From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured listList of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2007 Featured list candidatePromoted
July 11, 2009 Featured list removal candidateKept
October 4, 2020 Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on January 19, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that twenty-seven U.S. states (pictured) have adopted constitutional amendments to prevent same-sex marriage or civil unions?
Current status: Former featured list

No ssm template

I'm removing the same-sex marriage template for two reasons. First, it causes formatting problems. However the second reason is more important: most of these amendments ban civil unions as well, and thus, it would make more sense to insert the civil unions template into the article. Yet as this would interfere with formatting, I think neither should be in place. And after all, the article does link rather prominantly to both gay marriage and civil unions. -- Zantastik talk 00:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Ja. - crz crztalk 02:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

California has banned Same sex Marraige

And there's a huge legal battle going on right now, due to it. However I'm too lazy to add it, and change the image-- Acebrock 05:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Indeed CA has, but it has not amended its constitution to this effect. This list covers only constitutional amendements that limit same-sex marriage and civil unions (and every such amendment save that of Hawaii, renders ssm and/or civil unions unconstitutional) So gay marriage or civil unions can be banned without them actually violating the constitution; this list only addresses constitutional bans. -- Zantastik talk 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Indeed, Zantastik is correct. California, as well as nearly every other U.S. state, has passed statutes that ban same sex marriage, but not constitutional amendments. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply
So what. Texas banned opposite sex marriage: "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." -- 188.126.207.212 ( talk) 15:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The "So-called" qualifier.

This list, like everything on wikipedia, should scrupulously respect NPOV. POV comes in may shapes and forms -- undue weight, full-fleged bias, weasel words, etc. Thus this article does not speak of "gay marriage" -- terminology originally used by its supporters. By the same token, uncritically calling these constitutional amendments "defense of marriage amendments" without even noting that such terminology is associated with opponents of civil unions and same-sex marriage is biased as well.

Despite what an edit summary may say about "facts" and "official titles", not a single one of these amendments is officially called a "defense of marriage amendment". (Even AL's amendment, whose title is more descriptive, does not use this title). All the same, these kinds of amendments are often called "defense of marriage amendments". For this reason, it seems appropriate to use this term when discussing them as a group -- after all, we cannot create neologisms on wikipedia. Yet neither can we simply take the ammendments' supporters' claims at face value, that they do, in fact, defend marriage. Each side claims to be pro-marriage; no matter how we feel about the issue, Wikipedia must be neutral in this, and in all such debates. -- Zantastik talk 07:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Your so-called classification put a juvenile disclaimer on it. It's not a very encyclopedic term either. Just let people read the article and form their own opinions. Most people can see "defense of marriage" for what it is: a marketing term like Operation Iraqi Freedom or Guns for Peace. I changed it to "unofficially termed" defense of marriage. People know these for that they are Gay Marriage Bans no need to worry about what they will think. Quadzilla99 02:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Please refrain from calling the obviously well-intentioned edits of others "juvenile". We're all obviously attempting to make this a better encyclopedia. Zantastik has a point, so do you. Please assume good faith. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
"What have been termed" makes for a little too long of an adjectival phrase: "what have been termed defense of marriage" before "amendments". But it's not really that big of a deal, I don't think, and I won't oppose it. -- Zantastik talk 07:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC) reply
"So-called" does put a sort of juvenile sarcasm on the phrase in my opinion. Maybe that's just my impression of the phrase and other people have a different interpretation of it, but it does seems belittling or sarcastic. It's also not very encyclopedic either as was stated. Harvey100 14:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I apologize if I came off as confrontational I couldn't think of another way to say it. The article should be titled gay marrriage bans by state and filed that way as defense of marriage is a marketing term. The " Operation Iraqi Freedom" marketing term redirects to the Iraq War page. I guess the marketers won out on this one. Quadzilla99 21:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree on a basic level that "defense of marriage amendment" is a rather ridiculous term. It is, however, a widely used term, and is actually, well, less ridiculous than other titles (see the defense of marriage amendment article's introduction, second paragraph, for more on the titles of the amendments) and is drawn from the federal Defense of Marriage Act (a term that is also employed for many of the state counterparts to the federal statute). Finally, remember that this article is not about "gay marriage bans by state". It is about state constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage, civil unions, and other contracts by state. A list about "gay marriage bans by state" would have to discuss not only amendment types, but also statute types (as nearly all states also have marriage statutes that prohibit gay marriage). Anyway, again, I think the term is ridiculous, but it's widely known and used. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Recent edits

