Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 19

Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba

In the Netherlands part there is something that need to be updated. It quotes a law which should take force on October 2012 and in factd it did. This article is locked, can someone update it? You can look at references in Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands (Caribbean Netherlands paragraph) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.79.135 (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Domestic/nationalistic

Can somebody please remove the "United Church of Canada" from the fourth paragraph because it is a nationalistic and domestic. This would be inappropriate for a global international article such as this. Pass a Method talk 07:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, exactly the same thing would apply to the Episcopalians (the wikilink goes to Episcopal Church (United States)), the United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalists. StAnselm (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I just rm UCofC and Native Americans. Each is small and limited to one country. I think this is reasonable for this high level article. I don't know why Episcopal, UCC & UUs entries can't be relinked for multi-country, but will rm it until someone thinks of something. Student7 (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2013

Independent scholar

The historical truth of love and marriage

Redacted

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, The above article is written by myself.The above article is probably the meaning of the entire article.I hope the above article incorporated into the entry.You need to copyrights proof?Kind of how?I have the copyright certificate of the Chinese government, the other part is the e-mail time to prove.I have throughout this article, there is a lot of evidence, as well as a philosophical discourse.Hope my translation allows you to understand.Proof of my copyrights are Chinese. http://baike.baidu.com/view/8496.htm A record on the Wikipedia website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbfbbfbbf115 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not one of copyright, but notability and the existence of reliable, third-party sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to publish their own works. For these reasons, and because talk pages are for working to improve an article and not commenting on the subject, I have remove your text. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar

Please try to be careful (it is difficult sometimes) on use of language. States pass statutes enabling SSM (or "legalizing" or other wording), civil authorities and various religious bodies conduct SSM ceremonies, wedded couples live in SSM. While my wording can be improved, try to remember to match subject and verb within the topic. Use language appropriate for the specific phase of SSM you are addressing. Decide whether "SSM" is an adjective or a noun within the paragraph you are constructing. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A new study that benefits same-sex marriage

Please, insert a study published in the journal Communication Research by Indiana University Assistant Professor Paul Wright. The study is titled "Pornography Consumption, Education, and Support for Same-Sex Marriage Among Adult U.S. Males." The result is: the more porn that heterosexual guys watch, the more they're likely to become supportive of gay marriage. I think it is not a nonsense information, but a fact, i.e. study since, according to the reference below, the researchers, Indiana University Assistant Professor Paul Wright and University of Arizona’s Ashley Randall, surmise that the popularity of lesbian porn among straight men may also help to change attitudes towards male-male marriage as well. REFERENCE: "Resolving gay marriage debates: get straight guys to watch more porn?" or just Google it!

Post Scriptum 1: I still have no answer for my two sections (actually, it is only one since I have had no more answers in my first section called "NERO" and I tried to have new answers by opening a new section with the same point of view but with another title, "HETERO, GAY, BI, TRI, TETRA... WHATEVER-SEXUAL YOU (ANALYTICAL THINKING WANTED!)".

Post Scriptum 2: I also ask for an answer to my suggestion about Finland in the talk of another user. The title is "Criteria pro and con." Please, let make these talks worth! Thank you. 12:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Criteria pro and con

Article does not include arguments why the equal marriage is important. Please add. At least according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we should all be equal. This is actual theme in Finland in Feb 2013: [1]. It seems for me that the people that are against the gay marriages in Finland are in fact against the gays, which is not the issue of the marriage question. What is the alternative they recommend: as I understand free sex in relationships without marriage. Logically this argument encourages in my opinion everybody in free sex without marriages. Why we have marriages in place? Marriage has several sociological functions equal both for guy and hetero and can benefit both groups as stability of the society etc. Watti Renew (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your feelings completely to be a part of this team just sharing your point of view to the article, i.e. all of us. I am not as intelligent and smart to be a member nor an user as our moderators. I am just a reader and I also share what I think is my best for the article too. I do believe that, even it is just a comment, you wanted to share a fact and I found a good reference. I ask moderators to open a new section in the article called "Finland" to notice that "Finland is set to remain the only Nordic state not to allow gender-neutral marriage", but adding the fact that, as it can be read in the same font, "advocates now turn to a citizens' initiative that, if it gathers 50,000 signatures from Finnish citizens, will force Parliament to consider a law on marriage equality. The initiative, organised by the Tahdon2013 group, will begin gathering signatures on 19 March, 2013." I hope it can help all of us. Thank you for reading. 189.25.103.213 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Supported. Free chance for everyone. Also of interest: There was voting in New Zealand the same day:
Committee approval for gay marriage bill New Zealand Herald Feb 27, 2013 Watti Renew (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

ABUSE! AN ANTI-RULES, ANTI-AMERICAN AND A BAD ATTITUDE!!!

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.

---

I ask moderators to be taken seriously and not delete sections without one, I say at least only one, analytical (or even a non-analytical) reasoning which justifies that all my suggestions and their linked references in History are wrong.

It is not a problem to not agree with me, but, just answer it or just put a symbol in red to deny my reasons without a single word, but DO NOT EVER DELETE any section without an answer. We have rules here on Wikipedia (actually, it's written here.) It is anti-rules, anti-American and it is disgusting to delete polite sections without an answer.

I have been polite with each and every one here and I take care about each and every single word I write here, so I ask for:

1) An answer for all my sections with title "Nero" that were deleted when the discussions were not finished because my references were not seen (see that there was a well-intentioned moderator who separated my reasons from the first section that were partially accepted and opened a new section for me (I thank him/her.)

2)There are one with the title: "Hetero, gay, bi, tri, tetra,... whatever-sexual you (Analytical thinking wanted!)" which was not answered either.

3) In all of them, see that people support me when they mention Nero as a "perverse" and his "mocking-marriage displays" (quoted are not my words), confirming that Nero's pic just foment any ignorance which makes of this article a target of vandalism. On the other hands, they do not answer me about my request to take Nero's pic off of this article when I had already shown reference in History before Nero, just to show how incoherent they are and that they do not want to make a serious talk since it is a serious article (well, I am so sorry if it is all serious to me!)

4) Bringing back my sections from the events in History just shows readers that it is all serious here and deleting my sections without finishing the debate was a mistake and a despotic attitude just to give a huge sum of tributes to Nero and his "mocking-marriage displays" in time that my deleted sections and their references in History proposed to show readers world wide that same-sex marriage is not about mime or so, but, matter fact, a global discussion about the plurality of mankind living as a nation for social peace and the necessity felt by authorities world wide to regulate its equal civil right.

And if this serious article and talk is resumed to a "mocking-marriage display", I suggest a pic of a same-sex marriage as a fairy-tale affair embraced by Disney in Tokyo on last March, 5th. Better than a Nero's pic to foment violence and prejudice since his image is associated to perversity and promiscuity, insert a pic of a gay lesbian between Mickey and Minnie mocking an actual world discussion. Maybe people see that, once upon a time, this article was only a dream in a fairy-tale world wide web and also all of us can show our families and authorities that they do not need Wikipedia as a trustful source of relevant information; actually, all we need is a dream to get married to Peter Pan or Cinderella - better than to a despotic moderator.

Reference and pic noticed here at The NY Times' web site: "Social media embrace same-sex wedding at Tokyo Disneyland"<p)Thank you for reading. 189.25.103.213 (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello there,

As a user who hasn't taken part in any discussions on this talk page, I have to admit that your post is hard for me to make sense of, so I apologise if I have any details wrong. Personally I find people easier to understand when their comments are more calm and collected, so I hope everyone remembers that, and tries not to throw around possibly insulting accusations, which your post may have done to some people.

1. One of your complaints is about comments being deleted. As far as I can see, the relevant discussions were automatically archived by a Bot ( see the history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage&diff=542145945&oldid=542066192 ).

2. I'm not certain if it was your intention or not, but the post about analytical thinking comes across to me as more of an invitation for a discussion about same-sex marriage. This is not what talk pages are for, so if other people thought that that was what your post was about, maybe that was why they didn't reply to it.

N.B. There are a lot of non-American users on here (in fact, the vast majority), so accusations of being anti-American might not be met with a lot of sympathy or understanding of your meaning. This is especially true when such comments are written in capitals, which, rightly or wrongly, make many people feel far less comfortable with reading what you have to say.

May I make a request? For the purposes of making a constructive discussion more likely, could you make a list of requests that are specifically related to the improvement of the article, so that more people can contribute and understand your greivances?

Best wishes, Climatophile (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Climatophile. This is section is too long now. Since my only objective is to see Nero's pic removed from this article, I opened a new section and answered you there because I have also the opportunity to answer at the same time all of other users who had answered me in the other past sections too. I do not know how to put this section as resolved and put an end on it to see it continued in the other section above. Thank you very much for your words. 189.25.103.213 (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2013 (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.

Nero's pic off of this article

It's noticed that my sections that request to take Nero's pic off of this article were automatically archived by a Bot. I need people to see it, not archived.

What I propose in my sections is not to make an invitation for a discussion about same-sex marriage. I just propose to take Nero's pic off of this article. Nothing else.

All comments around this subject is just to answer what people talk about Nero, sometimes confirming my expectations for taking his pic off but never making a clear decision, even to deny it and never watching my references in History before him. So that is why I talk about the human condition, my observation about our responsibility to foment love or hate in a public article on the world wide web, specially when you are talking about an article which has a target to vandalism, and many other subjects around user's comments. You see? I am around now and again... I have always to stop all my sections for another observation about what people are talking, just agreeing with me, but never taking his pic off. It is incoherent to me...

So that`s a resume of what happened. Please, people, help me:

Trying to see no pic of Nero in this article, I wrote:

a) Nero's image is associated to perversity and promiscuity and this association is not healthy not only for gays but people in general since it just foments the ignorance. This reason is normal like German people do not want to associate Hitler's image to their values and Americans do not like to associate Abraham Lincoln's image to a racist, war-mongering, anti-liberty, blood-soaked imperialist liar or anything that does not sound from a free country.

b) This point of view is confirmed just by seeing that in 21st Century we still need to lock an article because of vandalism and it's just because of the fact that homosexuality is still associated with promiscuity (I'm so sorry that it is not a 'pride' for me, even in a LBGT Portal.)

So I was answered that Nero's pic would not be off of this article just because it was a fact.

I have answered showing that:

a) There are many other examples before(!) Nero in History which confirms that Nero is not 'the same-sex marriage ideal' or 'best example' for this article since gay relations were recognized, if not legal, as far back as 7th Century BC Greece and Nero lived later (2nd Century). You can read the <http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,1904681,00.html "Gay Rights Timeline"> by Time`s Magazine web site. b)I still insisted in the importance of showing people world wide that, in fact, mankind is the same since The Beginning, i.e. PLURAL. And attached a reference of the first gay caveman skeleton found in April, 2011 (search Telegraph, Daily Mail, Live Science, etc.) just to make people see that there are no reason for vandalism since it is just an article relating a global discussion about the plurality of mankind living as a nation for social peace and the necessity felt by authorities world wide to regulate its equal civil right, and not a promiscuous or anything like Nero`s mocking-marriage displays.

