From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

RfC: Same-sex marriage map

As the discussion has largely grown stale, and the issues have changed since the RfC has started I am closing the RfC. As the page currently has a map of marriage laws before Obergefell, I assume local consensus was reached outside the RfC. Wugapodes ( talk) 19:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still Neutral, but thanks for giving me a good laugh. I can definitely see your point about those last two photos. Chase1493 ( talk) 22:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Refocus the map per my suggestion below. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove There is no longer a point to the U.S. map. Tinmanic ( talk) 16:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep and modify - Compare states that have the right of same-sex marriage under state law and federal law versus states that only have the right under federal law. Waters.Justin ( talk) 22:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Such a map may have merit in the article, but I think that's a totally separate discussion to have. It would also require a lot of groundwork to make sure it's accurate, and the key may be very complex and contentious. For example, NJ's SSM came about by neither... rather by state supreme court decision. It is still not codified into state law. 68.199.96.18 ( talk) 02:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove, per Njsustain. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 03:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove I like Kudzu1's idea, replace the map with a new one that someone can articulate when each state legalized same-sex marriage. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

  • Since people are just voting and not moving towards consensus, I'm thinking we might want to have a proper threaded discussion? What real useful information do the proponents of keeping the map think that this map is providing? A huge fraction of the map is the continental US, and there's exactly 1 state in there where the status is uncertain. The territories are relegated to the corner and I, personally, can't tell just based on the silhouettes what territories have what status. I might support a version of this map that covers only the overseas territories, where the territories are the primary focus of the map, but I think the territories would have to be labeled, because outside of their geographical context, it's nearly impossible for the average person to recognize them by silhouette. 0x0077BE ( talk · contrib) 22:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • A territory map may be premature because we still have 1 holdout state left. But once Kansas goes dark blue then I could support a territory only map with a footnote labeling which territory is which and another footnote that says "same-sex marriage is also legal in the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii". But since the continental US isn't entirely dark blue, I think the map should stay as is for now.. Prcc27 ( talk) 22:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Remove map I would say the map is no longer needed. Same-sex marriage is essentially settled as a matter of law, and is only being cleaned up as a matter of policy. We used the map previously to show the status of law, not policy. If needed we can have a map for the territories as their situation is a bit different than the states. But I do not think we need a map for the states. I support the removal of it. Gabe ( talk) 00:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep Imo once Kansas is done the map may well be taken down but if not leave it. Many people come in here and the first thing they see is the map. Sometimes when I don't have time I just see the map and then take off. A lot of people do that.Another map for the territories is not a bad idea but can we please leave the map until Kansas abide. I believe it will be pretty soon, as soon as this week.-- Allan120102 ( talk) 03:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: With Kansas now colored dark blue, the only stragglers are island territories whose outlines are not commonly recognizable. The map's utility in its present form is finished. Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land, from sea to shining sea. Let's remove the map and end the era of the status of legal marriage varying from state to state. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 22:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Agree. The all dark blue map is a beautiful thing, but serves no purpose. A large territorial map might be shown, but as American Samoa is a separate case and the other minor territories are complying within days, it's really not helpful. 68.199.96.18 ( talk) 22:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: I would like to see a dark blue map retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difbobatl ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Can you please explain what purpose it serves the article? 68.199.96.18 ( talk) 22:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Kansas is purple again because the state doesn't fully recognize same-sex marriages. Prcc27 ( talk) 23:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it's purple again because you, the "owner" of the file, is trying to do everything possible to delay "your" precious map from being removed from the article. Any remaining issues in KS, if any, are minor and temporary. You have no more evidence that in KS there is any less compliance than in any other state which has recently started issuing SSM licences. A reasonable reference was brought forth, but because *you* choose not to accept it, you are stopping anyone else from making appropriate edits by reverting them. 68.199.96.18 ( talk) 23:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You are more than welcome to try to get consensus for Kansas to be dark blue at the map's talk page. But AFAIC, the governor is still being difficult (which the source notes) and only some forms of recognition have been confirmed. Prcc27 ( talk) 23:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's quite a coincidence that the burden of getting consensus only ever falls to people who happen to disagree with you. 68.199.96.18 ( talk) 00:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus is clearly against keeping an all-blue country map. One or two editors who like seeing the all-blue map on the page cannot hold up an overwhelming community opinion. If the situation was still truly variable from state to state, it would be one thing. That is no longer the case. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Blow up and keep the territories map

