provide updated info regarding the Marriage Protection Amendment? It's being voted on next week.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.216.252 (talk • contribs)


FMA Vote Neutrality

Quote: "On May 18 2006, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would prohibit states to recognize same-sex marriages. The measure passed by a party line vote. The measure was debated by the full United States Senate, but defeated in a 49-48 vote on June 7, 2006 [1]."

Wouldn't it be more accurate (and neutral) to post the actual vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rather than the fact that it was along party lines? --Tim4christ17 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence to be more specific (it was slightly confusing at the time). However, I don't see why you think it is not neutral to describe the vote as "along party lines". If this is correct (I've not checked it), then it is a simple fact. It is also relevant, in the sense that same-sex marriage is currently a political football in the U.S. Simply giving the vote tally would contain less information than what we have now.--Deville (Talk) 17:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is factual...my concerns are that a.) People may not know how many members from each party are on the committee, and b.) If we are going to point out that that vote was along party lines, why isn't it pointed out that the vote in the whole senate wasn't along party lines? Making the statement about only one of the two votes seems to imply that the other one was also along party lines. --Tim4christ17 08:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have no problem with saying that the vote was not along party lines in the full Senate and that Republicans crossed the aisle to vote against it, or whatever you think is good. I didn't think about putting it in there now because it's pretty clear that if something fails in the full Senate, it's not possible for all Republicans to have voted for it since they have the majority. I do think that it makes sense to say the vote in committee was along party lines, since it is well-known that the Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and thus have a majority on committees, and furthermore saying "along party lines" carries more information than just saying "it passed 10-8". --Deville (Talk) 00:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, because an amendment requires 2/3 of the Senate to pass, there could have been voting in the Senate along party lines and it would have still failed. I don't really see anything wrong with putting (10-8) or something after the comment that it passed the committee along party lines, assuming we discuss it at all; after all, this is an encyclopedia for all time, and the Republicans won't control the Senate for ever.
On the other hand, votes in committees are often just procedural matters, so I'm not sure how noteworthy it is at all; by saying that the main Senate voted on it, we're already essentially saying that it was passed in committee. In fact, just about every piece of legislation eventually passed by Congress was earlier passed in committee, many on party line votes. I'm reasonably sure that the only reason the info on the committee vote is in this article at all is because the information was being updated while events were happening, but now I'm not sure that it bears mention. --Jfruh (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all of this, FWIW. --Deville (Talk) 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

I notice that the timeline lists specific dates that Gay marriage was either legalized or banned. Could someone add the dates (pre-timeline) that states like Iowa, which is not on the list, defined marriage? Whether it's in a single "before-this-date" category or separated doesn't really matter...but the dates of the legal definitions of marriage should be included for all 50 states, as well as the U.S. terroritories. --Tim4christ17 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Very good point and a needed addition. Many states that have added laws, for or against, aren't listed.

Washington State Court Case Update

Why is it taking so long for the ruling of this case? It has been already over a year since they have heard arguments. What is the cause for the delay? tdwuhs

My friend from Washington speculates, quite reasonably, that the court may be delaying the release of a decision until after the November elections. Supreme Court justices in that state are popularly elected, so the court tends to be a little more overtly political than high courts in many other states. If you email me, I'll be sure to let you know as soon as I hear anything (kdogg36@gmail.com). kdogg36 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Their supreme court ruled yesterday that the gay marriage ban stands.

Legal recognition of same-sex couples in the United States: Separate article?

Right now, Legal recognition of same-sex couples in the United States redirects to this page. Should this perhaps be a separate article? The article could be kept short, and merely be a run-down of what statuses are available to who in what states and/or other jurisdictions. It seems wrong redirect someone who is looking for information on a broader subject to this page --Jfruh (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

~~I don't think it's necessary since it could easily be covered in a small subsection of this article.

Timeline

I have relabled this section "Same-sex marriage state by state," because it's really not a timeline at all; the main organizing factor is by state. To that end, I'd also like to arrange the states alphabetically. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know. kdogg36 22:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

State by State content deletion

While I can appreciate that we should link to the main articles and not have all the data in this one, could someone please add a sentence-or-two summary in the sections that currently only have the link to their article? --Tim4christ17 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dual Stance of 'Focus on the Family'?

I noticed that the group 'Focus on the Family' is listed both as "support[ing] ... legislation that would give some of the same legal rights as marriage but not all" as well as "oppos[ing] giving a legal status to same-sex-marriages" in the section of the article titled "Groups supporting and opposing same-sex marriage". This is puzzling; don't these two views contradict each other? Thought I'd bring it up for discussion before changing anything. Edit: The article on Wikipedia about Focus on the Family says it opposes homosexuality, so it probably opposes giving a legel status to same-sex marriage. --Spinnick597 17 August 2006

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060219/21772.htm Focus opposes marriage but supports reciprocal benefits. Many see it has an attempt to hurt the domestic partnership ballot. Focus is worried Colorado will pass it since Utah only had 66% vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage and Colorado is seen has more liberal than Utah on gay rights. Focus was shocked with the Utah vote outcome in 2004, they had thought the interior west would be like the South on the issue with over 80% in favor of banning ssmarriage.. 71.219.74.123 02:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Case law

Is there any reason that the case law is about "rights regarding homosexuals" and not about same-sex marriage cases? It seems unnecessary to have cases like Lawrence v. Texas, which is about a criminal sodomy ban, referenced in the article about same-sex marriage.