I have a concern with this recent edit. The edit placed Nebraska and South Dakota in the same category with Virginia, stating that NE and SD have "Amendments that ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other contracts" instead of merely "Amendments that ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, but not other contracts". Virginia was placed in the former category because there are reliable sources that have discussed the VA amendment in this context (see the two sources at the end of the second paragraph in the introduction). However, I am not aware of sources that discuss the NE and SD amendments similarly. That said, obviously the NE and SD amendments do have language that *potentially* could place them in the same category as VA. However, given that the language of these amendments does not clearly do so (in fact, they are not as harsh as VA's amendment in a side by side comparison), and given that I am aware of no sources that indicate that the NE and SD amendments should be in this category, I am going to revert the changes to the maps and this list. I know the changes were in good faith and believe that there is a decent argument for including the two amendments in the last category, however, I have to conclude that it qualifies as original research to do so for now. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't see what's so "harsh" at all about Virginia and Michigan. Any ban on civil unions or domestic partnerships is equally harsh. Why don't we just read the laws for what they SAY until they're construed by a COURT otherwise? Theknightswhosay ( talk) 21:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Elements ...

NEBRASKA

Article :

Experts say the passage of antigay initiatives was due at least partly to poorly worded ballots that confused voters. "The average apathetic voter does not have a lot of time to prepare to vote," says Amy Miller, legal director and staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union's Nebraska chapter. "Just reading the [Nebraska] amendment, it did not stand out what was at stake.

NEBRASKA INITIATIVE 416

Though activists expected a tight race in Nebraska, more than two thirds of voters there eventually approved the state's "Defense of Marriage Amendment," Initiative 416--an amendment to the state constitution that bans not only civil unions but also domestic-partner relationships.

Nebraska is the first state to ban domestic partnerships, and in so doing, it may open up a legal can of worms. Some experts argue that the new law will not only outlaw domestic-partner arrangements but also make it illegal for businesses to offer domestic-partner benefits to employees. In some cases it could also make some standing business relationships illegal. "Domestic partner is also a legal term in Nebraska for a business partnership, such as might exist between a father and a son," says the ACLU's Miller.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Article :
This amendment will effectively add the terms civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship to the list of families that the state will not recognize.

In effect this amendment will bar any form of equal protection that would be afforded to non-traditional relationships involving both gay and straight families that will affect the abilities of these families to gain access to health care, life saving medical decisions involving their partner and inheritance rights.

The religious conservatives in our state have already legislated against gays getting married and this amendment is just piling on and could have a major negative effect on the various forms of non-traditional families bordering on outright discrimination. This is not about the ability of gays to marry, it is about taking away rights from families that do not fit the state’s definition of marriage.

IMPORTANT TO READ : this confirms the fact ! Mimich 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Documents on this page suggest that all institutions were banned in SD because they may evoluate, hence also "all quasi-marital relationships". Domestic partnership in California equals a civil union. Mimich 12:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You make an intriguing case for inclusion of these two amendments in the most strict category. The distinction I might draw at first glance, however, is that the most broad language in Virginia's ban includes "legal status" whereas the most broad language in Nebraska's and South Dakota's bans includes only "relationships." It's a subtle distinction, to be sure, and one that might not have much bearing on which category to include the amendments in (it's OR on my part without a source in any event). I'm going to drop a note on the other principal editor of this list's talk page and see if he has any thoughts. Thank you for bringing this up, Mimich. · jersyko talk 13:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
You make the point above regarding "legal status" versus "relationships;" however, the amendment passed in South Carolina also provides the words "legal status" in it: "This State and its political subdivisions shall not create a legal status, right, or claim respecting any other domestic union, however denominated." Thus, some discussion about this being black should happen. Thanks Yankhill ( talk) 07:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems pretty clear that Michigan belongs there, no? National Pride at Work v. Governor of Michigan-- Inonit ( talk) 21:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