100% of the United States now licenses SSM excluding though all of the territories. My proposal is to refocus the map, we could blow up (enlarge) that portion to show the status of them as it provides needed information. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If we do that, I would strongly prefer to just create a new separate map and just retire the old map and archive it for historical purposes. I also think it would also be good to add text labels to identify the various territories on the map, since many people don't know what the shape of the territories looks like. Rreagan007 ( talk) 17:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone within the last couple of weeks did make a larger territories map and posted a link to it in the comments section of either this article or the map's talk page, but I can't find where it is honestly. Anyone can point it out? I think that could be used now instead. The contentious US map could be replaced with a much smaller continental US map, without state outlines, plus Alaska and Hawaii, in all dark blue, next to the territory map. The territory map should be labeled with the names of the territories. Other than Puerto Rico they're unlikely to be distinguished by the casual viewer from just the outlines. There at least needs to be a numbered key, 1-5. A table could appear below instead of footnotes: 1. Puerto Rico will comply within 15 days of Obergfell. 2. Guam has been legal since (date). 3. American Samoa. Applicability of Obergfell is unclear. Etc. 68.199.96.18 ( talk) 17:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on this (I would prefer a table), but I the territory maps are at File:Same-sex_marriage_in_US_territories.svg and File:Same-sex_marriage_in_United_States_territories_(labeled).svg. -- Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 19:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
A table seems far more sensible to me, especially as light red may be misleading; Mapp and Inoy have both said they will bring their territories into compliance ASAP. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 19:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree a table is far more sensible. I just thought an altered map would be a compromise that perhaps an "aggressive" stubborn editor might accept. But yeah, table with American Samoa, PR (for only a couple more days presumably), VI and MI would make far more sense. But for the time being can someone at least shrink the existing map on the main article page and add in the territory map you have linked to above? Surely, THAT can't be such a big deal to do without waiting for overwhelming unanimous "consensus"? 68.199.96.18 ( talk) 19:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do we have to have only one way of conveying information? Not all readers are alike, after all... Dustin  (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Great work on the labeled map. Whether it gets used or not, it's well-done in my opinion. Dustin  (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems Rreagan and I simultaneously had similar ideas about labeling the territories. I would do it myself but don't have the necessary software. It seems a lot of people have had similar ideas in these discussions but, while everyone is willing to talk about it, no one's been able or willing to make the actual graphics needed for this new post-Obergfell era. 68.199.96.18 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I would probably want to have a territory map with a footnote about the states that links to the U.S. SSM map. But either way, Kansas should be reverted back to purple since the state isn't fully complying and is being somewhat difficult. Prcc27 ( talk) 23:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not being difficult, but you are being completely bullheaded. You keep grasping at straws to keep the map from being fully blue. You're using bureaucracy, original research, and are showing blatant article ownership in order to make any possible excuse to keep your precious map on the Same sex marriage in the US page. You need to be slapped upside the head with every trout in the stream. 01:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.96.18 ( talk)
While I may question some of Prcc27's reasoning, I must also question your civility. You don't need to be rude, like using words like "precious". All that aside... my favorite option is definitely the labeled territories-only map regardless of the way this discussion goes. It really puts the focus on the fact that every one of the United States has legalized same-sex marriage, with the outliers being the territories. Dustin  (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
PR seems to be a lame duck on its last leg, to mix some metaphors. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/07/08/puerto-ricos-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-struck-down/ 68.199.96.18 ( talk) 23:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

