Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 5

Netanyahu same-sex marriage?

In the section "Publicly noted same-sex unions" also Benjamin_Netanyahu is listed, but his page does mentions a marriage with his third wife. Is that vandalism? Nova77 01:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  This is incorrect and has been edited. I don't know what the motives were for the listing.

Categories

I thought people interested in this issue (on both sides) would want to vote on the deletion of the following four categories created to house anti-gay people and groups' articles:

• pro-family
• pro-US Constitution
• pro-marriage
• pro-first amendment

Some (including me) are arguing that the names are POV and that the categories should be removed. Here is the vote.

Dave (talk) 02:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Canada marriage vote today

The same-sex marriage bill in Canada is expected to come to a vote today. I would just like to remind everyone that once the bill is passed, we should mention that of course, but it still has to pass through the Senate and receive royal assent before it becomes law. These are pretty much formalities, of course, but we should not be saying it's law before it is. - Montréalais 28 June 2005 11:17 (UTC)

It could still be rejected by the Senate, or the Governor General of Canada could use royal prerogative and refuse to sign the bill. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 28 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)

That's theoretical to the point of being ridiculous.

It in fact has passed; it's on the Front page of Yahoo. I'm still not sure how to change stuff so if someone could change it to say Canada is the Third nation in the world to Legalize Same Sex Unions.....that would be great.

Yes, several news media that are not entirely clear on our legislative process are saying the bill is law now. It isn't, even though what are left are mainly formalities. A bill becomes law when it receives Royal Assent, which is still a week or two away at best. - Montréalais 29 June 2005 11:55 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Senate is a mere formality, all the Liberals have to do is whip the Senate vote and it will pass, besides that the Senate has not rejected anything regardless of their agreance in a very long time, think the Mulroney years. Add the dynamic that the tories in the Senate are Red tories, and this bill will almost certainly pass. I will tell you right now, there is a greater chance of President Bush resigning from his post than that bill failing to clear the senate; the Canadian senate is a joke, a mere rubber stamp, and the Governor General has not in either my lifetime or my father's refused to sign a bill. Its just tradition. Maybe the Bush thing is an exaggeration but you get the point, failure at this point is so unlikely you're better to try your odds on the lotto. I think we should certainly recognize the virtual impossibility of this not clearing the Senate merely because of tradition. -Meanie- 29 June, 2005 3:12 PM ADT

Except that, regardless of my opinion, there are people who feel that their conscience requires them to vote one way or the other on this issue, and it is extremely unlikely that it will be a whipped vote, in my opinion. And while I think it's going to pass, I don't think the Senate's passage can (in this case) be considered a formality. - Cafemusique 30 June 2005 05:51 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, members of the Senate of Canada are appointed until the age of 65, by the Queen of Canada, with the recommendation of the Prime Minister of Canada. They virtually cannot be removed, thus they can vote against the bill, and the most that would happen is that the party kicks them out of the party if it's against party policy. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 30 June 2005 06:02 (UTC)

Good point, and it's 75 by the way, -Meanie- June 30 2005

Yes, but still. The Senate often revises draft bills, but for them to reject any final bill, even one far more contentious than this, is shocking news. Look at how often, and over what issues, it happened in the last century. Look at the Canadian news and see if anyone — even the opponents of C-38 who might be expected to grasp at straws — is seriously doubting the passage. Remember, a Senate appointment is basically a retirement perk for party faithful. Although they don't need the party to help get re-elected, they're not given to challenging the party platform, either. There is still some Alberta provincial politics to be played out, but the passage of C-38 is all over but the shouting.

That's like saying based on the current polls that Paul Martin will be reelected. Nothing is guaranteed except death and taxes. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 3 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)

"Sodomy" marriage

User:24.63.45.74 is claiming that "Sodomy" marriage is a code word (figure of speech) commonly used by opponents of same-sex marriage. As a US resident who's followed this subject for years, I've never heard this term. Can anyone provide a link please. It may be a non-US term.--ghost 30 June 2005 18:26 (UTC)

I've not come across this in the UK either. I suspect that it was just the editor in question's idea of a way to denigrate the concept, rather than an attempt to document actual usage. rossb 30 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Sodomy marriage

