![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
The link to "A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage" only goes to Andrew Sullivan's main page, not the specific commentary itself.
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)
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 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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.34.212.96 ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 November 2006
I my opion this is a violation to God and to the Family.
Additinally, does your government not promise a seperation of church and state? 24.86.58.173 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Well, it's not like these christian groups are much different from the KKK. 66.191.19.42 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article:
— User:Christopher Mann McKay 17:46, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Supreme Court decision does not go into effect until April 24. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestlefun17 ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Make Vermont PURPLE on the map!! Blaze33541 ( talk) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
In the last section of the article, there are three links supporting the statement that Bush supports civil unions. After I fixed the mangled templates to view the articles, it appears that all three reference the same interview on Good Morning America. Since I am not a regular editor of this page or of related topics, I decided to just leave a note on the talk page pointing out that three links is probably overkill, and since this covers an event that happened over four years ago, these articles are not likely to disappear behind a pay firewall. Perhaps the regular editors can choose which of the three to retain, and jettison the other two as redundant. Horologium (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
on the right-hand side of the article, there is a separate box that talks about the types of gay marriages/unions/arrangements in different states/countries.
It says "United States (MA, CA eff. 6/14/2008)"
the effective date should be 5/14/2008, not 6/14/2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.114.88 ( talk) 00:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I've been informed that it starts 30 days from now. i feel dumb :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.114.88 ( talk) 00:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
So I added this:
Lest non-lawyers readers be misled, the court decision 4-3, is not yet final, since it is highly divided, and one vote can change. So, under CA rules, an appeal or motion can be filed withing 30 days to stay it, and after May 15, as of now, no marriage can still be held pending the finality. Besides the November ballot might reverse or avoid this ruling by Constitutional amendment. I am a lawyer/ judge, and our Philippine laws were copied from California federal rules of service. I repeat, just one vote can can change the 4-3 judgment. So I added this: Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that reversed interracial marriages ban, the Republican-dominated California Supreme Court, (in a 4-3 ruling, penned by Chief Justice Ronald George) struck down California's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar voter-approved 2000 law (passed with 61%). The judgment is not final, for the ruling can be reconsidered upon filing of appeal or motion within 30 days, as the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, inter aila, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. If the court denies the plea, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days. The 2006 census figures indicate that, California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households. news.yahoo.com, California's top court legalizes gay marriage Same-sex marriage opponents announced, however, that they gathered 1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to define marriage as between a man and woman, to effectively annul the decision. nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling -- Florentino floro ( talk) 06:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I just removed the lists of supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage. In a comment above, it was noted that the lists were interesting. Even if they are, it is not clear that they are encyclopedic. A description of the types of organizations and people that take each side might have value as may a discussion which churches solemnize same-sex marriages. - Rrius ( talk) 05:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Am I missing it, or does this article completely ignore the actions of Portland OR and San Francisco city halls in solemnizing same-sex marriages in 2004? It seems like this is a crucial piece of the history of this subject. Msalt ( talk) 23:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I just reinstated the lists of supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage. I believe that they are both appropriate and encyclopedic. If anyone does not agree that these lists should be present (or thinks that there is an effective way to summarize them), let's discuss the issue rather than simply removing entire sections of the article.
SCBC ( talk) 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I moved Same-sex marriage in the United States to Same-sex unions in the United States in that the article should touch an all topics of same-sex unions in the United States, and not just same sex-marriage. Other forms of same-sex unions include, Same-sex Civil Unions and Same-sex Domestic Partnerships. Please help and change any former statements that need to be updated to fit with the change. -- Cooljuno411 ( talk) 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, the first sentence of the lead read as follows:
Cooljunio removed "also referred to as gay marriage" with the following edit summary:
I restored the original citing the use of gay marriage in thousands of online news articles including those from mainstream papers. Cooljunio restored his edit saying, "Revert to previous version by ClueBot. Same-sex marriage article does not include the 'gay marriage' and 'gay marriage' does not fall under world view and nutrality."
The term "gay marriage" may not be considered politically correct by some. This is a bit odd to me because "gay rights" seems to pass without notice. In any event, "gay marriage" is used extensively in common conversation and debate, I would argue far more often than "same-sex marriage". As it is commonly used, including in impartial news sources, it should be included in the lead as an alternative name.