I agree. There's far too much drift here away from SSM and towards gay rights in general. The article needs focus. --Jfruh (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm considering being bold and what-not and taking out the non-SSM case history, along with the "other actions" chart. The article is unwieldly. I'm also thinking of breaking out the Public opinion section and possibly the state-by-state action into separate articles. Opinions? Otto4711 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree strongly with your second thought. This article has clearly become too long, and I think the most logical way to break it up is to move the state-by-state breakdown into a separate article, perhaps, "Same-sex marriage laws by state". -Kubigula (ave) 03:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mexico City Civil Unions

On the map of North American countries, it doesn't show Mexico City as a territory that has legalized civil unions, which it is. I would change it myself, but I don't know how to. —The preceding comment was added by 14:50, 10 November 2006 (talk • contribs • 10 November 2006 page moves • block user • 10 November 2006 block log)

The map doesn't show other cities that have different arrangements from the state they are in doesn't, either. It appears (based on the Mexico City page) that Mexico City is not the entirety of the Federal District, so that entire "state" does not have civil unions.
--Psiphiorg 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Who gives people the right to marry their own kind?

I my opion this is a violation to God and to the Family.

That is one of the primary arguments, however please see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Additinally, does your government not promise a seperation of church and state? 24.86.58.173 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What weasel words?

I don't see the problem. Seems like a nicely written, well-balanced article to me. Is this an old tag that can be removed now? If not, where exactly is the problem? Textorus 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It would be nice if the individual who tagged this article would have specifically mentioned the problem. SSouthern 07:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

supporters and opposers

This sections needs to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb and given rigorous citations for any entries that are not blatantly obvious (Americans Against Same-Sex Homosexual Love is pretty self-evident), but Corretta Scott-King, any political parties, and most other groups need a citation. We're looking at a black eye if someone gets their nose out of joint because Wikipedia said things that were untrue about their stance on the issue, and citations to reliable sources are our best defense against that. -- nae'blis 22:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it really help the article very much? Maybe it shouldn't be listed at all.
I think that it's somewhat interesting, but there appear to be at least two inaccuracies. In addition to the questionable listing of the "KKK" as an organization opposed to same-sex marriage, I notice that one of the other organizations listed is one called "Sam." I have no idea if that's a legitimate organization or just an instance of vandalism; its citation is actually an article about the Southern Baptist Convention. I know very little about citation coding, so I don't want to mess with this list myself... NathanDahlin 04:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

KKK?

Is it really necessary to include the KKK among opposers of gay marriage? It just seems like a blatant attempt to demonize opposition to gay marriage User: Saget53 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a rather shameless attempt to discredit those who oppose gay marriage legalization and therefore is not NPOV. It's also totally inaccurate as there is no such thing as a single, national Klan organization anymore. Check out the ADL and SPLC sites for further information.
I'm sure there are small groups that still use the name and likely oppose gay marriage, but do we really need to include every fringe group in the list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, it's not like these christian groups are much different from the KKK.66.191.19.42 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Such a statement is obviously POV and does not belong on Wikipedia. Frankly, it's also an absurd notion to suggest that a denomination with a doctrine opposed to same-sex marriage is somehow as infamous as the Klan.

I don't know who wrote the comment before me, but in the future, sign it. The KKK is against homosexual-marriage, hence the statement is accurate. The communist party is listed as supporting it, so it is only fair. The communist party is extreme as well as the KKK. (69.140.166.42 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

I can't address the other users comments, but I think you're missing the point. There is no such thing as a single, national Klan anymore. There hasn't been for decades. There are, however, a few tiny groups that have the name somewhere in their title. If a sourced reference to their opposition to same-sex marriage was included, that would be a fine addition. Just saying "the Klan" is inaccurate. Your comparison to the Communist Party USA doesn't really work as said national party still exists; the Klan doesn't. 68.113.47.82 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do States Have a Compelling Interest?