As well done as the territories-only "map" is, it is not a map. It's a table with the outlines of the territories in the cells. The visual "aid" of those outlines is debatable at best when the labels are given, and take up a lot of valuable screen space to communicate very little information. Users would be much better served by having the information displayed in traditional tabular format that could convey the information in detail, rather than having to rely on a color-coding scheme that is now dubious at best (there are 4 colors in a 5 member "map" after all) and various footnotes. I love maps, I consider myself a map geek, and I love to see them used where they are useful, but this is just not a case where it is useful. Sher eth 15:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This isn't a geography lesson. Putting the territory outlines in a graphic with a different color for each one, essentially, isn't going to help anyone understand anything. The table was and is the best suggestion, if any graphic is even needed. Really, do we even need one? Can't it just be in textual form. "In PR this is the status. In Guam it's this, etc." Do we really need a graphic to clarify the matter?
And can the RfC be closed at this point? Honestly, the whole country is dark blue and even you-know-who has stopped edit warring with endless reverts. I'm not sure how to call for this, but does anyone have an objection to ending the RfC? 68.199.96.18 ( talk) 16:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
An excellent point. I understand being a visual learner, but the complexities of the color scheme negate any advantage to a territory "map" in this case. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 16:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with the inclusion of a table. No Objections over ending the RfC here. I move to end the RfC and for someone to archive the old discussions on this page. Awyow ( talk) 17:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the RfC lacked consensus and legitimacy, making it null and void from the onset. Just another means of delaying the inevitable removal of the map. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 17:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
👍 Like Njsustain ( talk) 22:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The map was already removed! Prcc27 ( talk) 19:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. And then you added it back, started the RfC, and began using that as a justification to revert editors who removed the map when it was clear a strong majority of editors wanted to take it down. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 21:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The map isn't there anymore anyways so why are you complaining? BTW I thought you meant (it is) just another means of delaying the removal of the map not (it was) just another means of delaying the removal of the map so I didn't understand what you were saying because of your grammar. Also majority ≠ consensus and many people on the RfC stated they wanted the map to stay. And Njsustain, you're the one who suggested the RfC so I don't get why you're "liking" their comment about the RfC lacking consensus and legitimacy. Prcc27 ( talk) 22:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
👍 Like Njsustain ( talk) 22:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I already explained myself and won't again. YOU (yes I'm shouting) started the Rfc, and I agree it was your intention to artificially through bureaucracy extend the time the map could remain in the article. 24.188.80.87 ( talk) 23:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Pipe down. I don't need to be lectured by someone who has clearly violated ownership "policies". You are the last person who should be telling others the rules, as you clearly don't understand the spirit of them. Remember, this isn't a bureaucracy. Take your own medicine when looking up rules, regulations, etc. Look up the one about wiki-lawyering while you're at it. 68.199.96.18 ( talk) 01:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, and WP:CIVIL (and another user questioned your civility as well). I have not violated any policies. Prcc27 ( talk) 02:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I haven't either, because I said so. There, we're all better. Let's go get some falafel. 68.199.96.18 ( talk) 02:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting history addition

I reverted the recent addition to the history section by David Ermold. While it was well referenced, it was too long and put the section out of balance. In the whole history of gay marriage in the US, the Kim Davis issue, while worth mentioning, does not warrant such a huge discussion in an article about the entire topic of SSM in the US. And frankly this was a clear conflict of interest. The account ( /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/DavidErmold) was created just to write about this topic. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but obviously it is overly personal: the writer put a picture of HIMSELF getting married in Kentucky into the article. I think this was clearly inappropriate and such a change to the article should be done with at least non-personally involved observers supporting it. If others think this is an appropriate addition, by all means discuss and it can return in a possibly scaled back version, but this obviously personal viewpoint put in unchecked is unwise. This isn't a blog. Njsustain ( talk) 09:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

States Denying Parental Rights

This section is starting to get very large. This page has been down to an appropriate size for awhile now, let's keep it that way with only the pertinent material. Just because something involves a same-sex couple does not make it worth being on this page. There is another page for LGBT adoption. I am linking it under the subsection and suggesting most of that subsection be transferred. Manful0103 ( talk) 01:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, only the way you worded this. "Just because something involves a same-sex couple does not make it worth being on this page." This is quite silly. Central to the argument for same-sex marriage in this country was joint adoption for same-sex couples. This is not just another silly something, in addition to the fact that paragraph has been there since shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling. I also disagree with the material not being "pertinent" as these are issues that are ongoing in six states. Semperferox ( talk) 1:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Time for a new map?