SOUTH CAROLINA

  • Per the discussion above regarding turning the color of South Dakota black, it was brought up that the language of the amendment in SD does not make the distinction of "legal status" like Michigan or Virginia. However, the constitutional amendment of South Carolina does make that distinction, and I was wondering if anyone knew if this has been interpreted to prohibit creating domestic partnerships in that state. Thank you. Yankhill ( talk) 07:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply
  • SC Marriage Amendment as follows:
A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This State and its political subdivisions shall not create a legal status, right, or claim respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. This State and its political subdivisions shall not recognize or give effect to a legal status, right, or claim created by another jurisdiction respecting any other domestic union, however denominated. Nothing in this section shall impair any right or benefit extended by the State or its political subdivisions other than a right or benefit arising from a domestic union that is not valid or recognized in this State. This section shall not prohibit or limit parties, other than the State or its political subdivisions, from entering into contracts or other legal instruments. [1]

Has the SC Supreme Ct. spoken on this issue? Have legal scholars or other reliable sources weighed in, as far as you know? Interwebs ( talk) 12:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ South Carolina State Constitution

New states?

List

These states may need to be added to this list after November. I've read that all are voting on amendments this year. Interwebs ( talk) 16:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Results: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/ Incomplete in some states as of this posting. Interwebs ( talk) 16:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

North Carolina's proposed Amendment 1 is on the primary ballot for May 6th, 2012. If adopted it would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. There's already a statute in place prohibiting same-sex marriage, but this would place it in the constitution. Maybe add a section for pending amendments or proposed amendments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkmpa ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure we have enough eyes on this article to keep it up-to-date with proposed as well as adopted amendments, but if you think you'd be willing to take on the task of keeping it current, I don't see why not. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply
This is an article for amendments that passed, not proposed amendments. If the NC amendment passes, it will be added to the list. Hekerui ( talk) 20:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Nebraska and South Dakota

Nebraska and South Dakota's constitutions banned all types recognition of same-sex unions. See [2], [3], [4]. I still looking other soures concerning South Dakota. Ron 1987 ( talk) 16:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The two stronger amendments concern contracts and not unions provided by states, so the the article was correct - your sources don't specify anything about private contracts. I set the article back. Best wishes Hekerui ( talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Nebraska and South Dakota's constitutions ban not only same-sex marriage and civil unions but also domestic partnerships. I think is necessary create new section "Amendments that ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships, but not other contracts". User:Ron 1987 ({User talk:Ron 1987|talk]]) 12:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)~ reply
Your change created inconsistency with the images in the article and seems arbitrary. It makes no sense to single out Nebraska and North Dakota considering that, say, Utah also bans domestic partnerships but not private contracts. I will revert your change until there is some consensus established what terms should be used. The article needs to be consistent and not pick and choose without proper rationale. Hekerui ( talk) 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I think we should used term "union". 0 —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

(outdent) "Registered union" doesn't exist and would be WP:OR - and in Maryland for example there is not even a registry. Just "union" is unspecific and doesn't mean anything either. The problem is, that the article treats civil unions as a synonym for same-sex unions with a legal basis other than a private contract. Wisconsin bans domestic partnerships similar to marriage but allows them with substantially less benefits. The article is inherently inconsistent. I suggest delisting the article from featured status until a solution is found. Hekerui ( talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I see, What are your suggestions? Current option in unacceptable. Must be change. Ron 1987 ( talk 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure. I initially thought about something along the lines of "legal same-sex unions" as a descriptive term, but only Wikipedia uses same-sex unions to decribe all sorts of unions that are recognized by the state that are not private contracts (for the US at least), but that doesn't make it a legal term. Hekerui ( talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Article title