This response was posted at the top of the Talk page and I failed to notice it previously.-ghost

sodomy marriage is a real term used by opponents. It is preferred to gay marriage because it shows what the marrriage is really about. It is like saying pro abortion instead of pro choice.--24.63.45.74 (talk • contribs) (Talk | contribs) 30 June 2005 17:47

Following the link, and the Anon user's statement, indicates that this a Code word. Since it's use is POV, and it's intent is to inflame, it's inappropriate for the main article.--ghost 2 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

211 google hits is not evidence of notability, it could be considered quite the opposite in fact.~~~~ 17:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

NEEDS BREAK UP

this article is WAY too long, it needs to be broken up into several articles--GregLoutsenko 30 June 2005 20:30 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although that could prove challenging. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 2 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)

Well, History of homosexuality already has its own article. It seems the material here is mainly a duplicate of material there. Juan Ponderas

Would anyone object if I shortened the United States section to be closer in length to the other regional/national sections and moved the timelines to separate articles? Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 18:34 (UTC)

While we're at it, History of sex is rather long itself. Perhaps its section on same-sex relationships, the information here, and the timeline should be merged into a new article. History of same-sex relationships, or something of the sort- History of homosexuality is exclusive to bisexuals, etc. Juan Ponderas July 5, 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Since no one says they'd object, and everyone that cared to comment seemed to support shortening the article, I'm going to go through and implement the changes suggested above: moving the timeline to a new article and shortening the U.S. section. Dave (talk) 01:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Done. I wasn't able to shorten the U.S. section as much as I'd expected: I guess if the other countries had 51 sets of laws, they'd be long, too. I could probably cut out it down to a few states (California, Massachusetts, etc.) but didn't want to step on too many toes. Dave (talk) 02:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, Ril believes the page should still be shortened, and I'd tend to agree. What would people think if we moved the list of notable marriages to its own article and summarized the "controversy" section with a link to a subarticle called something like same-sex marriage controversy? Dave (talk) 17:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving the information there to the same-sex marriage timeline, so as to avoid creating article where there's no need so far. Aris Katsaris 18:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

As for the controversy section it needs to be seriously cleaned up, and perhaps restructured. For starters I'm doubtful of certain information there (e.g. the supposedly "typical definition"), while a subsection is in the wrong place. Moving it to another place won't solve those issues, but a clean-up may both improve and shorten this section while losing nothing significant. Will try to see what I can do. Aris Katsaris 18:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

FAC

Why is the "this was a featured article but was removed because ..." at the top filled with redlinks? ~~~~ 17:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

typical definition of marriage by same-sex marriage advocates ?

The article currently states the following:

A typical definition of marriage proposed by those who support same-sex marriage is as follows:

A socially sanctioned, voluntary, committed, legally contracted union, of two adult people, which the government and/or society recognizes by conferring certain rights, privileges and responsibilities, such as finances, taxes, and inheritance, child-raising, adoption, visitation, and medical decision-making.

My own question is: Where did the author of this find this supposedly typical definition? Far from "typical", I can't seem to be able to google this definition up anywhere except in copies of wikipedia. This may need to be wholly deleted. Aris Katsaris 18:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

If sex weren't an issue, it would be a perfectly good definition. But since the article is making a claim about how to define marriage given that sex is an issue, it'll have to find a source or disappear. Dave (talk) 19:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The point isn't whether it's a perfectly good definition or not, only whether it's a definition that's ever existed outside Wikipedia, and whether the claim of it being "typical" for same-sex marriage supporters is true. I think we agree on this issue, but I'd just like to make sure that any discussion on this issue doesn't involve the quality of definition. Aris Katsaris 00:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

After some searching in the history of the article I found the origin of this passage. It began with a POV edit by User:Ed Poor ([1]) who changed a (flawed or not) statement about what a marriage is to what it's supposedly "defined to be" by gay-rights advocates, and then it was enhanced by User:UtherSRG in another edit: ([2]) who seemingly felt that you can expand a quoted definition at will. I think I've shown the non-validity of any claim that this is any sort of typical definition of marriage -- far from "typical" for gay-rights advocates, this definition was the construct of just two editors. I'm removing all references to it. Aris Katsaris 12:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Removed sections

Same-sex Marriage & Gay Families

I have removed the "family" section as it is not about marriage and makes claims that are not backed up with evidence. Dave (talk) 18:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the original text:

With the advent of recent medical breakthroughs that have opened a wide array of choices available to same-sex couples to have biological children or adopt, the denial of marriages to same-sex couples can have detrimental effects not only on the adults within these families but children as well. Hospital visitation issues, end-of-life decision making and access/barriers to health care can all be attributed to the denial of marriage.

