Talk:Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state/Archive 1

Expansion of article

I think the article could be expanded on and improved in at least two areas. First, it should have a subsection on all 50 states. If a particular state has taken no significant action, then that can be noted in the section. Second, I appreciate that some states have main articles on the subject. Nevertheless, I think this article should still have at least a brief summary of the pertinent legal developments in that state. I will try to get around to these things, but I also making these suggestions in case anyone else wants to jump in. -Kubigula (ave) 04:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is very jumbled with a lot of facts thrown together. Even after reading it, the reader is still left uncertain exactly what is permitted and what is not. The start of each state section should begin right off with the current defined legal status of same-sex partnerships, whats allowed, what isn't, and where it all stands. Not to be confused with whats being proposed, or whats in the process of occurring. If there is considerable material to cover for any one state then they can be given their own article to cover the details, such as California. Then the very top of that state-article should again give the bottom line of where the state law currently stands.--Joshua4 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled across the article List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions, which gives the brief synopsis for each state that you suggest. There is considerable overlap in coverage between these two articles, leading me to question whether there is a need for both articles - I am debating proposing a merge. However, this article seems to be more focused on the history of same-sex marriage on the state level, while the list article is, well, a list. So, maybe having two similar articles makes sense. However, I think we need to more clearly define the scope of these two articles so as to have a more seemless encyclopedic coverage.

I will raise the same question on the list article's talk page as well. -Kubigula (ave) 04:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that article and came to the same conclusions after I'd already made the changes to this one. I also found the article, Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States, which basically does what this one was intended to do but in a more brief concise manor. I'm going to move this article to Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by state (making it a spinoff of Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States) that covers the topic in more detail. From there the articles can be broken down by state which gives them a 1->2->3 hierarchal methodology. --Joshua4 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

References

I've added details to quite a few of the references in this article. Unfortunately, some of the links were not caught in time and are now dead. Could somebody research the dead links and find out what they used to point to, and find out of there is an archive URL that we can use for them? Thanks, ΨΦorg 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

California law on referenda

The bit on California notes:

California Proposition 22 voted by referendum, so may not be changed by legislature but by another referendum or a jugement of unconstitutionality.

I'm not an expert on California constitutional law, but I don't believe this is actually true. I'm reasonably sure the CA legislature can vote to overturn the results of a referendum. In fact, the CA legislature did vote last year to approve same-sex marriage, which I'm guessing they wouldn't have done if such a move were against California law. Gov. Schwarzanegger vetoed the bill because, as he put it, he believed that a law passed by referendum ought to stand until another referendum overturned it or it was deemed unconstitutional, not because the CA constitution forbade the legislature for passing such a law. Does anyone know more? --Jfruh (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's "sort of" true. There's a critical distinction between "referenda" and "initiatives" in California law.

In essence, the California Constitution embraces two distinct sources of legislation: the elected legislature and the electorate itself. A referendum revokes (or approves) a statute, or portion thereof, created by the legislature. An initiative creates new law through the electorate. Proposition 22 was an initiative.

The general principle embodied in Article 2, sections 8 et. seq. of the California Constitution allows the originating legislative body to retain ultimate control over a statute. So, the legislature may enact changes to a referendum without the consent of the electorate, because the legislature created the statute in the first place. Conversely, the legislature may enact changes to an initiate only after submitting the change to the electorate for approval, because the statute originated with the electorate.

The legislature believes that Proposition 22 (codified at Family Code section 308.5) governs recognition of marriages performed outside of California (there is some basis for this claim). It is a separate legislative enactment (now codified at Family Code sections 300 and 301) that governs the issuance of licenses within California. Through reasoning along these lines, the legislature asserts that it is free to modify sections 300 and 301 without the consent of the electorate.

Of course, all of this is hotly debated. Appellate courts have issue somewhat contradictory rulings as to the extent of Proposition 22.

Wonderbreadsf 17:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Update?

I think this needs to be updated, as the New Hampshire civil unions law now means that marriages contracted in other states will be recognised as civil unions in NH. MLilburne 09:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Guam?

Does anyone have the info regarding Guam? 71.93.238.214 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

New York Needs Help

The section on New York is grossly inaccurate. Information available in the article entitled "Same-Sex Marriage in New York" would be helpful.

Again, if you feel this way, please do something about it. We're all working towards the same goal here. Newtman (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

74.76.121.29 (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Texas Wording

This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. Does the fact that this wording (on its face) eliminates all marriages require comment? Has it caused any actual problems in Texas? 74.10.73.253 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Out Magazine

What does the cover of Out Magazine contribute to this article? 129.2.170.59 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OutMagazineCover.jpg

Image:OutMagazineCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversial 1913 law now has finally repealed in MA

In MA, the "1913 law" has finally been repealed and agreed to by the Senate and the House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.31.31 (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to New York Section

Aside from its first paragraph, the New York section does not relate to legislation, which is supposed to be the topic of this page. I propose that everything aside from the first paragraph be deleted. The link to the "Same-Sex Marriage in New York" page will allow readers to access more detailed information on pending litigation, etc. Any feedback?

SCBC (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

California bans same-sex marriage

As of November 5th, 2008, this page is out of date. An amendment to the constitution now prohibits same-sex marriage, although the state does still grant civil unions.nhinchey (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that amendment has not passed. See also. Selma (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: California has domestic partnerships, NOT civil unions - please check your sources next time you comment. Only New Jersey has civil unions, all other civil unions such as New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont have been upgraded to marriage by legislation, NOT by Courts and activist judges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why State Constitutions template

This article has the State Constitutions template at the bottom. Why is that? This is an article about legislation. --Bejnar (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Because 27 states were so fearful that the legislation they passed to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships would be struck down by their own courts as unconstitutional that they enshrined that legislation into their constitutions. Like You Never Did See (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why that might be mentioned in a general article about state constitutions. But I don't understand how that justifies the template on this article. Maybe it would justify a see also reference to such a general article, State constitution (United States), at most. --Bejnar (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

Since there is intemixed legislation and constitutional law in this article, how about changing the name to Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state. Law is a more common term than legislation, and seems more apt here. That way, under the scope, not only could constitutional provisions be discussed, but court decisions could be as well. --Bejnar (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no comment, pro or con, I have made the change. --Bejnar (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

the link to this article

it has appeared to have been vandalized and i cant seem to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? CTJF83Talk 02:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it appears to have been fixed. I noticed that from this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population the link to this article read "marriage for faqs" or something along those lines but it is fixed so no need to worry about it.

Colorado

The map at the top of the page shows Colorado as having "Unions granting limited/enumerated rights", however the article states that there are "No marriage license or recognition, no other relationship or its recognition from other jurisdictions for same-sex couples." It seems that only one can be correct. Passportguy (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to guess noone updated the text, I did that, the map was correct. CTJF83Talk 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)