User Zaalbar (if it's a real name, it's a beautiful name!) answered me that: "Nero is very well known and the fact that he had a pseudo-same-sex marriage is relevant to this article. Although he isn't a positive example of same-sex marriage, it belongs in the article because the purpose of the article isn't to portray same-sex marriage in the best light possible by excluding information."

On the other hands, user Dlpkbr talked: "How can you say it was a same-sex marriage. 1) Sporus was a child/young teenage boy. 2) He was a replacement for Sabina and was make to look like her, and was called Sabina. 3) He was hardly willing. A lot of information is being left out or changed to fit an agenda."

User Bmclaughlin9 said: "Agreed. Nero was engaged in perverse mock-marriage displays. Suitable for an entry on theatrics or performance art."

User DrkFrdric also answered me, saying that: "It was a pseudo-marriage, so it's relevant to the article. Maybe he did it because the boy looked like his former lover, but regardless of that, the boy was male, so that makes it relevant."

So I have make things clear: First of all, I need to thank users DrkFrdric, Climatophile, Bmclaughlin9, Dlpkbr and Zaalbar for talking. But, I need to say that all my sections and comments have no tone (neither do typing). So my words may sound not calm nor collected, but be sure that all my posts have no intention to make insulting accusations. I am just trying to be practical and objective. I do respect each and everyone here as it can be seen through all my posts in this article. Capital letters may sound like a shout but it is a shout for attention, not for insulting. But if it is a rule on this virtual world, I am going to try to change it, even I still cry and shout for help. Well, since everything is clear now, I ask for all of you to comment about the necessity for taking Nero's pic off:

I can't agree with Zaalbar and DrkFrdric just because they both confirmed that Nero's marriage was a pseudo-same-sex-marriage, and I can't admit in a serious article which relates a real right by real authorities world wide, we are making an association to a "pseudo-marriage" since, in History, gay relations were recognized - and the point is legally recognition of a same-sex marriage (remember that gay rights time line). Real right is not a mocking-thing and it is of our own responsibility to treat a serious discussion by world authorities in association to theatrics or performance art.

At last, but not at least, I think it is clear now that, if it has to make a stigmatization about Nero in perverse mock-marriage displays or anything like this, this article will always be not only a target to vandalism but also a source of world-wide information (of our own responsibility) to foment world-wide prejudice, violence and brutality against world-wide human beings who are, let me mentioned like I did it once above in capital letters, PLURAL world wide! Even if... Yes, Zaalbar, we have to... "exclude information" if it sounds as an advertise for a perverse or theatrical same-sex relationship as if perversity or artistry picked a gender identity or a sexual orientation... That's what Nero made it sound and we are all echoing it!

So, now we all (I mean, hetero, gay, bi-, tri-, tetra-, pan-, ... whatever-sexual we are!) have to propose clear information focused on the fact that countries world wide are making regulations about the right to love originated only from the human condition and its plurality.

Please, take Nero's pic off and, c'mon, read all my sources (they have other pics).

Thank you for reading. 189.25.103.213 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I see a number of pictures on this article, none of which are of Nero. Where exactly do you see that picture? LadyofShalott 19:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It was removed here. 72Dino (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you user 72Dino. 189.25.103.213 (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"Same-gender" as well as "same-sex"

The note at the top of the lede says to discuss changes here first, so... here I am. Is there any reason we don't list same-gender marriage as a synonym along with gay marriage and equal marriage? Aside from the fact that, strictly speaking, in many views of sexuality it's the correct term (which probably sounds a bit too OR/NPOV-ish), it's been used by numerous public figures on occasion... I can go dig up a bunch of sources if desired, but I don't think it should be too controversial an addition.

Incidentally, while we're on the topic, should the equal marriage reference maybe be moved down to the second sentence, along with marriage equality? I.e. ...is sometimes referred to as equal marriage or marriage equality, particularly by supporters. That gets around the classic issue of using politically weighted terms in the encyclopedia's voice.

Of course, I still use "gay marry" as a verb, but that's neither here nor there. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"Gender" was invented some years back as a "polite euphemism" for "sex". Way back when the media actually used euphemisms. It actually refers to language classification. That is, Latin, French and others use or spell and use words by an often arbitrary "gender" that is masculine, feminine or neuter. So I would hope it wouldn't be used in this or any other Wikipedia article to describe something that pertains to human sex. Student7 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion (or any editor's opinion) about the word "gender" isn't really a consideration, though. What matters is the use of the term in the real world. Could you point out some uses of "same-gender marriage", PA? - htonl (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The use of the word is inappropriate. It is listed as a "second choice" in Wiktionary. The second choice is panned as "sometimes proscribed." The first (and original usage) was linguistically based. Student7 (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether it is an apt descriptor or linguistically ideal (and to whether language is supposed to have stopped changing decades ago), as we are not here to dictate language. The question at hand is whether it is a term in common use. A quick ghits count shows it at about 1/1000 of the use of same-sex marriage (94 million to 95,800). Current Gnews shows about a 500-to-1 ratio (58,900 to 109). So it is a term that exists, but is a scant part of the discussion; I'm not sure its weight truly calls for inclusion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC) (Adding to note that the fact that it is using the second definition of "gender" in Wiktionary is a particularly odd argument; many words have more than one legitimate use, and the way "sex" is used in "same-sex marriage" is not in Wiktionary at all.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Irrespective of your opinions about the history of the word "gender", Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We use words as they are used in the sources, by experts, and, to a lesser extent, by the public. To mass-replace "gender" with "sex", as you did, is highly inappropriate. It had some ridiculous results, like linking the text "sexual identity" to the article gender identity and replacing the latter term with the former throughout the article, despite the two terms having distinctly different meanings (see sexual identity). You also changed text inside the quotes from the APA and AAP, which is absolutely forbidden. Incidentally, those quotes from respected scientific organizations using the word "gender" prove that the use of the word in the article is appropriate. - htonl (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Does "equal marriage" warrant inclusion? I only ever hear "marriage equality". (It would be hard to filter out false positives in Ghits.) "Equal marriage" is actually confusing: it sounds like a couple who evenly split the housework and raising the kids. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Where are you? I believe "equal marriage" is used quite commonly in the UK, at least. - htonl (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A gnews search shows that it is used extensively by one UK site (PinkNews), and in more scattered form by other UK sources.... and on the whole, much more than same-gender marriage. So yes, it's something that a US editor may not be aware of. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is potential confusion by misusing the term, which has an actual definition. Some editors seems to be saying, like the Duchess in Alice that a word means whatever I want it to mean!

The word "gender" is being used properly in the article where they are discussing changing statutes to be "gender-neutral;" that is so that the words "him" and "her" are replaced with something that implies both. This is linguistic and correct.

Where it violates dictionary usage is when it pertains to actual human beings. There are people of the same sex and of opposite sex; there are not people of the same gender or opposite gender! If words don't have an actual dictionary meaning, the encyclopedia is in trouble! Let's use dictionary meanings where possible. Student7 (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Gender" has been used for many years to distinguish between biology and self-identification; a transgender man, for example, is biologically female but has a male gender. In the context of LGBT rights, such as the topic of this article, the useage is generally understood. But if you are going to insist on the dictionary, I refer you to Merriam-Webster online, which has the following definition for "gender", as entry 2b: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex." TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. This is why the two terms are not interchangeable in this article. Sex = biological sex of the body, Gender = sex that one idenitfies as. It doesn't matter what the OED says if we know that the word has another specific meaning in the context of this article. We don't deliberately confuse readers merely to adhere to certain dictionary definitions of words. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Which dictionary are you claiming it violates? So far, Student7, the only dictionary you have cited includes that definition (and, as I noted, does not include a similar meaning for "sex"). The only editor that seems to be insisting that the word must mean what you want it to mean is you. The others are reflecting how the word is actually used in the modern English language, and how it is reflected in books that document said language. Wiktionary has it, dictionary.com has it, merriam webster has it in their standard and medical dictionaries. You have not convinced anyone that you Ae a greater authority than these sources, nor that we should ignore a term that is used simply because it is not one you would construct. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about "many years." When the media first started using it in the 70s, academics complained about it. So "many years" would be about 30 until they started using the word "sex" in the media. Before that, the English language used the word "sex" to distinguish between physical attributes of men and women. 500 years?

The first Wiktionary definition says "(grammar) A division of nouns and pronouns (and sometimes of other parts of speech), such as masculine, feminine, neuter or common." This is the preferred usage and one we should be normally following.

The second Wiktionary definition says "2. (sometimes proscribed) The biological sex of an individual (usually male or female)." proscribed means "Some educators or other authorities recommend against the listed usage." We should be using words encyclopedically and ignoring media misuse of them.

If you are saying that "sometimes correct usage is impossible because of some context," I agree. If you are saying that "correct usage is never possible or desirable," I beg to differ. Student7 (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For me, at least, I'm not saying "correct usage is never possible", I'm saying "the use of the word 'gender' in this article is correct". If we're going to quote the dictionary, let's go to the ur-dictionary, the OED. Its definition of "gender, n." (definition 3a, but the order is not determinative of anything) is "Males or females viewed as a group; = SEX n. 1. Also: the property or fact of belonging to one of these groups." It also quotes the word being used in this sense as early as 1474. - htonl (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The idea that a usage is incorrect because it's dictionary definition #2 rather than #1 does not reflect on how a dictionary or language works. Many words have more than one meaning, and that does not make all but one of them invalid. Merriam-Webster has 45 numbered definitions of the word "run", and our language would be much poorer were we to dump 44 of those. Far from numerical order declaring some of them invalid, their very placement in the dictionary reflects their validity. (BTW, I revoke my earlier statement that the Wiktionary doesn't even cover your usage of "sex"; had an odd link that took me to an odd page, not the main definition page.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

All Wiktionary says is that the Definition 2 use of gender to refer to biological sex is sometimes proscribed. Definitions 3 and 4 deal with gender identity and gender as a social division, which is how the term is used in the article, and how it used more broadly in the sex and gender distinction. Also, this seems oddly apropos.--Trystan (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. One last (mercifully) word. There are two uses of "gender" in the article, each meaning different things. One linguistic, the other anatomical. I would think this is something not only avoidable, but should probably be avoided. Like mixing an article on scout insignias with one on fiascos (using your example), but knowingly and deliberately using the same word for both anyway. Student7 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of words using more than one definition in the article. "Support" is used as both a noun and a verb, as is "run". "Right" is in there as noun and adjective. English is like that. Unless there's some specific confusion, we needn't avoid making full use of these words. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad definition at "gender identity" ?