Gay men in long-term relationships are now increasingly opting to raise families. Many methods have been devised to allow them to have biological children. Some couples elect to have a close relative (sometimes a sister), good friend, or contract an individual to either obtain an egg for a surrogate or give birth through in vitro fertilization. In the cases of a good friend or a contracted entity the child is only biologically related to one partner. However in the cases of a blood relative such as a sister of one partner who donates an egg that is fertilized with the other partner's sperm and placed into a surrogate the child is biologically related to both partners. Lesbian couples can also produce biological children through similar means. Some elect to have one partner donate an egg which is fertilized with a blood relative of the other partner, sometimes a brother. The egg is then placed into the partner who did not donate the egg. In essence one partner gives birth to her partner's and sometimes brother's biological child. This is not to be confused with incest since the child is not a biological offspring of a brother and sister, rather it is a biological offspring of the brother and the sister's partner. The sister only acts as a vehicle of the birth.

These procedures can be costly, and many same-sex couples choose adoption instead. However adoption does not produce a child that is biologically related in any manner.

I'm confused. Conservatives argue marriage is all about family; specifically having and raising children. Furthermore, if you follow the link to families, from the lede you will find marriage plays a key role in the formation/establishment of families. Why is this not on topic? As to the claims, what specific claims do you have a problem with and feel need evidence or substantiation? Autiger 18:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If that's what it's about, then it needs to be refocused, and should be about studies showing how children of gay parents turn out (which is pertinent to the controversy). Detailed information on the costs and benefits of surrogate mothers, in-vitro fertilization, and so on doesn't belong in the controversy section. That information, if it should go in the article at all, should be under something like "life in a same-sex marriage."

It could be nice to have sources on the different types of surrogate parenting and ways of ensuring relatedness--it all seems reasonable but I'm a big believer in citing sources. Dave (talk) 18:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Historical perspective

The argument about historical perspectives on marriage in the Controversy section seemed poorly articulated and lacked a source. I commented it out until it can be improved. Dave (talk) 14:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the text:

A final position disregards both the religous and instutional/legal structures on the grounds that marriage is known to have existed from before recorded history and across the globe, and thus can not be the product of legal systems, nor the advent of religious organization (in other words, marriage is a structure that predates legal and religious institutions, thus it is impossible that either can be seen as the source for marriage or its meaning). This view holds that social recognition is the natural result of intelligent observation. This is given to mean that "marriage" is essentially a word for "the human mating pair". (note: this is consistant with modern "common-law marriage" where marriage is an observable state, and not initiated by any social system).

Split Tag

I removed the split tag since this article covers one coherent topic and creating a disambiguation page really makes little sense. There is a need, however, for other articles on more specific elements of same-sex marriage (such as in particular countries, its history, its controversy, etc.). This article could then be shorter as more detailed information would go into the daughter articles. Please see the NEEDS BREAK UP section above. -Acjelen 04:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sources

The terminology section makes a lot of claims about the relationship between sex and gender that should probably be backed up with sources. Also, the claim that "The term "same-sex marriage" has recently been displacing "gay marriage,"" is almost certainly untrue. If no one provides sources in a few days, I may cut the section down substantially myself. Dave (talk) 16:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Done. 01:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Polygamous same-sex marriage

I'm sure that I am opening a can of worms here. Polygamy#Forms_of_polygamy discusses polygamy, but mostly in a specifically heterosexual context. Polyandry and polygyny are used heterosexually. Even group marriage suggests at least one man and one woman. Is there a description of polygamous same-sex marriage anywhere? Unfortunately, my searches usually find Rick Santorum or something equally useless, equating the evils of one with the evils of the other. However, the ACLU supports both polygamy and same-sex marriage. I still haven't found a solid mention of same-sex polygamy. Can anyone help me with this, or suggest a method of removing sexually-specific words out of the polygamy article? Nereocystis 21:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The best I can come up with is Martha Minow, who might have written something about redefining "family" and "marriage" to include any number of people of any gender. I could be wrong, though. I know next to nothing on the very specialized topic you're bringing up. I hope this helps and isn't a blind alley for you. Dave (talk) 21:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I found a reference:

Emens, Elizabeth F., "Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence" (February 2004). U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 58, p. 21. http://ssrn.com/abstract=506242

which talks about same sex polyamory, but also specifically same sex polygamy. Nereocystis 22:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush Poll

Sorry to delve a bit off topic, but I would like to bring your attention to an active poll in the George W. Bush talk page.