The fact that a term is not repeated in the article is not relevant. Many alternative names noted in leads across Wikipedia are not used in the rest of the article.
Moreover, the term is used in the article. It is used in the Wikinews box, the external references, and footnotes. It is also, I would imagine, used extensively in the articles and pages linked to from the footnotes.
To exclude the term, rather than including it, is POV of a certain political viewpoint. For these reasons, I am once again reverting the change. - Rrius ( talk) 20:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Though you will simply dismiss my comment as POV no doubt, after careful consideration of everything said here by both of you, I believe Cooljuno411 is correct and you, Rrius, are wrong, pretty much on all points expressed. However, I have no dog in this hunt so do as you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13Gregor ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
As the months go by and more and more states recognize same-sex unions, the idea of an accurate color-coded map is becoming trickier and trickier--perhaps impossible.
New York, New Hampshire and New Jersey are great examples, since, legally, they all "recognize" same-sex marriages, in one way or another, from other states. But, while New York recognizes out-of-state same-sex marriages as full-fledged marriages, NH and NJ recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as civil unions.
I think the later should clearly be delineated, while the former may NOT need any illustration on the map. It is likely that most states with civil union statues, if there were legal issues or legislative changes, would recognize same-sex marriages as civil unions. Connecticut is an interesting example of what could happen, because their civil union law does not specifically recognize same-sex marriages, but they also have a statute (passed at the same time as the civil union law) that bans same-sex marriage.
Like I said, this is a VERY tricky thing to illustrate. At this point, it almost seems necessary to have a separate Wikipedia article for Same-Sex Unions in the Northeast, although it would still seem difficult to visually illustrate the complexity involved with recognition of same-sex unions. Things will be come more complex if the Illinois legislature passes their proposed civil union law (which seems likely either later this or next year), which would not only also be open to opposite-sex couples, but would also recognize gay marriages as civil unions.
As California shows, much of the progression of this involves layering over layering of new rights. Can it all really be added to the map?
Benrw 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 00:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
While I believe the Cherokee nation baned same-sex marriage I heard recently that a smaller tribe of Native Americans legalized them. Does anyone know more about which tribe this was, whether it actually uses the word marriage for the unions, and what the ramifications of tribal sovereignty mean for federal recognition? 24.210.40.166 ( talk) 22:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here, that needs more input, regarding removing the Coquille Indian Tribe (Oregon) as a place where marriage is legal. It is not a state, and is giving undue weight to the tribe, and regarding it on the same level as a state or country. CTJF83 Talk 23:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The US constitution says states must give full faith & credit to each other's legal decisions. A natural interpretation of this would be that all states must recognize such marriages celebrated in any of them. I can't see any mention of this issue in the article. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it's time to add Connecticut as a state recognizing same-sex marriage: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27117467/ Kier07 ( talk) 15:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I second that, I would change CT to purple on the map but don't know how to. Blaze33541 ( talk) 17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know more about the practice of religious same-sex marriages in the USA. Civil weddings and religious weddings are two separate beasts, one might argue, and thus the religious nature of marriages ought to be examined. 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 01:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This article claims that marriage in California ended on Nov. 4. But provides no certification from the state that this is the case. As of 2:55 p.m. California time, according to the NoOnProp8.com site: "Roughly 400,000 votes separate yes from no on Prop 8 – out of 10 million votes tallied. Based on turnout estimates reported yesterday, we expect that there are more than 3 million and possibly as many as 4 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted." [5] Also if it does pass - it will have to be put into law by state action - which has not yet happened. And if that does, it may be stayed by a lawsuit: http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/legal-groups-file-lawsuit.html
- Davodd ( talk) 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The article claims that same sex marriage in California is legal yet clearly, both by the constitution and by the California Family Code, it is not, according to official sources:
(NOTE: See the recent ruling of the CA Supreme Court, which was apparently directed towards at least the latter of these two references.)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310
FAMILY CODE SECTION 300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman
SECTION 308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
You might argue that the recent CA Supreme Court decision affected one or both of these, but if so, why are they still in the code?
That, however, is the least of the two arguments, for check here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?waisdocid=82496212180+0+0+0&waisaction=retrieve
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
This is a fairly straightforward answer to the argument that any gender requirements for marriage are unconstitutional in California, since, CLEARLY, the Constitution does in fact require that "marriage" requires one man and one woman.