I thought the only question in same-sex marriage laws is if biological sex is the same. Without same-sex marriage laws I think it's legal for a homosexual to marry a heterosexual of the opposing biological sex, for two people with gender confusion to wed, or even for two people where one is biologically nonfunctional to wed -- as long as their biological sex is not the same. If the couple is of incompatible gender identities it seems past history says it might lead to annulment or divorce, but was not a block to legal marriage. So is there any supporting cites explaining "and/or gender identity" being here ??? Markbassett (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This is covered in the article on the section on transgender and intersex persons. The law varies depending on jurisdiction and circumstances involved; some look only at biological sex, while others look at gender identity. In the UK, for example, a trans man with a gender recognition certificate is legally recognized as a man and would only be able to marry a woman. A trans man without such a certificate, or in a jurisdiction that does not recognize his gender identity at all, would legally be considered a woman and only able to marry a man.--Trystan (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Eckists

An editor has tried to add Eckists to the list in the fourth paragraph of the leas, even though the comment says that it should be discussed here first. In any case, the group seems too small to be worth including in a representative list, and besides, it wasn't referenced. StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Adherents.com (probably the best online religion statistic site) this movement has 500,000 adherents which is comparable in size to the others. For a source, i will add it. Pass a Method talk 01:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what the source says at all - it provides a number of estimates. Looking at the numbers, 50,000 looks like a more realistic estimate. There were, for example, 829 Eckists in the 1996 Australian census. StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the problem of the source is resolved, but you are still edit warring. Please obtain consensus here before you add material back in. StAnselm (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It also gives the figure of more than 3 million members in over 100 countries, so i think 500,000 is a reasonable medium. Pass a Method talk 01:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not how statistics work. If you have three different estimates, you don't just take the middle one as a reasonable medium - you look at how reliable they are. The most reliable and useful statistic is the phone survey that says there are 18,000 adherents in the US. That number makes 50,000 worldwide sound the most reasonable - I also note that it says there are 15 centers in the US and 19 worldwide, so it is reasonable to suppose that most adherents are in the US. StAnselm (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say what you're doing above sounds like WP:OR. Pass a Method talk 01:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And that's OK on talk pages. The Eckankar article rightly says estimates range between 50,000 and 500,000 - you seem to preferring the latter number for, I think, poor reasons. I have argued why I prefer the lower estimate. And it is important, because with 50,000 it would seem that it is not significant enough for inclusion on lists like this - with 500,000 it might be. StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Adherents.com is a superior source. Pass a Method talk 02:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That's where I was getting my numbers. You realise, don't you, that they give multiple estimates on that website? StAnselm (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

that survey was conducted on the east coast. Eckists are concentrated on the west coast. Pass a Method talk 02:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also you should distinguish between paid membership and all followers. Pass a Method talk 03:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note: I made a comment in my edit summary about the reference being a dead link...I had gotten a 404 error four times in a row. After the edit I went back and tried again and it worked. Either way, I feel it's probably safe to leave it out for now per WP:STATUSQUO, at least until consensus is reached here on the talk page. Also, I checked out the numbers at adherents.com, and the 500,000 number is from a 1972 publication. The 50,000 number is from 1982 and has been cited fairly consistently since then...at least as recently as 1996 and 1998, while the 500,000 number seems to have been dropped. Not sure if that helps any. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You have apparenty not read the last comment i made above. Pass a Method talk 22:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I was a little confused by your comment above. Do they pay people to be members, or do people have to pay to be members? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

People pay to be members, it is similar to a tihe or zakat. Pass a Method talk 23:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'd support removing the entire line: "Some smaller religious groups practise or favor it, such as Eckists[201], Raelians, New Age movements and Neopagans" and remove mention of Wiccans and Druids. These are all very small minority groups which don't need to be mentioned in this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• I don't have a strong opinion on this particular article, but as Pass a Method knows, I am generally against shoehorning UNDUE links/sentences/sections about small religions into main-topic articles with international scope. (Full view here.) It's very democratic and all, but it's not helpful to the reader, and frankly religions like Raelism and Eckankar don't really meet the threshold of notability for inclusion. In my view, the pages about these religions should mention that they support/oppose same-sex marriage, but it's not necessary to turn this article into a list of which religions support or oppose it. Perhaps the article List of religious positions on same-sex marriage should be created, but that's way out of my field. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, I would say that a fair amount of the religious material that was recently added in a good faith attempt to compromise is probably inappropriate for this article. For instance, the examples of "Mormon" and "Southern Baptist" are fairly US-centric, and introduce a systemic bias into an article with a global scope. (Also, I'd never list "Mormon" and the "Orthodox Catholic Church" side by side as examples of "large Christian sects".) Similarly, many of the small religions introduced previously are also US-centric (eg. Raelism, Eckankar, Universalism, Native American religion, Quakers, Episcopalian, etc.) Lastly, the religions listed seem rather arbitrary. I suggest that the entire subsection be pruned back, removing a lot of these small less notable groups, and leaving the larger more notable religious movements like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a bold edit doing this. Feel free to revert if you like, but let's discuss it too. (I also fixed a huge number of grammatical problems.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Support recent changes, particularly fixing of grammatical problems. There is a chance that, eventually, a lot of the groups removed will become more prominent, and that WP:WEIGHT might then reasonably support their inclusion, but at this point I don't see thme being of such prominence that they really need to be included. Having said that, I think Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions specifically categorizes some churches as being homosexually-oriented and/or homosexual-friendly, like I think(?) the Metropolitan Community Churches, and I think it would probably be reasonable to include any churches which have as part of their basis appealing to homosexuals, like maybe that and a few others, provided they actually have clearly approved same-sex marriages, as I tend to think they almost certainly would. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In an admitted older edition of Melton's, I found the following groups listed as "homosexually-oriented churches": Ancient British Church in North America (The Autocephalous Glastonbury Rite in Diaspora), Community of the Love of Christ (Evangelical Catholic), Ecumenical Catholic Church, Eucharistic Catholic Church, Gay and Lesbian Atheists, Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Church, Orthodox Episcopal Church of God, Sarum Episcopal Church, Tayu Fellowship. If these groups have articles here, i suppose it wouldn't be unreasonable to mention their stance on same-sex marriage, either individually or collectively. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong caption

The image here [2] has an incorrect caption. Goo86 (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify. CTF83! 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it already, the way it was previously worded was rather confusing and possibly ambiguous. - htonl (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Goo86 has been blocked as a sock of banned user Acoma Magic. - MrX 15:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Mark Regnerus study

I wanted to explain the deletion of the repeatedly added How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study.[3][4] First of all, these two edits deleted a bunch of well sourced information in a way that looked like it was intended to push a point of view, in violation of WP:NPOV. Even if the study in question merits inclusion, there is no reason to delete the good information that's already there. But even more importantly, though, the study in question is not directly relevant to an article about same sex marriage, because it didn't compare children of opposite-sex marriages to children of same-sex marriages, it compared them to children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship. Having had a same-sex romantic relationship is not the same as being or having been married to a person of the same sex. This study could possibly be included elsewhere, but I'm unconvinced that it should be here, and I definitely don't see why it should be used to delete a bunch of information that has multiple reliable sources. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. "The Regnerus study" has nothing to do with same-sex marriage and LGBT parenting, as described here (pp. 29-33).--В и к и T 19:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact we already hashed this out once before; see Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 17#Children and the family errata. And yes, the Regnerus study really has nothing at all to say about the children of married same-sex couples (or, for the most part, same-sex couples in general). - htonl (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings:

I replaced the original writing (that was more an editorial than an encyclopedic entry) with factual information from the largest study ever conducted on the subject. I was simply quoting facts that were gathered in a study conducted on the subject. This is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, and as a syndicated columnist, I am trained to gather and disseminate factual information for people to have in order to make well-informed conclusions. The portion I wrote regarding the Regnerus study should not be deleted, but included in this Wikipedia article.

While we may have objections to the conclusions the research provides, presentation of the facts should not be compromised, as every scientist or social researcher will attest.

With regard to the validity of the study, I will offer the following information:

The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote the following: “An inquiry by the University of Texas at Austin has found no evidence of scientific misconduct by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology whose controversial gay-parenting study caused a stir when it was published, in June. According to the university’s report, the inquiry found that ‘[n]one of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth by Mr. Rose were substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews.’ Because the inquiry found no wrongdoing, there will be no formal investigation.” http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/university-of-texas-finds-no-scientific-misconduct-by-gay-parenting-study-author/30594

The gay website www.queerty.com quoted the University of Texas response as “[T]here is insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation.”

In Mercatornet.com and other magazines, Dr. Walter Schumm, who assessed the study in a round table at the National Council on Family Relations’ annual conference, is quoted as saying: “There is considerable research—detailed in my commentary in SSR—that notes the instability of lesbian and gay parental relationships, the tendency of their children to be involved in substance abuse, and the tendency of such children to experiment with or adopt same-sex sexual behaviors or identities—results similar to those that Regnerus reported.” -- Dr. Walter R. Schumm is Professor of Family Studies at Kansas State University, with over 300 publications, including approximately 250 journal articles. Dr. Schumm presented each of the articles or comments related to the NFSS from Social Science Research in his assessment of the NFSS at a round table discussion at the National Council on Family Relation’s annual conference, November 2, Phoenix, Arizona. He is quoted here in Crisis Magazine. http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_controversial_gay_parenting_study_revisited

The section I wrote quoting the study is useful and needs to go back into the article. Theanswerman109 (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about same-sex marriage. The Regnerus study is about (quoting from its own title) parents who have same-sex relationships. These are not the same thing. To quote myself from last time this came up: "Regnerus' study has no bearing on committed or married same-sex parents (and hence no bearing on this article) as what his study described as "gay fathers" and "lesbian mothers" was anyone who had ever had a same-sex relationship. Hence he was comparing opposite-sex married couples with all sorts of cases of divorced parents, single parents, etc. etc. He was emphatically not comparing opposite-sex married parents with same-sex married parents. See for example [5] and [6]." Or to quote User:Teammm: "the study doesn't evaluate gay couples' ability to raise children compared to opposite-sex couples. In fact, it was the opposite-sex couple that raised the child within the study (one where there was a closeted gay parent). The only conclusion that you can make from this is that where a closeted gay parent comes out to their "heterosexual family", it is likely to have a negative impact on them, which is obvious and has nothing to do with gay couples raising children." (edited to add:) Just because UT didn't find scientific misconduct doesn't mean that the paper is either correct, or relevant to this article. You can be just plain wrong without having committed misconduct. - htonl (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

"I was simply quoting facts that were gathered in a study conducted on the subject."