• Talk:George W. Bush#Sentence Poll - Poll/survey on whether or not the fact that Bush is the "first Republican to appoint an openly gay man" to his administration is appropriate for his article. Pro says it is a relevant fact that shows Bush is making strides toward inclusiveness, con says given the hundreds, even thousands of appointments a president makes, one is insignificant. Lengthy discussion is above the poll.

If you have an opinion on this matter, please feel free voice it by voting. Thanks! Sdauson 15:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Civil Unions Assumed in the North America Map

The north America map (showing Massachusetts and California shaded) appears to assume that if courts have not considered it then the default is "civil unions". I know for a fact that Viriginia Law does not recognize even Civil Marriage. Several Other US states are the same way, so I would suggest that whoever added this graphic should revise it to reflect the actual state of US civil union laws MPS 20:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Shades of Pink/Purple

The caption doesn't show VA recognizing CUs. The color captioned for CUs is the color that CA, NJ etc are colored (kinda pinkish shade). VA is colored the more purple shade that is not captioned as anything (indicating to me at least that it does not have SSM, CU or anything else.) NickGorton 18:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

as a color blind person, I have problems reading map colorization and did not distinguish pink and purple. The legend should have an "unkonwn" category for whatever color Virginia is or the graphic is misleading. MPS 21:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Cuba

Homosexuality is legal in Cuba [3] the map must be corrected.

Controversy intro

I added intro content that says that SSM is controversial. Not sure if it's worded right but I think it should be upfront that not everyone agrees that there are arguments for and against it. The dialectic structure/tone of the entire article doesn't make sense unless you understand SSM as a controversial topic. MPS 18:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Legalization

I think legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States is a good idea because it is like discrimination if it is illegal. This is because that would mean homosexuals would not be allowed to get married happily. posted by User:Flarn2005

Would you mind explaining why you placed an NPOV tag on this article? Exploding Boy 16:31, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Posting what you think about SSM is not what the discussion board is for MPS 01:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Lawrence V texas

Can anyone substantiate this claim?? In a 2003 case titled Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that the right to private consensual sexual conduct was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. My impression was that they struck down the Texas Sodomy Law because it prohibited sodomy to homosexuals but not heterosexuals. Thus, it singled out homosexuals and violated Equal protection. I am totally open to being contradicted if someone could insert a quote from the opinion that actually says that there is a right to private consensual sexual conduct. MPS 23:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Poor banned from Dutch same-sex marriage

I restored this deleted addition, but I will give some background information on the politics, to explain why people are so irritated~, and why it might be deleted again.

Certain couples are excluded from same-sex marriage, by a combination of nationality and income. The restriction also applies to traditional marriage: a resident of the Netherlands who has an income of less than 120% of the national minimum wage, may not marry a ‘non-western foreigner’. If one partner is a non-western foreigner, then both partners must be over 21, and the non-western partner must pass an examination in basic Dutch, which can only be taken outside the Netherlands. Source: official press release of the Netherlands Cabinet announcing the measures, [4].

The reason for the irritation is that the gay/lesbian organisations in the Netherlands, which of course supported same-sex unions, did not call for the retraction of the law when the subsequent restrictions came into force. Should they? Of course it would be difficult for them to campaign for cancellation of same-sex unions, after having campaigned for them for years, but as it stands they now have a situation where some people may enter into such unions, and others may not, by reason of nationality and income, or indeed because they can't learn Dutch. The double standard is embarrassing, since ethics suggest you should not accept emancipation at the price of discrimination. EU citizens are exempt from all this, which is another inequality in the process.Ruzmanci 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Does this fall under the NPOV policy, and do you have a source to back it up in English? This is English Wikipedia. The source you provided looks amateurish like anyone could do it on their word processor. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me, after reading it, it's not really relevant, as it applies to both heterosexual and same-sex couples. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages don't fall under the NPOV policy, but deleting this information from the main page would. To be quite plain: the suspicion is that the gay/lesbian organisations in the Netherlands have acquiesced in a whites-only same-sex marriage policy, and that their largely white and upper-income membership doesn't care about the restrictions, since they themselves are exempt. That is why they have an incentive to pretend that same-sex marriage is 'legal' in the Netherlands, which is not entirely true.Ruzmanci 21:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't origional research. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV, neutrality disputed