Now it is being argued that this somehow denies some classes "equal rights", however, there is nothing here or, for that matter, in the previously cited sections of the California Family Code which denies anyone any right. Any eligible woman is free to marry any eligible man, any eligible man is free to marry any eligible woman, regardless of race, ethnicity, economic status, sexual preference, etc. All persons have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT. Any argument to the contrary that is based on behavior or choice is disingenuous at best. And tinkering with this, despite what opponents claim, opens up a pandora's box of issues which will only lead to trouble, much like the recent CA Supreme Court decision needlessly created tens of thousands of so-called "marriages" which now clearly are not valid or recognized in California when they should have waited for the outcome of Prop 8 on November 4, 2008 before rushing to judgment.
Furthermore, it is now clear, both in the California Constitution, and in the California Family Code as the state now presents these legal entities, that no union that involves other than one man and one woman is recognized or valid as a marriage in California. Again, word it however you prefer but these are the essential facts. Also, remember that all men and all women, regardless of personal choices such as sexual preference, are treated equally by all referenced sections of CA law.
Finally, since California law clearly states that the legislature may not overturn the will of the people expressed through the initiative process, it is obvious that this same prohibition applies to the California Courts as well, though I wholly expect those courts to carelessly disregard this simple and obvious fact. I am relatively certain they will force this matter into the U.S. Supreme Court and in so doing they will only add to their atrocious record of being the most overturned courts in the U.S. if not also in the world.
IN SUMMARY: The page needs to be updated to correct the claim that same sex "marriage" is legal or recognized in California, as evidenced by the cited sections of the California Family Code, the California Constitution. It has been widely reported that same sex couples have still come forward asking to be married, and have been turned away, since the passage of Prop 8.
While there are those who are determined to avoid accepting, admitting or publicizing this current state of reality, apparently on the grounds they can't or won't accept it and are determined that it be changed or whatever, I believe that, at least until the will of the people is overturned again by the courts, if that indeed does happen, WIKIPEDIA should strive to accurately present what IS, not what some who have the power to edit, to deny edits or to roll back edits wish would come to be.
13Gregor ( talk) 09:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The No on Proposition 8 people have conceded: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=93497470583
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION
SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. Reference: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18 ( Jaschu ( talk) 02:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaschu ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears you already are aware that Prop 8 is both in the Constitution and has clearly taken effect. Though news accounts make it clear many refuse to accept this reality, and while it is a safe bet the courts will continue to sail into lunatic waters with a probable move to rule the California Constitution unconstitutional, it is also a reasonable bet that the USSC will eventually put things right and the CA SC will be informed that the CA prohibition on the legislature attempting to usurp the expressed will of the people, without their express prior consent, applies equally to them as well. To quote Gavin Newsom, same sex "marriage" is not recognized or valid in CA "whether you like it or not". I find it hard to pity those who, by their own rash choice, were foolish enough to get "married" in CA after the rash CA SC decision in May and who subsequently woke up on Nov 5, 2008, NOT MARRIED.
13Gregor ( talk) 09:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Same sex-marriage is not legal in California anymore, so change the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.231.149 ( talk) 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The argument presented by PaxPaladin is in error as it suggests that Prop 8 or Prop 22 somehow excluded some group or took away their right - an unfortunately all too common false argument presented admittedly pretty much universally despite it's blatant falsehood. Choice is not a valid basis for creation of a right, civil or otherwise. Any man, be he homo or heterosexual has exactly the same right to marry as any other man. The same goes for any woman. Now they may not CHOOSE to exercise that right, but any claim that they don't have it is, simply, a lie.
And it seems Occupax spoke without first doing his homework, because well before 12 Nov 2008 at 23:46 the CA Constitution was changed to reflect what is shown below. Further evidence that the state does not recognize same-sex unions as "marriage" and does not allow same sex couples to get "married" is evidenced by the fact that, since the election, same-sex couples seeking to marry have been turned away.
So please see these references for yourself to validate this, check with your appropriate local CA government office and, as suggested, change the picture to reflect the facts! Plus, please update any other pages that refer to same-sex marriage as legal, valid, recognized, etc. in CA to reflect current law and reality per the official CA state websites:
(NOTE: See the recent ruling of the CA Supreme Court, which was apparently directed towards at least the latter of these two references.)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310
FAMILY CODE SECTION 300. (a) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman
SECTION 308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
You might argue that the recent CA Supreme Court decision affected one or both of these, but if so, why are they still in the code? Clearly the results of the Nov 4, 2008 election have overturned the recent ruling of the CA Supreme Court.