No, you weren't. Let's take a look at some of what you actually inserted:

• A study of children raised by homosexual parents - no, the study did not separate out homosexual parents. Not everyone who has had a same-sex relationship is a "homosexual". And no, it did not only include those where a homosexual parent raised the child; to quote the study's grouping "GF: R reported R’s father had a same-sex romantic (gay) relationship with a man, regardless of any other household transitions" - so whether or not that father had any hand in raising the child, that was included in the study. The same goes for the LM designation.
• children raised by homosexual parents developed significant problems later in life when compared to children raised by heterosexual parents [...] With regard specifically to the children raised by lesbian mothers, the study found the children were: nearly 4 times more likely to be on welfare, 3 times more likely to be unemployed, 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting, nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will, more likely to have attachment problems, as well as more likely to use marijuana and to smoke. All false, even beyond the items raised by the previous bullet point. What you're comparing is not the figures for "lesbian mothers" to "heterosexual parents" but to what the study calls "IBF", short for "Intact Biological Families"... which were less than half of the non-"lesbian mother", non-"gay father" families in the study. Additionally, the study did not fully separate out even what it considered LMs, because if the offspring said that their father had also had a same-sex relationship, the offspring was excluded from the LM group (To quote the study: "(There were 12 cases of respondents who reported both a mother and a father having a same-sex relationship; all are analyzed here as GFs, after ancillary analyses revealed comparable exposure to both their mother and father).") So the section here is not really "lesbian mothers" but "mothers who had a same-sex relationship and whose child was not sired by a man who had a same-sex relationship".)
• Perhaps the most startling statistic to come from the study revealed that the adult children of lesbian parents were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver." Same as the previous. Additionally, the phrase "lesbian parents" portrays both parents as being lesbian, and while there were children in this study raised by two lesbians, they were not a major part of the "lesbian mother" contingent studied.

Claiming training in disseminating factual information is not an effective substitute for actually disseminating factual information. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings: Thank you all for taking to time to look carefully at this article and providing feedback regarding its contents. I appreciate your feedback and insights. Let’s take a quick look at each of the points made in this section of the article on same-sex marriage:

Scientific literature indicates that parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union (either a opposite-sex or same-sex union).

The Regnerus study indicates that when same-sex couples raise children, the children develop significant problems later on compared to heterosexual couples. One commenter in the Wikipedia editing section wrote: “Not everyone who has had a same-sex relationship is a ‘homosexual’.” I’m not sure exactly why this would be, since a person who is attracted to another person of the same sex would automatically be considered homosexual/bisexual. And certainly a person who is in a “union” as a parent of children with a person of the same sex would be a homosexual. The line above needs to be deleted because it contains errors and the Regnerus study cited.

As a result, professional scientific associations have argued for same-sex marriage to be legally recognized as it will be beneficial to the children of same-sex couples.

Only some associations have argued in favor, and even these, such as the American Psychological Association, have changed their opinion over time. The insinuation is that there is consensus, when in fact there is not. This line should be changed to:

“While there is no consensus on the subject, some associations have argued in favor of same-sex marriage.” Actually, there is a better way to state this, which would be: “There is no consensus among associations regarding the benefits and drawbacks to same-sex parenting.”

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

This line is inaccurate. The only truly comprehensive study conducted on the subject came out with the exact opposite conclusion. Therefore, this line needs to be deleted and what was inserted earlier regarding the Regenerus study included.

According to scientific literature reviews, there is no evidence to the contrary.

This line is false. The person who wrote this was trying to editorialize on the subject. It is hard to believe that they were commenting on this subject and had not heard of the Regnerus study. Therefore, this line too should be deleted. Theanswerman109 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Regnerus study does not deal with same-sex couples. I'll say it again in bold, since you seem to have missed it the last 3 times: The Regnerus study does not deal with same-sex couples. It includes in the categories which are called "lesbian mother" and "gay father" any case where the parent had a romantic relationship with some one of the same sex. It does not distinguish children brought up by same-sex couples from, for example, children who had a closeted parent whose opposite-sex marriage broke up. Less than 25% of the children in the study with a so-called "lesbian mother" lived with that mother and a female partner for three years or more, and less than 2% of the children with a so-called "gay father" lived with the father and a male partner for more than three years. The study simply does not tell us anything about the children of actual same-sex couples. - htonl (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• The Regnerus study indicates that when same-sex couples raise children, the children develop significant problems later on compared to heterosexual couples - no, it doesn't. The Regnerus study simply does not separate out children who were raised by same-sex couples. You seem to repeatedly be going to this study without knowing what it actually studied and what claims it actually made.
• One commenter in the Wikipedia editing section wrote: “Not everyone who has had a same-sex relationship is a ‘homosexual’.” I’m not sure exactly why this would be, since a person who is attracted to another person of the same sex would automatically be considered homosexual/bisexual. Well, there's that "bisexual" word, and there's no particular reason to lump bisexuals in with homosexuals and not heterosexuals. And then there's those who may enter a same-sex relationship as a relationship of convenience, with no sexual attraction involved.
• Only some associations have argued in favor which is why it doesn't say "all". If we say "people see a lot of movies", it doesn't mean that all people see movies.
• While there is no consensus on the subject - sez who?
• This line is false. - the statement is sourced. That doesn't mean the studies may not be wrong, but that's a reasonable summary of what the scientific literature studies found. (To quote one: "the present article reviews relevant behavioral and social science research to assess the validity of key factual claims in this debate. The data indicate that same-sex and heterosexual relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent’s sexual orientation is unrelated to her or his ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits.")
• It is hard to believe that they were commenting on this subject and had not heard of the Regnerus study. Really? It's hard to believe that when someone added a sourced sentence to the article in 2010, they had not heard of a study that was not released until 2012? I have a skeptical nature, but even I find that quite believable. Now, if you can point to a newer review of the scientific literature that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal and includes the Regnerus study in its scope and comes to a different net conclusion, that can be a call to reinvestigate that sentence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I certainly saw the comment that we are not dealing with same-sex couples, but I was assuming that people who read this were going to take a look at the title of the section that we are discussing. I will remind you that the title of the section is the following: LGBT Parenting. Since the subject is about LGBT parenting, then the Regnerus study is pertinent. Perhaps we should word it exactly as it has appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education and other periodicals:

His results suggested that adult children who had been raised, for at least a brief time, in families with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual parent were more likely to report dysfunctional adult outcomes than those who had been raised in other family structures, especially families with continuously married heterosexual parents.

It is important to point out a few more points -- namely, that some of the studies cited in the article are discredited because the sample sizes are too small. That's something also that will get fixed. Here's a citation that will help to clear this up:

Concern has arisen, however, about the methodological quality of many studies focusing on same-sex parents. In particular, most are based on non-random, non-representative data often employing small samples that do not allow for generalization to the larger population of gay and lesbian families (Nock, 2001, Perrin and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002 and Redding, 2008). For instance, many published studies on the children of same-sex parents collect data from “snowball” or convenience samples (e.g., Bos et al., 2007, Brewaeys et al., 1997, Fulcher et al., 2008, Sirota, 2009 and Vanfraussen et al., 2003). One notable example of this is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, analyses of which were prominently featured in the media in 2011 (e.g., Huffington Post, 2011). The NLLFS employs a convenience sample, recruited entirely by self-selection from announcements posted “at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores, and in lesbian newspapers” in Boston, Washington, and San Francisco.

Furthermore:

Wainright et al. (2004), using 44 cases in the nationally-representative Add Health data, reported that teenagers living with female same-sex parents displayed comparable self-esteem, psychological adjustment, academic achievement, delinquency, substance use, and family relationship quality to 44 demographically “matched” cases of adolescents with opposite-sex parents, suggesting that here too the comparisons were not likely made with respondents from stable, biologically-intact, married families. However, small sample sizes can contribute to “no differences” conclusions. It is not surprising that statistically-significant differences would not emerge in studies employing as few as 18 or 33 or 44 cases of respondents with same-sex parents, respectively ( Fulcher et al., 2008, Golombok et al., 2003 and Wainright and Patterson, 2006).Theanswerman109 (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I was assuming that people who read this were going to take a look at the title of the section that we are discussing. I will remind you that the title of the section is the following: LGBT Parenting. Yes, but it is within the article Same-sex marriage. Sections of Wikipedia articles are presumed to be within the topic of the article; a "History" section in the article on Missouri would be about the history of Missouri, and would not cover the fall of Caesar. To that end, we would probably be wise to remove the "LGBT" part of the header.

Yes, Regnerus put down other studies in his paper, as you quote (without noting who you are quoting). Others have defended them. And some of the problems that Regnerus claimed with other studies are basically what Schumm was suggesting that Regnerus should have done ("I think that it would have been wise, especially once it became apparent that there were few very stable GLB families in the Knowledge Networks panel, to contract with a pro-gay research organization to collect data from at least 30, preferably 100 or more, stable same-sex families, to permit a more valid (although still limited because of possible selection effects) comparison with similarly stable heterosexual families.") If you want to use an article in The Chronicle Of Higher Education as your base for discussing Regnerus and its applicability, you can also choose the one that says "The outcry over the study wasn’t prompted by allegations that Regnerus falsified data, but rather by the study’s implication that gay parents produced troubled children, a finding that was based on questionable evidence." --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

to go further on the question of whether "homosexual" is an apt descriptor for parents in the LM and GF groups: "I realize that one same-sex relationship does not a lesbian make, necessarily." Mark Regnerus -Nat Gertler (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Polygamy/Polyamoury

This should be covered in the article (to which "marriage equality" directs). It is mentioned in briefs to the supreme court, and is relevant. One source is http://www.vice.com/read/after-gay-marriage-why-not-polygamy 94.139.29.110 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of people hae tried to link different things to SSM issues; it is hard to see why a couple of US related references means that this separate topic should be covered in this international article. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGertler (talk • contribs) 22:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not the topic of this article, nor it that a reliable source. We already have a Polyamory article. - MrX 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Some co-religionists approve (but no citizen disapproves?)

There is a statement that says the official position of the Catholic Church is disapproval of SSM but some Catholics don't agree. I would note that where SSM is now law, there is no corresponding statement that "some people in Vermont disagree" or "some people in Connecticut don't agree." If we are going to use weasel terms to attempt to undermine the prevailing view, shouldn't they cut both ways? And BTW, in the real world, citizens never really agree with any position with figures approaching 100%. What is law is law. What is a statement of morality is just that, as well, IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the main point of the church disapproval is there and explicit. I think the phrase 'some Catholics don't agree' is off topic and minor flaw. It might trying to distinguish between church the body of members and church the official position, but then would have to say churches in favor have some members that oppose. It might be trying to point out that this in particular is one of the topics where the fraction of Catholic Church that is in the US is known for Cafeteria Catholicism. Lacking a cite to support something in particular I think you can cut the phrase. Your edit would then make the article better, and if it gets redone with clearer text and cite, that also makes the article better... Markbassett (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between religions on the one hand and states or countries on the other hand. Membership in a religion is a completely voluntary choice, and religion is fundamentally based on beliefs and opinions. So, generally, one assumes that members of a religious group agree with the beliefs of that group - because, if they don't agree, why are they still members? On the other hand, citizenship is not voluntary, and the main purposes of government have nothing to do with beliefs or opinions. So, generally, one doesn't assume that everyone who lives in a state or country agrees with the decisions of the government. So the fact that substantial proportions of Catholics in the Americas - and, I believe, a majority in the USA - disagree with the church's position on SSM is different in nature than the fact that substantial proportions of citizens in countries/states with SSM disagree with the government's position. - htonl (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

From the content, I think this was meant for the prior para. The concern remains that no group being unanimous seems obvious for all cases, so saying it seems to have no significant point. Saying it for the one group seems to only confuse the factual statements being made about the official position of churches, and it is not apparent what if anything it is trying to say or judge if that is relevant for the article. Since the article overall is about legal recognition for same-sex marriage worldwide the content showing differs by jurisdiction seems relevant, and identifying opposition groups and basis seems relevant, but distribution within each religion seems obvious and pointless. For example, that polls for the Catholics of USA differ from the Catholics of Phillipines seems likely but is missing any why or so what that would be important for this article. If we could see the phrase intent or infer one from a cite we could work on better wording, or perhaps see it should be in the United States section or the Religious views article. Lacking that, the only way to improve the article seems to be delete the phrase. Markbassett (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeing no followup to fix the phrase, I'm going to take it out. Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Transgender bait and switch

I find it offensive and defamatory to lump the birth defect of transsexualism in with the choice or orientation of transgenderism. A transgender is a person of one gender who keeps their birth genitals for life, practices an alternative lifestyle, and lives as what they are not. Transsexuals are those born with the opposite genitals of what is correct for them. So use TG for people who WANT and USE their sex organs of birth while living as they are not and identifying as LGBT, while using TS to refer to those who were born with parts opposite of who they are, and who are NOT LGBT. So treat TG as a lifestyle, but TS as a medical condition.

