Talk:Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Guam?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Out Magazine

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

[edit] 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)