With the Supreme Court of Alabama recently deciding to defy the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage- is it time to implement a new map regarding compliance, possibly alter the original USA same-sex marriage map? It would be a good visual for viewers to see in where the last holdouts are. All states would be colored blue because same-sex marriage is legal nationwide. States with full compliance would be dark blue, states with resistance at the local level only would be medium blue, and states with resistance at the state level (and possibly local level as well) would be colored light blue. Here is what the map would look like. Or we could implement a countywide map. I don't really want to make one right now but if we did it that way counties fully complying in a state that isn't resisting would be dark blue, counties fully complying in a state that is resisting i.e. Alabama would be medium blue or light blue, and counties not complying would either be light blue or gray depending on what is preferable. Prcc27 ( talk) 06:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any national map. It too strongly connotes a fundamentally different federal reality than actually exists. Only the discussion and state/county maps in section 3.2.1 of the article should be reviewed for potentially appropriate changes. That is the level at which current shenanigans are taking place. Antinoos69 ( talk) 07:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. But there is a significant difference between Alabama and the rest of the nation because it's the only state where state officials aren't complying. Prcc27 ( talk) 08:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Last I heard, there were officials refusing to comply in Kentucky and Texas also, as discussed in section 3.2.1 of this article (though some updating may be necessary). There is no serious debate about federal law, other than with regard to Justice Moore, whom most probate judges in AL seem to be ignoring. Same-sex couples are still being issued marriage licenses in most of the state. Antinoos69 ( talk) 15:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, Christ. You and your maps. Please, no. This helps no one. Njsustain ( talk) 22:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Against. Absolutely not. There is no need for another nationwide map. And there is not a "significant difference" between Alabama and the rest of the country. Most counties are still issuing licenses, and the state is recognizing them. Judge Moore's symbolic statement is not a change in law. Even if they stopped completely, it would be a legal defiance and not a change in the law. SSM is legal nationwide now. Do not make another map. We already went through this last year. Let's not do this again. Manful0103 ( talk) 00:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Why is there no need for a nationwide map? SSM may be legal nationwide, but defiance is something that is and has been notable as evident with the article's text and Alabama being colored purple on the U.S. same-sex marriage map we used last year for when it was being defiant against federal law prior to the SCOTS ruling. Some states have defiance, some don't. What's wrong with visually mapping that out for the readers to see? We already do it with the AL/KY maps. I don't see the point of having Alabama & Kentucky maps and not one for Texas. If we had a nationwide county map we could consolidate the Alabama & Kentucky map so there would be one map instead of two maps and we would get to include Texas. One map is better than two maps, and for those that don't know where the states are located in relation to the nation (maybe people that aren't American) it gives a visual for where the defiance is happening in the country i.e. the South. Judge Moore's symbolic statement made last year in defiance of federal law was notable for the article and the map last year was it or was it not? It was wasn't it? So I don't see why you think it is not notable when he is doing the exact same thing again that he did last year. Prcc27 ( talk) 04:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The law is not about a group of individuals being defiant. After Brown, Bolling, Cooper, Swann, etc. would you say that segregation was still legal? No you wouldn't. Judge Moore's order last year was before Obergefell and is now moot. He didn't even issue another order since last summer. He is just saying he never lifted his old one. And the state is not following his old order. You are totally blowing something small out of proportion. SSM is now legal and the law. Do not confuse what the law is with what select people are saying. And there seems to be consensus against the map. Manful0103 ( talk) 04:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I never said Alabama's defiance was legal, nor did I say it was legitimate defiance on a legal basis. All I'm saying is that we have noted defiance of the law in the past so idk why it's problematic to note it now. I didn't say segregation was legal, and marriage equality is legal nationwide (with the exception of American Samoa, and some Native American tribes) even though counties are using state law to opt out of issuing any marriage licenses which might be legal under federal law because Obergefell didn't touch on that. Judge Moore's order from last year like the one from this year went against a federal ruling. Whether it's issued by SCOTUS, a Federal Circuit Court, or Federal District Court; a ruling from a federal court is federal law. Federal law trumps state law so how is this different if Alabama was obviously defying federal law then and now? Prcc27 ( talk) 04:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Please read what you typed. There is no difference in the law. My reference to the segregation cases is to show that after the SCOTUS law is settled, it is analogy. And are you really asking what the difference is between a Federal District ruling versus a SCOTUS ruling? Alabama law, along with every other state, is settled. Obergfell certainly did instruct all county clerks to issue SSM licenses. The ruling instructed all states. It is a settled legal issue. I think there is consensus here against you as there was with the last map debate. Please don't repeat that. Manful0103 ( talk) 12:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Please read what I typed. Same-sex marriage was legal in 2015 when Alabama was being defiant and it is legal in 2016 even though Alabama is being defiant again. Did we note Alabama's defiance in 2015 despite same-sex marriage being legal? Yes, we did. Did you see a question mark when I mentioned SCOTUS & Federal District Rulings? Nope, no question mark. So why do you think I was asking what the difference between them were. I know the difference, but both courts have authority over a state court, period. State courts can't nullify a federal court ruling ever, regardless of which court issues a ruling i.e. SCOTUS, Federal District, Federal Circuit. So are you saying that Alabama's defiance of the Federal District Court back in 2015 was legally justified and/or that only SCOTUS has authority over a state court? Obergefell struck down same-sex marriage bans and did not strike down the state law that allows clerks to not issue marriage licenses for any reason. I doubt states/counties are required to have marriage; they just can't treat same-sex couples different from different-sex couples. And you are wrong about there not being consensus. There was neither consensus for, nor consensus against removing the map as you can see by the notes for closing the RfC. Prcc27 ( talk) 17:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There is clearly consensus against adding a map. And this is not a forum for general discussion on the topic. You made a suggestion and it was roundly rejected. Please focus your efforts elsewhere. Your obsession with putting a map in this article is pointless and beyond tiring, disruptive, and non-productive. Njsustain ( talk) 18:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no need for a nationwide map. Section 3.2.1 suffices showing any remaining areas that are not fully complying. This article is good the way it is, don't add superfluous images. 131.91.4.45 ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Very well, I can move on. But I was not using this talk page as a forum so don't even acuse me of doing that. I will restate that Texas is not represented in any of the maps in that section. Prcc27 ( talk) 19:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course we should make a new map. But it needs to be cited and properly designed. It needs to show not just states, but also every House district, zip code, and local municipality. They should all overlap and be color shaded appropriately. So that should be about what, 16 different shades? But each needs to be cited by appropriate sources. I would recommend having a same-sex couple in each area go to apply for a marriage license and have them record it, upload it, and we can use that as a citation. Without that, we cannot know if it's accurate. We must be as accurate as possible. It will end up being rather large of course. So we should delete the picture of president Obama declaring his support (that's obviously of no value since it's old) and the picture of the rallies outside the Supreme Court. What purpose does that have since SSM is obviously not legal in Alabama and certain other places? but again, we need a citation for every single district. Who wants to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.91.7.2 ( talk) 17:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Puerto Rico?