I've briefly perused the article and thought of adding some info, but feel it should be discussed first. It has been pointed out to me by my best friend's attorney that any State with a ban on gay marriage will, should it ever be challenged in the courts, have to demostrate that it has a compelling interest in banning same-sex marriage. To argue that it has will be very difficult for any State. I realize that to include this tidbit of info could be considered unsourced POV.--Clay 15:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be original research, actually. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so it would be inappropriate to add "what if?"-type information to the page. When a law is challenged, then it would be appropriate to add information about what actually did happen, but it is not Wikipedia's place to predict the future. --ΨΦorg 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. According to my best friend's attorney it isn't a matter of IF, but HOW a state can possibly demonstrate that it has a compelling interest to ban same-sex marriage. From a legal POV no state can justify that it has a compelling interest. He said that the only way a state could conceiveably win is if the Judge(s) had a track for conservative judgments. Although Nebraska, in 2005, has beaten the odds that such a challenge would present. --Clay 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The legal issues are more complicated than that. If the ban on same sex marriage is a part of the state constitution, then a state court does not have the power to overturn the ban. The extent to which the U.S. Constitution could be used to invalidate such a ban in federal court would ultimately wind up with the Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee that they would apply a "compelling interest" analysis. The bottom line is that the legal issues are very much undecided and probably will be for many years.--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the legal issues are complicated. Some state courts have applied "strict scrutiny" (from which the compelling interest requirement derives) when considering challenges. Some state courts have ruled that the opposite-sex requirements didn't meet even more differential standards (rational basis). Some states also entertain standards of review between those two extremes. And, a state court may strike down a state's constitutional provision because it runs afoul of the federal constitution (hasn't happened in this context). Any/all of which could certainly be discussed here without straying into Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The arguments made and the decisions issued are facts, not speculation. Wonderbreadsf 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Color Usage?

In the sidebar outlining different levels of recognition of gay unions around the world, the colors seem to come from the rainbow flag. Unfortunately, there is also an implicit reference here to a rising level of threat corresponding to a rising level of recognition (like say the Security threat levels issued by the US Govt), where nationwide legality is coded red "or high threat" down through orange and yellow, and the regions still undergoing debate are coded green. I think the symbolism of red-yellow-green is strong enough that either different colors be used, or that their order is made arbitrary (rather than descending). Yes, I also realize they are the colors of the natural light spectrum :), but we've already adopted that symbology to correspond with threat levels, whether at traffic intersections or war-rooms. --Ajasen 09:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They're also the color of the Rainbow flag, which is a gay pride flag, which is what the reference is to here. If anything, the NPOV is in the opposite direction of the one you assume. --Jfruh (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, more likely, someone thought 'Since this is about gay things, let's put the gay pride colours on it!' when they were bored. 24.86.58.173 05:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

States recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriage

Recently, Attorneys General in New Jersey and Rhode Island have decided to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other places (New Jersey will recognize them as performed anywhere in the world, and Rhode Island will recognize them as performed in Massachusetts). I don't know how to work them into the article (and I frankly don't have the time right now), but it would be significant to make those changes. --Zz414 14:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

California

Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article:

The California Senate ... [is] the first legislative body in the nation to approve same-sex marriage without a court order. [2]

—User:Christopher Mann McKay 17:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

While it is of historic insterest, because the law was ultimately vetoed by the goveronor, the vote ultimately had no lasting effect. Probably better treated on the Same-Sex Marriage in California page. --Jfruh (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was not aware there is a Same-sex marriage in California article until now. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In the multi-state chart, California should be listed as purple and yellow, as Washington State is. California does indeed have a domestic partnership statute approximating marriage, but it also has at least two statutes (Cal. Fam. Code §§ 300 and 308.5) and arguably three (§ 301) banning same-sex marriage. Xrlq (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

External Links?

Looks like the external links are totally one-sided now and therefore is not NPOV [3]. That wasn't always the case. Why was this changed? 68.113.47.82 18:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Iowa Court Decision

This is probably noteable- http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070830/NEWS/70830044/1001/BUSINESS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.26.177 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Debate" section

I believe that the debate over same-sex marriage needs to be elaborated in terms of the rationale offered by each party to the debate, rather than their affiation to conservative or liberal publications or institutions, in order to stay within the bounds of NPOV. It is not neutral to imply that there is a monolithic "liberal" or "conservative" stance on this issue. Naturezak (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Where's the NPOV?

The section on "groups supporting and opposing same-sex marriage" contains what appears to be every pro-same-sex-marriage organization known to mankind, but very scant attention is paid to the section on organizations opposing same-sex marriage. I attempted to add some organizations to the list to make this section somewhat more even-handed, but my edits have been removed for some reason. This seems to be an NPOV problem.

24.97.136.210 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually many organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are listed (I count at least 21 in the article). Your edits were removed because you weren't bothering to link to organization's wiki pages, you were just creating a link farm to POV websites. It's best to attempt to link to an org's wiki page, and then add a cite to their position on the matter if necessary. Cheers! Newtman (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. I'd be happy to link to the organizations' wiki pages if they had any. Also, I count 64 organizations and individuals listed on the pro-same-sex-marriage side -- three times as many as you counted on the opposing side. Seems a bit uneven to me.

24.97.136.210 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.