The correct name for the surgery is Sex-Reassignment Surgery. The gender (who you are) is not changed, ONLY the body. As for marriage, in the past, TSism was treated as a birth defect, not as a lifestyle like transgenderism, and with NO connection to LGBT behavior. A transsexual woman deserves rights because SHE was SUPPOSED TO be born with a vagina. The genitals you are supposed to have it what should determine your gender-related rights. Male-born TGs (non-op) don't usually get the surgery because they don't have a birth defect. A TS woman was supposed to be born with a vagina, while a TG who merely lives as a woman was supposed to be born with his penis. Traditionally, those born with transsexualism destroyed their condition with surgery, got their birth records changed, and married as heterosexuals. So actual transsexuals don't need gay marriage unless they are gay after surgery. What they need is a unified federal law that recognizes the corrected gender after surgery. Transsexuals don't need all the protections that TGs need. Just recognize them legally as if they were born in the correct sex and protect that by law to make ALL existing cisgender laws apply to TSs who are cisgender after surgery (and thus no longer transsexual).

The article confuses the lifestyle of transgenderism with the birth defect of transsexualism. You used "transsexuals" to mean "transgenders." Transgenders are gender variant, while genuine TS women are gender conformists. The goal of TSism is to become a COMPLETE member of the corrected sex and to be regarded as such in all ways, and without needing to be a part of any community but the non-LGBT one. Now yes, some do enter surgery without planning and create gayness or gender variance where none exists. But the whole purpose of transition for the TS is to destroy gender variance and become a fully cisgendered member of the corrected sex.74.124.177.165 (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your personal feelings about what is "offensive and defamatory" are not particularly relevant, unless you can demonstrate that they represent a majority or significant-minority position. You would need to round up some reliable sources to verify such an assertion. William Avery (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

US poll of Catholics

March 2013 Quinnipiac University poll of Catholics lay people puts the support for same sex marriage at a first time leading support at 47% to 43% [7] Is this a reliable poll? I am not familiar with this university. Alatari (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Quinnipiac polls are commonly cited, but this particular stat, focused on a single subset of a single nation, probably doesnt rise to the weight needed for inclusion in this global article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That poll was for 497 folks, so the difference seems 19 people. I wouldn't take one poll as significant, and would like to see the wording to judge neutrality, but it looks like they have been doing a series tracking rising value. http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/04/quinnipiac-poll-50-back-marriage.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 April 2013

Here is a request to update incorrect information regarding the timeline for the third reading of the UK Same-Sex Couples Marriage Bill. The third reading did not occur in March and is not as yet scheduled according to the Parliament.UK website.

Specific text to remove: After the third reading in March, the bill is expected to go to the House of Lords for debate and final vote.[178]

Specific text to add: After the third reading on a date yet to be scheduled, the bill is expected to go to the House of Lords for debate, final vote, consideration of amendments, and if passed, royal assent. 149.241.55.249 (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I simply removed the March claim. Thanks for the note. Hekerui (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The American College of Pediatrics

I removed (edit: MrX got there first) the quote from the American College of Pediatricians because it is a conservative advocacy organisation, not a scientific organisation. It was founded in response to the AAP's statement in favour of adption by same-sex couples and, according to the founder, it is "open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group's core beliefs: [...] that the traditional family unit, headed by a different-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." When it makes a statement about adoption by same-sex couples it is speaking based on its founding principles, not based on scientific information. - htonl (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That being said, though, I think the "Organizations" section is far too long and far too loaded with quotes. It should be shortened to a paragraph or two, something like "Reputable scientific organizations, including (the AAP, the APA, ...) have stated that ... (a summary of their statements)." - htonl (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That section is due for a trim. - MrX 16:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the American College of Pediatricians statement (unreliable source, undue weight), and I also agree that the section could use a trim in the way htonl proposed. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

On what basis do you remove a major arm of the American Medical Association ? The American College of Pediatricans is a college of the AMA like any other and is even cited by the AMA as a major influence in decision making regarding the Obama healthcare changes. I suspect you are being influenced by propagandists attempting to play down a relevant portion of the AMA. Every AMA college has statement of core beliefs - that does not cause them to abandon science: Obama goes before Congress, urges teamwork on health reform "The American College of Pediatricians said it opposes adding a government-run healthcare option, fearing it will threaten a physician's ability to make decisions. " Healthcare Finance News September 10, 2009 http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/obama-goes-congress-urges-teamwork-health-reform — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverendozanich (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find sources to back up any of your claims. If they are some form of branch of the AMA, you think they might mention that on their About Us page. It isn't on the AMA's list of Member Societies. The article that you link to doesn't claim they were any influence on Obama, it merely says that they said something. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

April Fools Day was more than a week ago. Check your calendar. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The American Academy of Pediatrics is the member of the AMA, and is quoted in the article. The American College of Pediatricians is the advocacy organization whose quote was removed. - htonl (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay

Uruguay just became the 12th country to legalize same-sex marriage.

Cite: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/04/201341105239642840.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.159.124 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Noted progress and can be properly updated in lead pending the President's signature, which is expected in the next week. Teammm ^talk
_email 03:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

According to below news article, the full legalisation could happen in the next 10 days.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1755208/Uruguay-legalises-gay-marriage Magpieram (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Island of Saba?

Why is the caribbean island of Saba not listed (at least) in the "Performed in some jurisdictions" section? http://www.sxmislandtime.com/component/k2/item/21189-saba-records-first-gay-marriage-on-tuesday.html

Saba is a fully integrated municipality within the Netherlands. 72.92.235.239 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2013

Broken links in External links.

The correct JURIST link is http://jurist.org/currentawareness/samesex.php and the correct NOLO link is http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-marriage-developments-the-law.html although the NOLO link probably belongs in the US article, not here. Some other EL links are US-only as well. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 184.78.81.245 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done - updated both links (the Jurist one by fixing the {{JURISTtopic}} template). - htonl (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand 13th Country to Legalise Same Sex Marriage

And in a matter of hours New Zealand is set to become the next nation to join civilization :)

Can I also not be neutral just this once?Please?Pretty please :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 00:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that, for the same reason that we wait until the President's signature to count Uruguay, we must wait until the Governor-General gives Royal Assent before counting New Zealand. Or perhaps not, given that the Governor-General doesn't have any veto power. - htonl (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Move USA section (6.1.16) to ”Subject debated”

By looking at the map in the USA section it would seem that seven states allow same-sex marriage, one recognizes them and another seven states are quite stripey. Whatever that means. For the sake of argument, let’s say there are 15 states that recognize gay marriages, that leaves 35 that don’t. I don’t think it’s actually fair to say that a country in which the majority of states, in this case, fits under the ”Legal recognition” section. At best it is debated, even though I personally would say the states are, officially, quite united against same-sex marriage.

I think it is further more important to move it to ”Subject debated” partly because many people might simply look at only the table of contents, from which you get the idea that USA has legalized gay marriage, which in large it hasn’t. I also think it is factually incorrect to not have USA in Subject debated since the country isn’t united about this subject, meaning it is very much a debated subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.125.247 (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

List of order

Would it not be nice with a list in which order countries joins the club? It's kind of hard to keep track otherwise when and in which order countries changes their laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.117.91 (talk • contribs)

See Same-sex union legislation.--В и к и T 12:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also Timeline of same-sex marriage. - htonl (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on April 17 2013

Both New Zealand and Uruguay have passed their bills and legalised same-sex marriage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/11/uruguay-legalises-same-sex-marriage http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22184232 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eejaffer (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 April 2013‎

It's mentioned right up there in the first paragraph: "The legislatures of two more countries (Uruguay and New Zealand) have passed bills to allow same-sex marriage which await final approval by the executive." In the case of Uruguay, it awaits the President's signature; in the case of New Zealand it awaits the Governor-General's assent. - htonl (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone has edited it to remove the New Zealand portion, but left the left parens beside Uruguay. --Hpgross (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also noticed that NZ has been colored as having legal same-sex marriage on the map... this seems premature as it still needs the royal assent. Frimmin (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Frimmin

Edit request - as at 12.00PM, 19 April 2013 (NZT), the New Zealand Bill has been Royally Assented and is now law. (130.195.253.4 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC))

Change to info box

In the info box there is currently 'Marriage', 'performed in some jurisdictions' and 'recognized, not performed'. I propose adding a fourth along the lines of 'To be legalized', as I believe three country will, so far, be legalizing SSM this year. Uruguay and New Zealand, where it has been passed and waiting approval from the head of state and Colombia where the high court has ruled SSM will become legal automatically on 20 June 2013. This will show clearly the current position held by the various countries. CH7i5 (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That infobox is actually not under the control of this article. It has its own talk page at Template_talk:Same-sex_unions, and it would be best to raise your concerns there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for telling me. Will suggest it there now CH7i5 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Colombia

Colombia should be grey on World marriage-equality laws map. The Constitutional Court just obliged the Congress to pass the legislation giving same-sex couples similar rights to marriage. See [8], [9] Ron 1987 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2013

Add Uruguay under "Marriage" with a "See also" note stating "Not yet in effect" (like New Zealand) in the "Legal recognition of same-sex relationships" table. Thevastdarkness (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The bill is not yet signed by President Mujica. New Zealand bill was signed into law today. Ron 1987 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The 10 day period prescribed by the constitution (Articles 133-145) is passed.

Article 143.

If the Executive Power has no objection to offer to a bill which has been submitted to it,
it shall immediately give notice to that effect, the bill being thereby approved,
and promulgated without delay.

Article 144.

If the Executive does not return a bill within the ten days prescribed in Article 137,
it shall become law and shall be complied with as such, the Chamber which sent it having
the right to demand such action if this is not done.