The title of this article seems less than neutral. Only one side of the debate would refer to these laws as a "defense of marriage" and none of the reliable sources refer to these amendments collectively as such. The title should be changed to something a little more straightforward such as "List of amendments to U.S. state constitutions limiting gay marriage." -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The title refers to the parent article defense of marriage amendment, which is the common name for such an amendment. Per WP:AT it makes sense to use the title even if it's not preferred by supporters of same-sex marriage (same-sex marriage/gay marriage vs. marriage equality is a similar case with regard to naming), because it is recognizeable, consistent, natural and precise per the guidelines given there. Hekerui ( talk) 19:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Yes, but few of these are called "Defense of Marriage" or even modeled after that specific amendment. Your reasoning would make sense if this was the common title, generally referred to as such across an array of reliable sources, (even though it is non-neutral), but that has not been established. The link you had included dealt with only a single one of these laws, and did not in any way demonstrate that these laws are referred to that way collectively, or even at all, in the general media. At the very least we would need another source in addition to Fox News. Fox News is a reliable source for factual material, but they are known for using partisan language in certain debates ("death tax" instead of "estate tax", etc.) and using phrases that nobody else in the media does (such as "homicide bomber"). This does not make the usage common, only common on Fox News. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 17:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The source is the Associated Press agency (indicated by "AP" in the source), one of the biggest news cooperatives in the United States, Fox News is only the publisher. Please read a citation before removing it - you are also free to research yourself. I added a book source that should alleviate any remaining concern. Regards Hekerui ( talk) 10:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Fixed the title, no amendment exists that bans a same-sex couple's relationship. Hekerui ( talk) 16:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh please, no one interprets it that way, in the same way that no one interprets "X state legalizes same-sex marriage" to mean that same-sex non-civil marriage was previously banned. I'm reverting your disruptive move; you're not going to get "defense of marriage amendment" back by sabotaging the new title. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
I agree with the reversion. "state recognition" is implicit in the word union. Union doesn't mean "having a relationship," It's a legal arrangement. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 19:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The word "same-sex union" does not imply a legal dimension and can mean anything from a relationship to a domestic partnership. I think it should either be made clear that the unions are unions in a legal sense or the specific kinds included in the article, like marriage, should be mentioned. Otherwise we have a vague article title. Banning a union implies illegality, whereas the reality is that these unions are excluded from recognition and not misdemeanors/crimes. Hekerui ( talk) 19:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
What you're proposing goes against common usage and the usage of sources - again, no one interprets or uses "state bans same-sex marriage" to mean "state bans legally nonbinding religious marriage" or "state makes it a crime to perform a same-sex marriage." Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
"Marriage" is a term with a clear understanding and common usage, "union" is not, and it has no common usage and can mean many things. The articles on same-sex unions the U.S. states (and other countries and their states) are named "Recognition of same-sex unions in ..." unless marriage or civil unions are discussed, which are clearly defined. This article discussed bans on the recognition of both. This vagueness should be removed, which would make the article title consistent with the titles of the other Wiki articles on same-sex unions. Hekerui ( talk) 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
How on earth do you wrap your head around claiming that "ban on same-sex marriage" means "no legal recognition" and "ban on same-sex union" means "it's a crime" because "union" is somehow undefined? Are you going to suggest that readers will assume the amendments ban labor unions whose members are all of one sex? This makes no sense. If you want a move, open a move proposal; until then, I don't think anyone will be confused about what the title refers to. I'm not responsible for the titles of the other articles; they're not particularly unwieldy, so I'm content to leave them. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I have no problem with the title of the article. That is what the article is about. However, the amendments also need to be properly described as actually not 'banning same sex marriage', but defining marriage in a certain way. One of many results of the ammendment is banning same-sex marriage but is not what the ammendments actually states. Rodchen ( talk) 08:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Hawaii

Surely Hawaii is a special case technically. The other cases are of provisions that write a ban into the state constitution, mainly in order to prevent courts from ruling that same-sex marriage is a right. Hawaii's provision, as I understand it, removes the issue from the realm of constitutional rights (where courts rule) and places it in the realm of ordinary politics (which is what is decided by the political process). The Hawaiian legislature has decided to ban same-sex marriage but if Hawaii becomes more liberal the legislature can just change the law.