A federal judge just ruled that Obergefell does not apply to Puerto Rico because PR is not a state. [1] Anyone have any insight on this? Worthy of a mention in case law? Kumorifox ( talk) 03:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Same-sex marriage in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 12:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Same-sex marriage in the United States. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

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 18:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Same-sex marriage in the United States. 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) 03:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

science shows children are better off?

The term 'science' should be removed. It has been used in the past to support homosexuality, but with growing acceptance, reporting should now be more objective and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.40.51.223 ( talk) 15:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're trying to say - that what is being cited isn't science? Or that it's science, but we should not mention that? I have undone your change. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how to fix claim that 13% of heterosexual adults are married.

The article makes the incredibly false claim that only 13% of heterosexual adults are married. That's absurd. 50% of heterosexual adults are married. But I'm not sure how to correct this, because the reference cited does make this error. It seems to be a misreporting of Gallup's finding that 13% of LGBT adults are married to a person of an opposite gender ("heterosexual marriage"). I corrected the article, but now the article does not agree with the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.185.86 ( talk) 04:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Opening paragraph problems

Currently, over half of the opening paragraph is used to define the terms "gay marriage" and "marriage equality". These may be reasonable in the generic same-sex marriage article, but that is a waste of prime real estate here; it does not give information specific to the topic of same-sex marriage in the United States, nor is it summarizing any part of the article. I tried deleting it, but Justthefacts9 ( talk · contribs) reinserted it. I ask for other voices on whether it should remain.

