| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Same-sex marriage in Nevada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Can someone please change the opening paragraph to reflect the fact that it has now officially been vetoed by the governor. I know it says that in the rest of the article, but the opening isn't up to date. Thanks. Yankhill ( talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It needs to say:
Domestic partnerships in Nevada now please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 ( talk) 03:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This was recently added to the article:
Because of the Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor, federal government benefits are extended to same-sex couples and their children in states where same-sex marriage is legalized. The Domestic Partnership Responsibilities Act would now fail to qualify domestic partnerships as marriages only for the purpose of requiring businesses and governments to provide the health benefits stated above because of the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor.
I'm not sure what exactly this is getting at? Windsor won't affect domestic partnerships at all; it only applies to same-sex unions explicitly referred to as "marriage," as far as I understand it. Those in domestic partnerships or civil unions in states that have them are not considered married by the federal gov't and are not subject to marriage rights and responsibilities. Or am I missing the point of this passage? -- Jfruh ( talk) 20:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I understand it, the paragraph is trying to explain the same as what you are saying, namely that domestic partnerships do not quality as marriages for federal purposes. SPQRobin ( talk) 15:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey Panda2018 0, I noticed that you reverted my removal of the section about the republic of molossia. Even though the republic of molossia is in nevada, I don't think its recognition of same-sex marriage is significant ( WP:DUE) enough to warrant a mention in the article: it only affects the 30 people living there, and its inclusion gives too much prominence to Kevin Baugh's properties when the article is about the history of the legal status of same-sex marriage in nevada as a whole. Huaqin ( talk) 15:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey :) I think everything related to same-sex marriage in Nevada should warrant a mention in the article. Though I do agree the republic of molossia is insignificant, the timing I think is that is more interesting, considering that the proclamation about same-sex marriage was issued in 2002, 12 years before same-sex marriage finally gained legal status in Nevada. I think the paragraph can definitely be shorten a bit, so as not to give too much prominence to Kevin Baugh and the republic, but a quick mention I think would still be quite interesting. Panda2018 0 ( talk) 16:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- We could include something about the Republic of Molossia's proclamation in the context of same-sex marriage being illegal (maybe something similar to the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands where the proclamation could be an act of political protest), but that would require secondary source coverage noting its impact outside the micronation. Like if sources described the proclamation as contributing to the discourse on legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. Huaqin ( talk) 16:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)