I added the NPOV tag since the article states that same-sex unions are legal in the Netherlands, but in fact certain groups are excluded. It is NPOV rather than accuracy, since it is a matter of opinion whether they are ‘legal’ if they are legal for some people only. It is a political matter with connotations of racism. For resolution of the NPOV issue, the article cover both sides.Ruzmanci 12:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The way I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) "Certain groups" seem to me to be excluded in the same way that they are excluded from hetero-sex marriages. As such your disputes concerning the NPOV of the article seem to me to be badly placed when attacking *this* aricle: the problem you're describing has nothing in particular to do with Same-sex marriage, but rather with marriage in particular.

Either way, the fine-point details about same-sex marriage in the Netherlands should be more fully addressed in the Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands article. Aris Katsaris 15:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

That's how I feel. If anything they belong in the country specific article, but even then, it's not specific to same-sex marriage. It's simply about immigration issues, which every country has. Perhaps someone should start an article on Immigration and same-sex couples. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

this dispute does not merit an NPOV tag. Is there a "this section is considered NPOV" tag. I don't think the whole article should suffer for one little fact dispute. The rest of it is pretty NPOV. MPS 20:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag, because it seems not to be a country-specific issue. The appropriate action seems, to insert an item on systematic exclusion of certain groups, and the ethics of such exclusion. On the principle of 'try other options first' I withdraw the NPOV tag for now.

I would guess that illegal immigrants can not enter into same-sex unions anywhere. (The issue is comparable to exclusion from suffrage. The usual claim is 'everyone has the right to vote in a democracy', but in fact some groups do not). The difference with traditional marriage is that it has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex unions were introduced as a result of recent lobbying, by people who must have known that not everyone would qualify. It is the suggestion that they deliberately accepted lesser treatment on grounds of ethnicity or nationality, while accepting a benefit for themselves, which makes the issue notable.Ruzmanci 19:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding. This article has achieved the ideal of neutrality better than I would have thought possible. The argument that NPOV is breached because the Netherlands excludes certain marriges among same sex couples seems logically flawed. The laws placing limit on minority status or consanguinity would still apply to SSM, I assume. Although, and here I betray my bias, but this is talk so it's O.K, if two men can marry based on love, then why not siblings? Tis a slipery slope, once tradition, even that codified by a devine manual that we don't believe is devine, is cast aside! Arodb 05:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Update to NY state ruling

Would someone please update the page in light of http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-08-nygaymarriageruling_x.htm? Alienus 00:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll just do it myself. It seems that, in Wikipedia, it's easier to just do things than ask others to help. Alienus 00:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Needs citation

216.164.193.8, do you have a citation for the stuff about what unspecified philosophers think? Sounds libertarian, but I can't tell who in specific you're referring to. Alienus 01:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Updates to maps, N. America section

Here's an update, if someone is interested in fixing the article.

There is a lawsuit in Iowa to overturn anti-marriage laws there:

http://365gay.com/Newscon05/12/121305iowa.htm

The Iowa GOP is proposing an ammendment to the state constituion to ban gay marriage:

http://365gay.com/Newscon05/12/121505iowa.htm

Also, it would be interesting if this article had maps to reflect state or national laws that BAN same-sex marriage.

Hey! Why are all the writers about gay marriage so biased about being pro?? If only i had time!

Latvia

See here for news on Latvia - 't seems they've just banned it. Way to go, Baltics. </sarcasm>. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 15:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Still needs shortening!