Additionally, that same editor reverted my correcting of the description of Coretta Scott King to being MLKing's widow, as opposed to his wife. As the events being described were well after the death of MLK, the "widow" descriptor is more appropriate; legally, one stops being a wife when your spouse dies. The edit summary indicated that the reversion was because Coretta's own article indicated that that was the basis of her notability, but that article is currently in the past tense ("was the wife of") as she is dead. Before her death, that article described her as the widow. Again, I seek consensus to correct this. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of the definitions of those terms, those brief references (which only take up a small portion of the lead overall) are helpful to readers as those are the common alternative terms for same-sex marriage. Regarding the description of Coretta Scott King as the wife of MLK, that is what she is notable for (rather than as his widow, as such) and how she is described in her Wikipedia article. -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 06:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
If we feel the need to convey definition for SSM to anyone who is confused, that can be handled simply by rephrasing the first sentence to contain a wikilink to same-sex marriage. And for someone who claims to be "Just the facts", that you want to include the lie that CSK was MLK's wife when she made that statement flies in the face of it.... and "widow" covers the facts more accurately, makes explicit that she had been his wife, and takes only one more letter. She was his widow for much longer than she was his wife. Two of the three sources listed quote her as saying that after she was MLK's wife, she was his widow. (Also, she is not just notable for having been married to MLK, she had her own impact on civil rights.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no need to be needlessly offensive by saying, "And for someone who claims to be [...] that you want to include the lie [...]", which verges on a personal attack. You do make a valid point regarding Coretta Scott King. It simply seemed appropriate to use the descriptor "wife" rather than "widow" as she is, per se, notable as the wife of MLK (in addition to, of course, being a civil rights leader). -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 13:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
If you don't want people to react to your user name, pick a less self-aggrandizing one. To suggest that she was not notable as the widow of MLK is to overlook decades of coverage of her. And phrasing it as if he were his wife decades after he died is simply false. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 04:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you serious? It's just a username. Per WP:NPA, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Don't be petty. -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 05:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The article currently describes Coretta Scott King as "a leader of the African-American civil rights movement and the wife of Martin Luther King Jr.". Given that she was the wife of MLK when she was leading the civil rights movement, is it not appropriate to describe her as such? -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 05:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
You may want to read up on CSK; she was not just a leader during the period when she was married to MLK. In fact, if you'd read up to the first sentence of the second paragraph of our article on her, you'd find "King played a prominent role in the years after her husband's assassination in 1968 when she took on the leadership of the struggle for racial equality herself and became active in the Women's Movement." She had her highest prominence as a widow, and was certainly a widow during the prime events being covered here. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
That sentence, particularly "when she took on the leadership of the struggle for racial equality herself" is actually pertinent here. Given that, it may be acceptable to describe her as the "widow" of MLK (truly, it does not matter either way, but given your insistence). -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 05:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, facts truly do matter. It's not just that it "may" be acceptable to call her MLK's widow, a position which I am shocked would be at all in doubt; it is far preferable than calling her his wife decades after the fact. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, "facts truly do matter" as you put it and the fact here is that Coretta Scott King can accurately be described as either the wife or the widow of MLK. -- Justthefacts9 ( talk) 05:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Popular Culture section

Do we really need this? There are hundreds of TV shows that feature same sex couples. Unless the show was somehow culturally significant, I don't think we need it. Bkatcher ( talk) 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone who contributed to the section, I'd be fine with it being axed. Just thought if it was there, it should be better. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I think as a cultural history thing it would be good to keep in a curated form (first SSM on mainstream TV, first SSM on children's TV) with sources attesting importance, but agreed that we're at a point where it does not make sense to include every example. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Distinction between same-sex marriages and civil unions

This page feels factually incorrect to me, specifically the parts about Obama supporting same-sex marriages. He has explicitly stated that marriage is between a man and a woman.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman,” Obama says in an interview on Chicago public television during his U.S. Senate campaign, adding, “but what I also believe is that we have an obligation to make sure that gays and lesbians have the rights of citizenship that afford them visitations to hospitals, that allow them to transfer property to each other, to make sure they’re not discriminated against on the job.” He says homosexuality is not a choice and “for the most part, it is innate.” Obama distinguishes marriage from other civil rights, saying, “We have a set of traditions in place that I think need to be preserved.”

See: https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.33.21 ( talk) 06:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Counter point to this, there seems to be substantiated claims that he was actually in favor, but felt compelled to conceal his view (lie for the sake of unpopular opinion).

See: https://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.105.33.21 ( talk) 06:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

New map for SSM not codified into state law?

How about a new map showing which states have yet to codify SSM into state law? The map could show: 1) states that passed SSM legislation before Obergefell; 2) states that updated their statutes after Obergefell; 2) states that amended their constitutions to include a right to SSM (eg. Nevada); 3) states that have not codified SSM yet. I think such a map would be valuable for highlighting which states are most vulnerable to possibile SC reversals on Obergefell.

Currently, two useful maps on state laws are a bit hidden, two pages down from here: /info/en/?search=Same-sex_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state . These, however, only show state bans and say nothing on states that have codified SSM (some states may have legalised it by federal or state court ruling or executive order and have no statute bans in place but still no relevant piece of legislation either). Finedelledanze ( talk) 09:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States/Archive_16&oldid=1218054065"