--В и к и T 10:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a WP:RS that says that this is actually considered to have taken place in regard to the SSM bill? Because I know that here in America, things aren't always done quite in accord with the Constitution, at least not how it might be read by a layman. GNews isn't giving me anything, but then it ends towards English language sources. -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The question is: when the President of Chamber of Deputies sent the bill to the President. Here is the list of laws signed by President Mujica. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC) EDIT: For example, 2003 Hate crimes bill was passed by parliament on 9 July and signed by the President on 29 July, 2004 anti-discrimination bill was approved on 18 August and signed into law on 6 September. Ron 1987 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

New Zealand and Uruguary

Both New Zealand (today) and Uruguay (a week or two ago) have now legalized gay marriage. (Today is April 17th, 2013)

74.97.178.42 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Full list of dates and countries for citation purposes can be found at [10] (among others). This... and related pages... need to be fixed because it looks bad that the date in on the page says "as of April 2013".

Typo-nerd (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: New Zealand appears to have been updated already; see below for ongoing discussion regarding Uruguay. BryanG (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A resume to insert

I suggest a resume I read at <http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/opinion/editorial/?id=31842>. It is basically in two parts: 1) "Bills allowing legal recognition of same-sex marriage are in train in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Nepal, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and New Zealand — as well as parts of Australia, Mexico and the US." and 2) "Of course, opposition to gay marriage remains fierce in many places. In 78 countries — mostly in the Muslim world and Africa — gay sex is still a crime, punishable by long jail terms and even death.". Thank you for reading. Moderators, have a nice day and thank you for helping and editing the Wiki pages for us, simple users. I love you, I love this site. :-) 189.25.90.233 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request (24 April)

The law in France passed the Assemblée Nationale by 331-225 (not 221), as stated in the BBC article linked to in the introduction. 163.1.163.253 (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As noted in the link above, the law will not go into effect until it has been reviewed by a constitutional court. Until it does go into effect, Wikipedia cannot say that marriage is legal in France. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

no, no, he is just saying the number given is wrong. I dont have time tocheck at the moment.-Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done I fixed the number. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Feh. My apologies: I shouldn't try to edit when coming down from the day's caffeine surge. Thanks for taking care of this, Bmclaughlin9. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2013

France have now enacted same sex marriage legislation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22261494 Learnie (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Enacted, but the law has not yet gone into effect: there are still a few hoops that must be jumped through before we can claim that same-sex marriage is legal in France. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 12:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Map

The first map in the "Summary" section appears to show that same-sex marriage is legal in France. My understanding is that until the law allowing same-sex marriage is actually signed by the President it does not come into effect. The President has indicated that he will not sign the law until it has passed through a review by a constitutional court, and this has not yet happened. Accordingly, the map is wrong, and same-sex marriage should not be shown as "legal" in the map. Obviously, the relevant text in the article should reflect this position, too. RomanSpa (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

On the map at present France is coded: Government has announced intention to legalize. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

But it is NOT legal yet: the law is being reviewed by a constitutional court and, in theory, they may refuse to let it pass. The policy at Wikipedia has always been to wait until a law goes into effect before stating that the law is in effect. The map, as it is now, is factually wrong and should be changed. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the map doesn't say that it's legal yet. France is coloured with the colour that indicates "Government has announced intention to legalize". It was briefly changed to blue for marriage equality, but that change was reverted. If you are seeing France as blue, then clear your cache and refresh the page. - htonl (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect decade, 2013 is the second decade.

The first decade of the 21st century is 2001-2010

we are in the second decade of the 21st century already.

"The first laws in modern times recognizing same-sex marriage were enacted during the first decade of the 21st century. As of April 2013, eleven countries" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.66.1.144 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The first laws - in the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Massachusetts, etc. - were, however, enacted during the first decade, starting in 2001. - htonl (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Replacement of File:World marriage equality laws.svg with }World homosexuality laws map

The CSS for the former is broken and prevents me from updating the map, and the map is out of date. Trying to fix and clean up the CSS would be too much for me. Furthermore, this SVG is only used on the English Wikipedia. However, the latter is used extensively across different Wikipedias, has its own template for its legend, and is up-to-date with apparently non-broken CSS. Furthermore, it provides additional, and useful, information.

Hence, I have replaced the former with the latter, here. AJF (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The map is not out of date. France is not listed as having same-sex marriage because it does not have it yet; the Constitutional Council must still approve the bill and the President must sign it, before it becomes law. As to the alleged CSS issues, that is a purely technical issue that in no way affects the visual appearance of the map. Thus it has no bearing on whether the map is appropriately used on the article. In other words: broken CSS may offend you as a programmer (it also offends me a little) but unless it affects the reader's experience it's irrelevant here. - htonl (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Commitment ceremonies redirect here

They are two different things. One difference between a commitment ceremony is that it has no marriage license, while the wedding ceremony has a marriage license. Ceremonially, they are the same, but the commitment ceremony may be more loose and less traditional. Sneazy (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

File:World marriage-equality laws.svg nominated for deletion

The map was nominated for deletion. See [11]. Ron 1987 (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Rondônia, Brazil

It appears that the Brazilian state of Rondônia has legalized same-sex marriage on April 26, 2013. Source: http://www.arpensp.org.br/principal/index.cfm?tipo_layout=SISTEMA&url=noticia_mostrar.cfm&id=18042 http://g1.globo.com/ro/rondonia/noticia/2013/04/justica-de-ro-reconhece-casamentos-entre-pessoas-do-mesmo-sexo.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevastdarkness (talk • contribs) 08:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Thevastdarkness (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Reads Like an Editorial

Wikipedia Standards require that articles must contain a neutral point of view -- NPOV. This article does not. I now open up the discussion for people to weigh in regarding whether the article itself should be deleted, or, better, a neutral point of view is taken on the subject. Please note that the writing is largely editorial in nature. Also note that Wikipedia standards require that a complete discussion take place before the tag at the top is removed. Please adhere to these standards. Theanswerman109 (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards also require that you explain, with some specificity, what you think is non-neutral about the article, rather than just saying "it's editorial". - htonl (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Part of your assertion seems to indicate that you may not have read the documentation at Template:POV: "The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort." William Avery (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't delete articles for not being neutral, but you are correct that the article should be presented from a neutral point of view. Can you provide examples of what you believe to be editorial writing (I assume you mean opinions of the editors that wrote the article)? What policy-based changes do you think are need to render the article more neutral? - MrX 13:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy states that not only are articles to be written fairly and with encyclopedic language, but opposing viewpoints are to be included. This is not the case with this article. It is a blatant example of one side of a debate being presented without equal weight to the other side’s opinion. The Wikipedia policy is very important and is worded strongly: “’Neutral point of view’ is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.” The policy states that reporting must be “proportionate.” The policy also states in bold that it is imperative that an article “Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.”

Here’s an egregious example. Read the following section lifted from the article about organizations that have made a comment regarding same-sex marriage. Six organizations are listed with very lengthy commentary, but no opposing organization has been listed.

Organizations

The American Psychological Association stated in 2004:[15]

The institution of civil marriage confers a social status and important legal benefits, rights, and privileges. ... Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. ... Same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by federal law to married couples ... The benefits, rights, and privileges associated with domestic partnerships are not universally available, are not equal to those associated with marriage, and are rarely portable ... Denial of access to marriage to same-sex couples may especially harm people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion, and socioeconomic status ... the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges.

The American Sociological Association stated in 2004:[18]

... a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman intentionally discriminates against lesbians and gay men as well as their children and other dependents by denying access to the protections, benefits, and responsibilities extended automatically to married couples ... we believe that the official justification for the proposed constitutional amendment is based on prejudice rather than empirical research ... the American Sociological Association strongly opposes the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The Canadian Psychological Association stated in 2006:[20]

The literature (including the literature on which opponents to marriage of same-sex couples appear to rely) indicates that parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union. As the CPA stated in 2003, the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent. The CPA recognizes and appreciates that persons and institutions are entitled to their opinions and positions on this issue. However, CPA is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values. CPA asserts that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents' relationship is recognized and supported by society's institutions.

The American Anthropological Association stated in 2005:[23]

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The American Academy of Pediatrics concluded in 2006, in an analysis published in the journal Pediatrics:[38]

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

The United Kingdom's Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated:[44]

... lesbian, gay and bisexual people are and should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar [sic] rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes ... the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership ...

The article is a long editorial in favor of same-sex marriage and should either be redone completely or fixed to satisfy the Wikipedia policy.Theanswerman109 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem. What opposing organizations, that are equally as authoritative on the matter, do you believe are under-represented in the article? - MrX 19:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality and objectivity are distinct concepts. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)NPOV involves assigning weight to different viewpoints based on their prominence, not giving equal coverage to both sides of the issue. From WP:VALID: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship." Given the fact that all of these medical, psychological and academic sources you list have, in fact, made statements in favour of same sex marriage, the article is simply representing what these types of organisations have to say on the topic. Do you have a list of organisations of equal prominence and reliability that have made statements against same sex marriage? If so, we should definitely discuss therm here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• WARNING* This article is being hacked by vandals and needs closer monitoring!! The box at the top of the page is not to be deleted until a thorough discussion is given to fact that the article lacks objectivity and neutrality. Wikipedia policy states Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2013)Theanswerman109 (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

From the essay (not policy): "The NPOV-dispute tag is not a consolation prize for editors whose position has been rejected by a consensus of other editors, nor is it a substitute for pursuing appropriate dispute resolution." The discussion about the content that you wish to include has already started in the section below, providing ample opportunity for you to try to sway consensus.

By the way, you're arguments will have more credibility if you can restrain yourself from referring to other editors as vandals hacking the article. - MrX 02:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that this article is not NPOV, that data are not presented in proportion to significance and that stating even existence of views or parties against SSM is being opposed. see Eckists, 'some oppose' and I have been getting rejects for anything about church positions against when I think that is kind of a large point for the article to lack and have any credibility. Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay (2)

Uruguay joined 21st century :) (I don't have to be neutral on the talk page, right :p ) should be updated in the first paragraph. Nagchampa (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We are waiting for the President to sign the bill. Then we will update the article. - htonl (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know what the delay is? When will he sign it? Czolgolz (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It usually takes a few weeks, but anytime. The delay may be that the president has not yet received the bill to sign.108.15.91.73 (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro is the 11th state in Brazil to legalize SSM

Please, insert the "RJ" in the list on the blue box on the right side of the Wiki page. I also suggest the topic "BRAZIL" with the simple text: "The states of Alagoas, Bahia, Ceará, Espírito Santo, Mato Grosso do Sul, Paraná, Piauí, São Paulo, Sergipe and Rio de Janeiro allow marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. The Federal District allows same-sex marriage as well. According to San Diego Gay & Lesian News (reference: http://sdgln.com/causes/2013/04/20/brazil-judge-rules-same-sex-couples-rio-de-janeiro-state-can-marry), 'Brazil has rapidly advanced its gay marriage and civil unions laws in the past two years — in 2011, Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court approved same-sex couples to receive the same rights as married couples through civil unions. Similar to as in the U.S., the decision to allow marriage between same-sex couples must be determined by each of Brazil’s 26 states.'" Thank you for reading and a special and big "THANK YOOOOUUU" to each and everyone at Wikipedia for making wonderful pages for us, simple users. Have a nice day. :-) 189.25.90.233 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have the same question about Rio de Janeiro state. I have seen that some consider the State Judicial ruling to be a weaker, unequal version compared to other states, but have seen no evidence. Can someone please clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenrhart (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Husband and wife

Do same-sex marriage laws specifically designate one of the parties to be the husband, and the other to be the wife ?Eregli bob (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they generally replace that with gender neutral terms. Czolgolz (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, both partners care called husband, or wife for a female couple. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Brazilian states of Paraíba and Santa Catarina

Same-sex marriage has been legalized in the Brazilian states of Paraíba and Santa Catarina. Please update the 3 maps accordingly (World marriage-equality laws, World homosexuality laws, and state recognition of same-sex relationships in South America). The total number of Brazilian states that have legalized same-sex marriage (excluding Rio de Janeiro) is now 13.