The article is still pretty ungainly despite some attempts over the summer to reorganize it. I think it would be a good idea to start by replacing the sections on "Canada", "United States" and "Australia" with just the links to Same-sex marriage in Canada, Same-sex marriage in the United States, and Same-sex marriage in Australia. Summarizing the content of those articles in this one creates extra maintenance headaches and I don't see the compelling benefit to doing so. Tim Pierce 12:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Judicial decision dissent

I inserted the following under societal objections: The dissent by Justice Martha Sossman in the decision of the Massachusetts high court[1] that mandated gay marriage for that state makes a societal argument without specifying the harm that would occur from this change. Asserting the a priori importance of marriage as an institution, she questions whether the burden of proof that this would be harmless has been met. Her analysis can be seen as an example of Precautionary Principle.

I linked the dissent to my personal blog because a link to the full decision that I found did not have an index, so finding the section referenced would have been difficult. I welcome any comments Arodb 04:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal and change

I rewrote several words in the following phrase in an attempt to resolve a dispute: "They also see same-sex and male-female arrangements as inherently unequal, pointing out that nothing less than perpetuation of humanity itself relies fully on the latter and not at all on the former, and trying to "equalize" such arrangements through force of law will only create gross social distortions to accommodate the gulf between such law and the observable facts of human nature."

I added "perpetuation of" to lend a biological objectiveness to "Pointing out", which I restored, rather than "asserted." That only men and women can perpetuate the species is still true as of this writing. There is enough that is controversial in this subject that we must preserve that which is factual, and then build on it.

I removed the following because it is so broad as to be meaningless.

Some countries and states have judicial rulings that set precedence for same-sex marriage. However, popular majorities in some jurisdictions, continue to assert that the traditional concept of marriage cannot exist outside of a heterosexual relationship. To them, the male-female relationship has unique capacities and qualities that marriage was meant to recognize and foster that are not adequately acknowledged by the above definition. Arodb 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It covers the entire world because of the "Some countries" beginning. You simply can not saying anything meaningful, or accurate about such a large universe. If we are talking about the USA, it is still too broad, more a subject for a major law review article at the least. And if it were to be restored the word "some" implying less than "most" is not accurate.

only same institution in Canada?

"Canada is currently the only country offering same-sex marriage equally with other marriages, with no residency requirements or stipulation that the marriage is exempted from recognition when outside national borders." I removed this sentence as it is not correct: at least in the Netherlands opposite-sex and same-sex marriage are the same institution: the Dutch code of law reads: "A marriage can be contracted by two people of different or the same sex". The reason that foreigners can't marry in the Netherlands so easily, is that you need to be living in the Netherlands or have the Dutch nationality to marry. It doesn't matter if you are marrying an opposite partner or a same-sex partner, the rule stands for both cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorin (talk • contribs)

As for foreign recognition: that has little to do with the country permitted same-sex marriages. When other countries don't recognize the marriages, it won't make a difference if the marriage was contracted in Canada or the Netherlands. When a same-sex couple travels abroad, its marriage may not be valid there, but it still valid in the Netherlands. Thorin 21:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the only difference is that Canada doesn't have a residency or citizenship requirement; any two people can get married here, regardless of citizenship or place of residence (whether the marriage they contract will be recognised in their home country is another story). Exploding Boy 21:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the sentence is correct. The situation in Canada is unique in that foreigners can go there and get married to another of the same sex, and the marriage is legal there. Wuzzy 00:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, foreigners can get married in Canada. But my point is that in the first sentence, it's implied that only in Canada opposite-sex and same-sex marriage are -equal-. Both forms of marriage are just as equal in The Netherlands, but there you need to be a resident to get married. But that doesn't make it less equal: you need it for both forms of marriage.Thorin 00:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Policy Violation

This article is clearly biased against people who do not support same-sex marriage, because the article does not give equal discussion to both sides of the debate, and discredits claims made by pro-family advocates, and same-sex marriage supporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blissmeister (talk • contribs) 00:17, February 1, 2006