That, however, is the least of the two arguments, for check here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?waisdocid=82496212180+0+0+0&waisaction=retrieve
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Clearly the arguments by those who demand same sex "marriage" based on denial of rights or constitutionality grounds come from someone who is unable to accept reality, for the California Constitution and, for that matter the CA Family Code (section 300 and 308.5) clearly all say that all men and women, regarless of SEXUAL PREFERENCE, i.e. PERSONAL CHOICE, have exactly the same right to marry, nothing more, nothing less.
13Gregor ( talk) 09:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
This article needs more history about same-sex marriage in the United States, and the case law section is a good place to start finding it. Fortuynist ( talk) 14:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a more reliable reference that has gay marriage legal in Aruba and The Netherlands Antilles? Currently the ONLY reference is a gay news site (News website that deals with ONLY gay and bi topics as opposed to all) and what they say can be twisted around in any shape or form. I also want to add that both the topics Same-sex marriage in Aruba and Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands Antilles have that gay news site as a sole reference. Knowledgekid87 14:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Vermont has legalized gay marriage through the legislature with veto override, the first to do so. The map needs to be updated if anyone can! -- 128.227.167.146 ( talk) 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The DC city council just voted to recognize same-sex marriages (April 7, 2009): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/04/07/ST2009040702401.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.65.188 ( talk) 21:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, same sex marriages performed in other states. Czolgolz ( talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
someone should make Connecticut all purple.....Same-sex marriage is legalized there, so there is no need for the purple-green mixture-only purple. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.77.37 ( talk) 18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should just color in states by broadest category available. It would make the map much less busy to look at. Regardless, the legality of civil unions should be considered questionable now in CT. Why should gay couples get TWO options of legal relationship recognition and straight couples only ONE? I'm guessing that the CT state legislature just hasn't bothered updating the law. Perhaps civil unions are still technically on the books, but I'm sure no one seeks them anymore. Perhaps someone who lives in CT could clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestlefun17 ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I concur. Since purple is for full marriage rights it looks way better on the map to have it purple. It should definitely be changed. Plus the marriage and unions granting similar rights is redundant. Blaze33541 ( talk) 01:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The map should now have blue stripes on Colorado. ( http://www.365gay.com/news/colorado-governor-signs-partner-bill/) Cestlefun17 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC).
Vermont is either yellow/green until September 1 and Iowa in yellow until April 27 or both are now full purple. Vermont will not have civil unions and same-sex marriage simultaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestlefun17 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Utah courts have ruled that Utah's amendment doesn't ban domestic partnerships. Salt Lake City and County currently have them. Utah's Governor has even indicated that he believes the amendment doesn't even ban civil unions since they aren't the same as marriage but courts would need to decide. Please fix this. 97.117.125.64 ( talk) 01:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] 97.117.125.64 ( talk) 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
So I'm not sure how you'd color UT. Perhaps orange since domestic partnerships have already been found to be allowed by the courts, and civil unions are thought by many including the governor to be allowed as well under the amendment. And maybe a speck of green for Salt Lake City and County for its current domestic partnership registry? 97.117.125.64 ( talk) 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think the multicolored states are confusing as heck. I'm for simplification. Czolgolz ( talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=Gov+News&id=72146&v=Article-2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.12.25 ( talk) 16:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am getting so spoiled by this, nearly every week now a new state has joined the right rank and ended the discrimination. Anyway it is time for Maine to become PURPLE on the map. Blaze33541 ( talk) 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page is saying on the side bar that same-sex marriages abroad are recognized in Wyoming? Should the map reflect that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.157.113 ( talk) 23:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations and the United Church of Christ both have released resolutions in favor of same sex marriage. Thanks! References: http://www.uua.org/justice/statements/statements/14251.shtml and http://www.ucc.org/assets/pdfs/2005-EQUAL-MARRIAGE-RIGHTS-FOR-ALL.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.83.72 ( talk) 21:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd support Nat Gertler's suggestion that we remove these lists and just link to the entries that present lists of supporting and opposing orgs. A partial list is less than helpful, while a characterization of the types of orgs with a link to the list, if done well, should prove stable. I don't see any opposition to that. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 18:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
DONE. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)