Sources: http://g1.globo.com/sc/santa-catarina/noticia/2013/04/cgj-autoriza-casamento-entre-pessoas-do-mesmo-sexo-em-sc.html http://portalcorreio.uol.com.br/noticias/justica/decisoes/2013/04/29/NWS,223189,40,275,NOTICIAS,2190-PARAIBA-SER-13O-ESTADO-BRASILEIRO-CONSENTIR-CASAMENTO-HOMOAFETIVO.aspx

Thevastdarkness (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading the articles in a very bad google translation I got the impression that Paraiba is a case similar to that of Rio de Janeiro, where judges are not obliged to perform such weddings. We should be completely sure before putting Paraiba in the category of states in Brazil that allow gay marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Rhode Island's House passed the Senate version an hour ago, and Governor Chafee is expected to sign it on the steps of the Capitol within minutes.

http://www.providencejournal.com/ http://www.turnto10.com/ http://www.wpri.com/generic/news/same-sex-marriage-coverage

74.97.178.42 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Effective August 1, 2013.Edgar, Randal (May 2, 2013). "Chafee signs same-sex marriage bills, making Rhode Island the 10th state to legalize gay marriage". Providence Journal. Retrieved May 2, 2013. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

While the news above has been incorporated in the article, there is one more change that needs to be made to complete this. The second sentence in the first paragraph of the US section refers to the states of Rhode Island and New Jersey and says that they support civil unions but not marriage. That is no longer true as Rhode Island now supports marriage but not civil union. This sentence should now only list New Jersey as its subject. (My sources are the same as above). 74.61.206.138 (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In the above comment I should have said that the second sentence lists states that recognize marriages from other states but do not issue their own same-sex marriages. It is still true that Rhode Island is no longer in this set. 74.61.206.138 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fix the second World Map

In the second map Brazilian states of Rondonia, Santa Catarina and Paraiba should be filled in blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to add individual states to the map, please tells us how.Thevastdarkness (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay already legalised Marriage

In fact before New Zealand. The so called "President signature" is just a formality for every law. Time to change the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.53.143.127 (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you give us details on the "formality" aspect? Can same-sex marriages be performed without the President's signature?Frimmin (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles 143-145 of the Uruguay Constitution give the details on promulgating new laws. The president does not have to sign in order for laws to take effect. The executive website just has not yet promulgated the same sex marriage law yet.108.15.91.73 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see my response in the other section. Before we decide the law has come into force, we need some reliable evidence to that effect - htonl (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but the Constitution of Uruguay is about as reliable as sources get... 108.15.91.73 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's reliable for what the constitution itself says. It has nothing to say about whether a particular law has been received yet by the President, and thus whether the 10-day period has started running. Anyway, the president has now signed the act - on Friday, you'll notice, considerably more than 10 days since the General Assembly passed the bill. So the article has been updated.

BTW, this is also true for France, where the law that allows SSM still awaits a decision from the constitutional court before becoming effective. Nagchampa (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Not eleven, but twelve countries now

Three days ago, The Guardian noticed "Uruguay legalises same-sex marriage" (US: "Legalizes") Please, update the wiki article: It is twelve countries now, not eleven. Mediators, thank you for reading and for making Wikipedia for us, simple users. 189.25.27.33 (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If you read he article that you mentioned, you will see the sentance "President Jose Mujica is expected to sign the bill into law." That "is expected to" part is what keeps us fromincluding it in the count. Once the bill is law, it will be added. -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The president's 10 days are up. It's law with or without his signature now. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

He has ten days from receiving the bill. The Uruguayan Constitution provides:

Article 137: If, upon receipt of a bill, the Executive Power has objections or observations to make, the bill shall be returned with them to the General Assembly within the prescribed period of ten days.

Article 144: If the Executive does not return a bill within the ten days prescribed in Article 137, it shall become law and shall be complied with as such, the Chamber which sent it having the right to demand such action if this is not done.

We do not know when the President actually received the bill. If it became law automatically, we would expect this to be mentioned in the media. If it is not mentioned in the media, then it is original research for us to go interpreting the law of Uruguay. - htonl (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A literal reading of a source is not original research. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's original research for us to decide that, for example, the passing of the bill by the General Assembly immediately sets off the ten-day period, or if there is some delay before the bill is received by the President for signature. You'll notice, in fact, that it was more than 20 days from the final vote in the Chamber of Deputies to the President's signature, which happened on Friday. - htonl (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay

It appears that President Mujica signed the same-sex marriage bill into law not on 6 May, but on 3 May. The law will enter into force on 22 July (what a coincidence, it will enter into force the same day as it happened in neighboring Argentina)

http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/desde-el-22-de-julio-se-podran-celebrar-matrimonios-gay.html

Here, the date is stated at the end: http://archivo.presidencia.gub.uy/sci/leyes/2013/05/mec_913.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Promulgated May 3, takes effect in 90 days, which is August 1. Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

World homosexuality laws map

Updates to the World homosexuality laws map are not showing up on this page. How can this be solved?Thevastdarkness (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably just a cache problem w your browser. — kwami (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity in Studies and Polling section

The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph under the section "Studies and Polling" is very ambiguous. It is unclear what question people were responding to. Did they say "yes" to same-sex marriage or to only opposite-sex marriage. Based upon the source that is cited, it should be changed from:

When adults were asked in March 2013 if they supported or opposed same-sex marriage, 50 percent replied "yes", while 41 percent replied "no", and the remaining 9 percent stated that they were unsure.

to

When adults were asked in March 2013 if they supported or opposed same-sex marriage, 50 percent said they supported same-sex marriage, while 41 percent were opposed, and the remaining 9 percent stated that they were unsure.

Ivethevo (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Done - Camyoung54 ^talk 02:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Colombia (2)

Now that the Senate has killed the same-sex marriage bill, will same-sex marriage automatically become legal in Colombia on 20 June 2013? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rights similar to marriage don't necessarily mean marriage, though couples already have all the rights of marriage. The CNN story says (assuming they got it right, which I wouldn't want to bet on), that couples will be able to get their unions formalized w a notary public. That sounds like several Brazilian states we don't count as having truly open marriage. — kwami (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No. The court did not issue a mandate specifically for marriage, and the chief registrar says that notaries will not issue marriages. Therefore, Colombia will likely be added as a civil union country. As always, watch for authoritative reports before making any changes. MKleid (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Heads up: Delaware

The Delaware legislature has passed a marriage equality bill and the Governor says he'll sign it. As usual, we should wait until he actually does sign it before we add Delaware to the lists of polities with SSM. - htonl (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Expect to add it today because the governor intends to sign immediately. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 May 2013

Delaware just passed same-sex marriage. Page needs to be updated to reflect it. 134.174.1.211 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We're just waiting till the Governor signs the bill (in the next few minutes, apparently). - htonl (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

 Already done - Camyoung54 ^talk 02:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The policy has always been to wait until the law goes into effect, which can be several months after the law is signed. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That policy if it ever existed is not the policy now, and when every other map in the media shows the status of same sex marriage law (not effect) how would such a policy reflect on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be the most current source of encyclopedic information in the world? 108.15.91.73 (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact the article does distinguish between jurisdictions where the law is in force and those where it is enacted but not yet in force. The "United States" section lists nine states where same-sex couples can marry, and then follows this with the parenthetical, "Delaware will begin allowing same-sex marriage in July 2013 and Rhode Island in August 2013.". The lead makes a similar distinction for countries. The map of the United States includes the footnote, "May include recent laws or court decisions which have created legal recognition of same-sex relationships, but which have yet to enter effect," and the sidebar template includes the footnote, "Not yet in effect," for Delaware (and RI, Uruguay and New Zealand). - htonl (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No one was ever more at risk of being thought a commentator of a more obvious state of affairs. Thank you. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Unnecesary timeline

The timeline is unnecessary because there's already an entire article about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage

It only makes this article even bigger and confusing to read. How about that:

"Since 2001, some countries started to legalize same sex-marriage around the world, and several of them in a short-period of time in the beginning of the 2010’s. See Timeline of same-sex marriage for details."

If you guys really want the table, we can put it there with some modifications. Raniee09 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Raniee09. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it's confusing, and it's nice to have a brief summary. That said, it would make a good summary in the timeline article too. (The fact there's a timeline article doesn't mean we can't have a briefer timeline here: main articles summarize their subarticles all the time. We'd need a "main article" tag, though.) — kwami (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm with those that would rather see that at the Timeline article, or at least not here. The article is already large, and takes time for new readers to assimilate even without the summary timeline. Adding more onto this article is, in my view, counterproductive. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Minnesota

Expect to add Minnesota in the list tomorrow as the final vote is almost certain to see it approved.The governor has said will sign SSM into law soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The pace of things is such that I'm sure people are aware of the daily changes. I would advise that official records or multiple news articles be referenced when making changes to the page though. Media these days is sometimes unreliable. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Maps are great..how about a timeline(s)?

The maps are very useful - in so many wikipedia entries not limited to but including this one on same sex marriage. The seemingly not only very rapid but accelerating rate of adoption would, I think, be helpful to reader to be able to visualize. Either in a graph form, or as a chart (for example of a chart format, see e.g. "World population milestones (USCB estimates)" in world population which shows the number of years it took/estimate to take to reach "the next billion" decreased from 123 years to 33, 14, 13, 12 (in 1999 reaching 6 billion) showing the acceleration..though recently decelerating, taking 13 years to reach 7 billion, and estimated to take 15 and 19 for the next two billion)

The order of adoption (by which country first) is not the most important, though I do not object to including that see e.g.

• *****[and 14th, 2013, France, once signed]*****
• New Zealand, 2013
• Uruguay, 2013
• Denmark, 2012
• Argentina, 2010
• Portugal, 2010
• Iceland, 2010
• Sweden, 2009
• Norway, 2009
• South Africa, 2006
• Spain, 2005
• Canada, 2005
• Belgium, 2003
• The Netherlands, 2000
• http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-17/nz-legalises-same-sex-marriage/4635086

One way to organize the data is to take a running average of how many countries in any N-year period adopted marriage equality (ME ; I realize this phrase might not be used in all countries; it's just to save space), here's a summary of the abc.net.au information above, which I created for 5-year intervals:

• Number of countries passing ME during 2000-2004: 2
• Number of countries passing ME during 2001-2005: 3
• Number of countries passing ME during 2002-2006: 4
• Number of countries passing ME during 2003-2007: 4
• Number of countries passing ME during 2004-2008: 3
• Number of countries passing ME during 2005-2009: 5
• Number of countries passing ME during 2006-2010: 6
• Number of countries passing ME during 2007-2011: 5
• Number of countries passing ME during 2008-2012: 6
• Number of countries passing ME during 2009-2013: 7 (as of late April 2013, incluing France)

While it is not entirely monotonic (e.g. down from 6 during 2006-2010 to 5 during 2007-2011) the accelerating nature - which our readers will no doubt have intuitively noticed, but who may come to wikipedia to get a more quantitative and definitive picture of - is clear. Of course if/when it slows down, the chart will show that. The point is just to chronicle and document important aspects of the changes around the world, including some quantitative ones. What do folks think? I'm not an expert at wikipedia Tables but could try copying from the population or similar entry. Or someone with a spreadsheet or other software maybe could create a line graph ( straight line segments between two years) or perhaps best, a bar chart? Harel (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll revisit in a week or few. If none opposed, I may implement suggested additions above. Though assistant would be appreciated (see end of last paragraph). Thanks. Harel (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Trying to demonstrate a trend would be OR. Would we employ regression analysis? Listing the countries by year would be fine, as would citing a RS which has found a trend.

Such a table would have been of little use when marriage was first legalized, but I agree that after 12 years one would be useful. — kwami (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Kwami! I do agree that we want to avoid actual original research or even teh appearance. This occured to me as I wrote the first suggestion which is why I pointed to the World Population example. So the idea is not to try to prove any particular trend, but to let the data speak for itself, but in a useful format, please see the chart/table referenced, in that long established article (and it has been there for a long time so any OR concerns would have come up a long time ago) but they are showing readers the amount of time between 1 billion and 2 billion, etc, and without making claims about trends, the reader can see nevertheless, important features that other graphs do not show. Ok, to save us clicking, here it is:

Milestones by the billions

World population milestones (USCB estimates)

Population (in billions)	1		2		3		4		5		6		7		8		9
Year	1804		1927		1960		1974		1987		1999		2012		2027		2046
Years elapsed between milestones	–		123		33		14		13		12		13		15		19

(See table in wikicode, copy/pasted to the right..Important: the outside RS, USCB, only gives the raw numbers like "4 billion in 1974" - the subtraction to get the "14" etc is not there, but not "OR" to just subtract two numbers to get "14 years elapsed" which is what editors there did) So I fully agree, and as you can see so did the editors of World Population: no linear regression or anything of the sort, that is not for wp editors but for sources only, while at the same time, the general data they show for world population, this is important information for the readers to be able to see - information that readers would find valuable - so I am not surprised at all that this table has been (for many years) in the World Population entry. I think it would be really nice and helpful to readers to have something similar (or at least roughly analogous) for same-sex marriage. Neat chart isn't it?

So in sum, if you scroll above to the "Number of countries passing ME during " I had above in rough, raw text format, the suggestion, the idea, is simply doing similarly, without ourselves making any statistical claim, and analoguosly displaying features of the recent (higher) number of countries passing ME (versus much slower adoption in earlier years) can be there for readers. We are just graphing a quantity (the quantity being number of countries adopting ME per amount of time), just as they are graphing a quantity (number of years between N billion and (N+1) billion people) without specific statistical trends. For my ears is clearly passes the "would a future historian (or hypothetical visitor from Mars) find this relevant?") test and without any original research (or claim, just letting the numbers be displayed and by themselves inform readers. I originally thought this is much more important information than which country passed it which years, but you other comment has me thinking, we could definitely use both - listing of country adopting and year, and another with the "number of countries which adopted ME per timeperiod" or simlar. Harel (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Added a simple timeline of all states (AFAIK) that have adopted SSM. Included France as "expected", as that should come into effect before some of the others where it's already passed. — kwami (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kwami! (Sorry I have not been able to log into wp to more fully participate) so took a while to reply to your comment :-) I will try sometime this summer if not sooner, to create a small little "table" like for World Population, showing the half-decade number of laws passed but meanwhile, the table and section you added are (at least) half of my suggestion, thanks again :-) Harel (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead and "Summary" section

Why do we have a "Summary" section following the lead? Surely the lead should be a summary? There's a fair bit of duplication between the two. - htonl (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If no-one has an objection, then, I'm going to merge the lead and "Summary" sections. - htonl (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage for all Brazil

Glenrhart (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)glenrhart. I have just articles in Portugese that seem to indicate that Brazil's Supreme Court of Justice (CNJ) has just mandated nationwide same-sex marriage. Can anyone who speaks better Portugese than I confirm that this is correct?

The article is: http://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vidaecidadania/conteudo.phtml?id=1372474 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenrhart (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm from Brazil. YEAH! THAT'S RIGHT! However, the CNJ is not the supreme court, it's the Nacional Council of Justice. The CNJ has power to doing this, but the supreme court said anything yet about equal marriage. The CNJ"s decision was not published yet, though. It will be in a few days. link:

"It is forbidden to the competent authorities to refuse authorization, execution of civil marriage or conversion of a stable union in marriage between people of the same sex"

http://noticias.uol.com.br/cotidiano/ultimas-noticias/2013/05/14/cnj-aprova-resolucao-que-obriga-cartorio-a-celebrar-casamento-gay.htm (in portuguese) Raniee09 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So, when CNJ publishes this, it will be the law? Excellent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenrhart (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Glenrhart (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)glenrhart. Why was Brazil added, and then removed from the list of countries approving same-sex marriage? The sub-category header, "Brazil", states that marriages were approved for the whole nation today. One or the other is wrong!

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazilian-notary-publics-must-register-same-sex-unions-as-marriages/2013/05/14/aa81d654-bcc1-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html yey brazil!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.97.97 (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/world/americas/brazilian-court-council-removes-a-barrier-to-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0 new york times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.97.97 (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It becomes law nationwide tomorrow, May 16th 2013. 74.97.178.42 (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request; France recognizes same-sex marriage

France just became the 14th country worldwide to recognize same-sex marriage. :) Please add!

France has legalized same-sex marriage, but the law is not yet in effect and may never go into effect: apparently, there is still some constitutional wrangling that must be done first. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/us-france-gaymarriage-idUSBRE93K08B20130423). Since it is not a factual statement that France has same-sex marriage, we cannot add that statement to the Wikipedia. We can, however, note that the bill has passed both houses of Parliament and may go into effect May 25. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Constitutional Council challenge is a formality. The president of the council said he will not reject Parliament's decision. Check the updates for Hollande's signature by the end of May. MKleid (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Glenrhart (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)glenrhart. The Constitutional Council has just approved gay marriage, with a slight proviso regarding adoption law, which they want examined by Family Law experts. It can be found on multiple French news sources, such as Le Figaro.

11 vs. 12 states, both wrong :)

"Although same-sex marriages are not recognized federally in the United States, same-sex couples can legally marry in eleven states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington, Delaware, Rhode Island), the District of Columbia, and several Native American tribes, and receive state-level benefits."

This was the subject of back-and-forth because of the 11-vs-12, do we include Minnesota yet question. MN's upcoming law is not due to be signed for another few hours.

A bigger error here, though, is that this talks about "can legally marry", which is not yet true in Maryland or Rhode Island yet either. While both have passed laws enabling SSM, neither state's law has yet taken effect--one is July 1, one is August 1 (I think!) MN is also August 1, if I recall correctly. So, how should we reword this? --j⚛e decker^talk 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"X number of states legally perform same-sex marriage, while X number have pending laws which will soon allow same-sex marriage"...something like that I suppose. CTF83! 10:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maryland's law has been in effect for 5 months. CTF83 is right, but I thought that's how it was always done. It should say that the laws have passed but they just are not in effect yet. Delaware is July 1, Rhode Island and Minnesota are August 1. Teammm ^talk
_email 20:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to keep it simple, we should just rephrase it that twelve states "there are laws allowing same-sex couples to marry in twelve"... there are laws there, they just haven't a delay in when marriage occurs. Don't need to pull the nitty gritty details in this non-main article on the topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And is there even a law in Massachusetts? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There was never statute law forbidding it in Massachusetts; the ban was based on the common law. - htonl (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, but that is irrelevant. Not all laws are statutes. While Massachusetts never ended up passing a law as it was ordered to in Goodridge, its common law has the force of statute. The nuance does not affect how many states are referenced for legal same sex marriages. 108.15.91.73 (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear. Massachusetts before Goodridge had no law addressing the sex of two persons who could be married AND Massachusetts adopted no law in response to Goodridge, despite what the decision said. I don't think this matters for the phrasing suggested, but if someone did want to be precise, the fact that MA still has no law is worth noting or at least knowing. Maybe such a statute would be a nice thing to get on the books for the tenth anniversary of the start of SSM in MA, a year from tomorrow. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

France needs update on map

According to the text, its status has changed. -- Beland (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, apparently the text is premature, perhaps only by a few days. -- Beland (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Glenrhart (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC) glenrhart According to several French news sources, President Hollande will be signing and publishing the Bill on Saturday.

Indeed. Which is tomorrow, not that much longer to wait. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's gone through, according to our table and the article on France, so I updated the map. Question, though: Is it the law for all French territories? Guiana, Tahiti, New Caledonia, Reunion, Mayotte, Guadeloupe, Martinique, St Martin, Wallis & Futuna, St Pierre? — kwami (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, although this makes me think that it applies to those territories, or at least Tahiti, unless there is an explicit exemption. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Tread carefully on this one. It's a legal minefield among the several overseas territories/departments. Maybe we will wait for an expert to weigh in. Better yet, find a good source. MKleid (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the overseas departments and regions (Guadaloupe, Guyane, Martinique, Mayotte, and Reunion) have all national laws apply automatically, whereas the overseas collectivities (the remainder) do not. This understanding comes from the current events on the main page of Wikipedia a few years back, when we declared that Mayotte becoming a department of France meant that it was the first majority-Muslim jurisdiction to accept same-sex unions, the implication being that PACS were not implemented in Mayotte before then.

I checked the Mahoran status referendum, 2009 page, and only found an unsourced claim that PACS would be implemented. However I did find a source for the claim that polygamy would be abolished and the marriage age raised in line with the rest of the country which seems to indicate that French law, including marriage law will gradually apply to Mayotte, as it does to other overseas departments. Not the best source though. I'll briefly try to find a better one, but I'm sure the best information is in French, which je ne pas parler. —Quintucket (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)