Then fix it. Peyna 00:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Blissmeister that the article in its previous form had some bias issues against those who opposed same-sex marriage. However, the revisions made to the article did not mitigate this bias and in fact created a polarizing effect on the article by throwing in competing bias. That being said, I made numerous changes to root out words that would imply bias one way or the other. An even greater problem was the excessive clutter in an article that was a general primer for same-sex marriage that could be used to branch to other articles on more specific topics. I thus shortened sections on South Africa, Canada, the United States and eliminated an entirely useless section that repeated previous facts scattered throughout the article. I think the events in the three countries I mentioned are definitely interesting and worth having on this site, but most of the information was available in separate articles making the main article redundant.SSouthern 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed your changes and they look very good so far. I didn't check to make sure that all of the removed info was covered in the sub-articles, but the changes definitely improved this article. Thanks. Peyna 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The POV tag was removed on February 8, 2006 by User:71.98.20.230 without reasons and immediately reposted by user:Anonymous editor without reasons. So, what is the consensus on this? Wuzzy 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is someone who believes the article currently suffers from excessive POV and is willing to state where that excess is, I don't see why we should have a POV tag. Is user:Anonymous editor willing to do this? If not, out it goes. Alienus 22:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor says that he reposted the tag only because it had been removed without reasons. Wuzzy 22:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what if I remove it for the simple reason that the article is now balanced? In fact, let's find out. Alienus 01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriages are simply called Marriages

I edited the introduction because i argue that some people only called same sex marriages as "marriages." Theres no need to say if its a "gay marriages" o "same gender marriages" or what not.

Thats what I added "Some just referred same sex marriages as marriages." 69.199.183.64 00:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if same-sex marriages are just marriages then we can delete this article and just use the marriage article for same sex marriages too. That's what I'd like to see. --Her girlfriend 00:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You can try to do that. Remember, i said "some" , not all. 69.199.183.64 00:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sodomy

Some [5] have made the parallel that equality in marriage would lead to an inability to ban certain kinds of sex, such as sodomy, even if it applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. In the United States Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court said that banning contraception violated "the right of marital privacy." In Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), it extended the same privacy rights to unmarried people.

As the argument goes, if marriage is extended to homosexuals, then "the right of marital privacy" would mandate that sodomy must be permitted even if the state wishes to prohibit it for health reasons. Some claim that this argument is now moot due to the 2003 case titled Lawrence v. Texas.

This is moot, not "some claim". The court in Lawrence v. Texas made it clear that homosexuals had privacy rights regardless of martial status or even if it applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. The probable reason for this confusion is that one justice, O'Connor, ruled that the only reason it violated the Constitution was due to the fact it only applied to homosexuals; however the court's vote was 6 declaring it in violation and 3 to uphold. This means that since the other 5 justices (a majority) declared that it was unconstitutional even if it applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals - it is unconstitutional. The above statement belongs on the court case not same-sex marriage, since the Supreme Court has ruled it has nothing to do with it. 144.35.254.12 22:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

To poll or not to poll?

I'd rather see more polls added (along with more information, for all the polls, about sample groups), than just delete them. This could be a useful section, and I'd be willing to work with whoever if they want to help make it one. -Seth Mahoney 23:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that polls are a useful tool when there is a large and diverse group that constitutes the sample, but when only two polls are present that show majority support for one side or the other, one must take into account specific details about the population from which the sample is taken. Specifically, the site that is a forum for teens will likely give greater support to the issue of ssm because correlation has shown that younger people tend to support it. Conversely, if you conduct the same poll on a Christian site, the majority will no doubt be opposed the issue. Some may argue that the source of these polls and their results speaks great volumes about the views of different identifiable groups. While this may be true, it would involve including so many different polls from so many diverging groups as to clutter and burden an article that is supposed to be encyclopedic. I therefore suggest that the article should rely on a few broad-reaching polls conducted by professional groups (like Gallup) and definitely not defer to two polls taken from sites that would likely produce certain results. SSouthern 00:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. So let's replace the polls we've got with something a little broader. I'll do a little research as soon as I've got a spare minute. -Seth Mahoney 00:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-controversial Topic, Really

I'm moderately impaired when it comes to distinguishing colors, and I have a terrible time in telling the states/provinces apart where civil unions are recognized and no same-sex arrangements are recognized on the North America map. Perhaps someone might make it a bit more, ummm, ADA-compliant, and less, ummm, fashionable, with its oh-so-subtle colors (is that fuschia and tawny that the map-maker is using there? or is it ecru and egg-shell? either way, it's not helpful). Blondlieut 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Entire Section is POV