I don't dispute that it belongs in this list because it is part of the same process (a response to overrule rulings on rights) but I think the distinction is nevertheless important for clarity of thought.

Hence I am proposing to edit to read "Hawaii's amendment is unique in that it does not make same-sex marriage unconstitutional; rather, it allows but does not positively require the state to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. (Thus, strictly speaking it does not ban same-sex marriage but removes the issue from the realm of constitutional rights to that of ordinary political decision, though the effect is de facto the same.)" Any comments? Aardwolf ( talk) 11:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

"Allows" and "allows but does not positively require" are the same thing, we would only make the explanation longer. Your analysis is correct, but considering that the amendment reads "the power to reserve marriage" we might as well stick to the current language. Regards Hekerui ( talk) 14:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Map

North Carolina should be the darkest color. "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." This applies to things other than civil unions. I don't have the software to edit .svg images. DavidSSabb ( talk) 06:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't agree, the language in Michigan/Virginia seems more definite in excluding contracts/agreements, domestic legal union may be another way of summarizing civil unions and domestic partnerships. Hekerui ( talk) 14:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Ohio

Why is Ohio listed under "Amendments that ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, but not other contracts" (emphasis added)? Its language -- "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." -- seems very close to that of Viginia -- This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." -- which is include under the heading "Amendments that ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and other contracts". I'm having trouble teasing out the distinction.

Upon reflection, I'd say the distinction between those 2 table segments is hard to justify. See also NC. 68.162.221.100 ( talk) 20:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Percentage of Population

Each table lists the "Support Vote %", but I believe it would be informative to also have a column that shows the percentage of the total state population that actually voted in favor of the amendment. Having only the Support Vote % is misleading because it only includes the subset of the population that decided to vote on that specific issue at that specific time. Wkrick ( talk) 14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Prop 8

The amendment is not yet invalidated per http://gov.ca.gov/docs/Letter_to_County_Officials.pdf so the page cannot say that it is. The page states the facts around the decision but should not represent things as facts that have not yet come to pass. Hekerui ( talk) 20:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Looks like the amendment is now not applying anymore per [5]. Still, it has not been repealed and is still in the constitution, it is only no longer enforced, so moving it to a section called "former amendments" would be a mistake. I will adjust the lead though. Hekerui ( talk) 23:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC) reply
That's not a practical way of looking at it. The amendment has been struck down. Some states still have sodomy laws on the books, but we don't treat those as still current because the court has invalidated them. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Sodomy laws in the United States notes when the laws were taken off the books, and that makes sense. Being unconstitutional and off the law book is not the same thing. This is a fact and it may not be practical. Hekerui ( talk) 15:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply
What I mean is that, for obvious reasons, it treats all such laws as historical rather than present fact. Even the ones that are still on the books are noted as being invalid, no longer operative, etc. because SCOTUS decisions are binding. I'm not suggesting that we scrub mention of the amendment from the encyclopedia now that it's no longer in force, but rather that we not mislead the reader by presenting a law that has been struck down as still current. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC) reply

What does it mean to ban same sex unions?

For a state to ban such a union seems to suggest that it be a criminal act. None of the states prosecute those who attempt to enter into a same sex union. Many states refuse to recognize or enforce contracts that establish same sex unions (marriage or otherwise). Due to these facts, it seems that this entry should be adjusted to cite states banning state recognition of same sex unions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaven ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

We've already addressed this at, I believe, Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Content move

This article has, as the title says, a limited scope so I moved the new content on lawsuits and repeal efforts to the more appropriate main article U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions. Hekerui ( talk) 12:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Unupdated maps

[6] (Idaho and Kansas shouldn't be there), this map [7] (Colorado shouldn't be there), and [8] (Kansas) -- Prcc27 ( talk) 22:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I'll remove them until they are fixed. -- Prcc27 ( talk) 22:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Florida

There is also Florida where the ban was ruled unconstitutional, isn't it? Titanicophile ( talk) 07:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 18 external links on List of former U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

alphabetization

Missouri and Mississippi are out of sync in the charts. I'm not a whiz at fixing stuff like this, so, my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dslaugh ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type&oldid=1158997071"