Arguments about legal rationality is a POV section. It seems like a section specifically designed to counter-argue arguments against same-sex marriage. I would remove the section entirely if it were up to me. The presence of both sides of a POV argument is not NPOV, but the absence of both sides. Of course, that's just my POV on POV- so around and around we go! Seriously though, it should be deleted or drastically altered. Angrynight 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

the legal rationalisty arguement section specifically lays out a common anti SSM position. I am not sure that I have heard the term "legal rationality argument" but uunderstand that POV is not uncommon. I added reference to Senator Rick Santorum since Santorum argued about applying the right to privacy to other forms of marriage that cannot be prohibited. MPS 21:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Commonality of POV is not an excuse, it is all the more reason to reassess the legitimacy of the section, perhaps the entire article (though most of it seems perfectly fine to me). More importantly for every "Counter-Argument" there is yet another argument to counter it. This is not the place for the argument to take a run around. The format itself is unfair towards one side since same-sex marriage proponents get the last word. I.e. the opponents' arguments are quickly discarded. This is structural POV. Also you make the point of the title being badly written. I have found that most POV-pushers are rather hasty in their edits and often produce such garbled sections. This is all the more reason to evaluate it. Santorum has his place as a notable person who has involved himself on the issue, I fail to see how it relates to the issue at hand. (Seriously, I don't know what you mean ^_^ ) Angrynight 01:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

External Links?

I noticed that all but about one or two of the external links are pro same-sex marriage. There's nothing wrong with that, but limiting them to only pro seems to violate NPOV.

I suggest we have two sections, one for and one against. Each section should have roughly the same amount of links. Many other controversial Wiki articles use this format.

Update the map.

Can someone update the USA map? It's out of date.

"See also" topics?

Why was the "See Also" list reverted? All of them I added were applicable to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.216.253 (talk • contribs)

• All the articles were exclusively related to the US. This is a world article. There is a separate article for the US. Wuzzy 23:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Thanks.

Shortening the article

I understand that most all the material in the article is both valuable and useful to prevent pov and present a thorough primer on the topic, but its encyclopedic nature necessitates a more laconic approach. With all do respect to Alienus who reverted my edits, I have decided to make the changes in smaller increments, but I rebuke the latest revert as the change simply shortened the wording of the article and removed the American-centric view which properly belongs in the United States article. I ask you, Alienus, to explain your decision to revert my edits with something more substantial than "lets take it back a notch." SSouthern 12:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Once you broke up your edits into smaller chunks, I was able to evaluate the pieces independently. While I wasn't necessarily thrilled with each of your changes, I left all but one intact. The one I did feel a need to revert had text removed that really shouldn't be. I was particularly bothered by the removal of the link to History of Civil Marriage in the U.S. Alienus 12:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern, I'll put the link back in. SSouthern 13:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wayfarers43's edits

Hiyas, I had reverted one of Wayfarer43's edits as he/she seemed to be blindly going through the article changing the wording without edit summaries. This is his/her rationale for the edits (from User talk:Wayfarers43):

I will be happy to summarize my edits. There are numerous sentences/paragraphs in the article that slant a pro-same-sex marriage bias, such as "That many early western societies tolerated, and even celebrated, same-sex relationships is well-established" without any supporting facts. ("Celebrated" is a subjective term, again with no corrobative information).

In addition, much of this entire entry is slanted against Judeo-Christian tradition, by "burying" opposition to the idea of same-sex marriage views later in the sections or ignoring them altogether. The section on religious arguments , for example, reads "James Dobson, in Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, argues that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family as interpreted by "his brand of Christianity" and lead to an increase in homosexual couples [21]. The use of "his brand" is inflammatory and, although not shared by the writer of the article, is shared by many Christian families.

Another example--"a fundamental concern of some people is that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to a direct attack via lawsuits against religions to force them to perform marriage ceremonies of which they do not approve, and additionally that established churches could be bankrupted by these types of lawsuits." The use of " some people" is not clear--in addition, organized denominations are clearly concerned about the limits on free speech that have accompanied the changes to the marriage laws in Canada, in addition to changes in other countries concerning the age of consent. I will be happy to support with related articles and news reports. Wayfarers43 17:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)=Wayfarers43 12:46 6 April 2006 (CST)

So this is the place to work that out. Personally, I think the balance is somewhere in the middle (ie even being gay myself, some of the wording was POV IMO...but Wayfarers43 is perhaps too far the other way). There was definitely some sourced information that Wayfarers43 took out (probably restored atm) that should remain. --Syrthiss 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC