Talk:Respect for Marriage Act

support
Should we include a section listing those relevant officials that support the Act? Thanks. Aristophanes2 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Plurality 40-49% "support"
How can you have this range of "support" and say that people support this? It seems most of the people do not support the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.128.13 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "Seems"? Wikipedia operates on sourced content, not "seems." TY — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 21:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Past tense?
Should this article be placed in past tense with a historical note? Because Obergefell v. Hodges ruled that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right, DOMA was effectively annulled, and therefore ROMA became moot as a way to supersede DOMA. The most recent event described in this article was in early 2015, before Obergefell v. Hodges was decided, so that likewise tends to suggest ROMA was overtaken by events. 153.31.112.20 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. I added a couple of paragraphs about the Supreme Court decision and put the entire article in the past tense. Some of the pre-existing writing is still a little rough, but that is a project for the future. The article now makes clear that this proposal is a historical artifact that has been overtaken by the Supreme Court decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act. Neutron (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It would still be good practice for the legislative branch to remove unenforceable statutory provisions, thus RFMA is not entirely historical. Ih slightly reworded the paragraph to that end. I guess we can see again in the next Congress whether it will be re-introduced then. SPQRobin (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good practice though it may be, I am not under the impression that Congress generally bothers to repeal statutes that have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I do not pore through the Congressional Record every day, but my guess is that this occurs very rarely, if ever.  If it does happen, it does not get any media attention.  It actually does happen now and then in the state legislature with which I am most familiar (New Jersey), but usually only when there is a "revision" process for a particular area of the statutes and they clean out the unenforceable statutes.  Even then, I don't think this is done uniformly. However, I have no real problem with your edit to my edit, I think it still gets the point across that the Respect for Marriage Act probably will not be heard from again. Neutron (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Polygamy and Ilya Somin
I think the line in the intro about Ilya Somin’s analysis that this law could lead to federal recognition of polygamy should be removed. If you read his piece, its very apparent that he’s using a hypothetical to illustrate the broadness of the law’s language. He isn’t actually saying that this law will lead to federal recognition of polygamy. Somin says, “ If anything, Section 4 could be criticized for deferring to the states too much. Imagine if Utah or some other state decides to grant legal recognition to polygamous marriages. Section 4 would require the federal government to do the same... Such hypotheticals don't much bother me...Regardless, this slippery slope concern is is not a constitutional federalism problem. It's a matter of policy.” Somin goes out of his way to disclaim this scenario as a hypothetical, slippery slope situation, and including this claim in the intro gives more weight to the claim than Somin does. The only other sources that are even talking about this are a few opinion pieces published by the Washington Examiner, the Heritage Foundation, and 1819 News. It seems like Somin’s analysis is being misused to make an extraordinary claim about something that politicians aren’t even considering. 2603:6000:A503:4CA9:3D4B:F7C2:B0B7:CFC4 (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at the testimonies relating to the Respect for Marriage Act from a decade ago, "polygamy" and derivations are used nine times, mostly by one of the expert witnesses, and also by one of the Representatives. So there is some awareness among the legislators that DOMA relates to polygamy, and that it is not implausible that a bill repealing the DOMA would also relate to polygamy. It is something politicians are aware of. It is not an extraordinary claim.


 * In this scholarly book published by the University Press of New England, the chapter on "Polygamy and the Law" states, "...that the Defense of Marriage Act be replaced with the Respect for Marriage Act, which would creat[e] a more accepting environment for alternative marital structures."


 * "reason.com" is a green colored source, which means that it is generally considered reliable. The law prof, Soomin, did not bring up the topic of polygamy as opinion, and did not appear from the article to be either opposed or in favor of it. The reason.com source is libertarian, there are also sources that would generally be considered conservative which also brought up this topic as an opinion instead of as a fact relating to what could hypothetically happen. Washington Examiner is yellow colored on the sources list, the Heritage Foundation and 1819 are not listed. If they are used, an in-text reference to the source would be best. I think some description of this topic belongs in the lede.


 * It is not implausible that polygamy could become legalized in Utah, since it was decriminalized in 2020, and before that see Judge finds some right to have “sister wives”, Lyle Denniston, December 15, 2013, SCOTUSblog. An essay by a law professor from this past May concluded that legalization "may not be far distant", and a law journal article from last October concluded, "bigamous groups may continue to find success in using constitutional arguments to seek legal recognition of their marriages".


 * Somin's stated that the relation of the bill to the legalization of polygamy was not a constitutional problem. That is, the bill would still be constitutional in the event that it legalized polygamy. The weight of the legalization issue to constitutionality is not the same as the weight of the legalization issue to the wikipedia article, or in bill/Act as a whole. So this is an issue of equivalence versus false equivalence.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

When Utah legalizes polygamy and it’s federally recognized under this legislation, then it should go in the introduction. Until then, it’s just one legal scholar’s opinion on what a purely hypothetical situation might look like. He’s predicting how a hypothetical might turn, but he’s not stating facts. There’s a big difference between this legislation’s effect on existent state laws recognizing same-sex and interracial marriage, and a purely hypothetical situation in which Utah legalizes polygamy, which they are currently not trying to do. To put the two claims next to each other in the intro creates a false equivalence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:A503:4CA9:2802:342:5638:639F (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In the post above I explain how it isn't just one person. Yes, there are people currently trying to legalize polygamy, see Politico, Slate, New Yorker, and from the opposing side in The Atlantic, "The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy". Cambridge, Massachusetts enacted a domestic partnerships program which allows for "multiple domestic partnerships at the same time", following the lead of Somerville, Massachusetts. Afterwords, Cambridge was followed by Arlington, Massachusetts. The last link states there there is "momentum in consensually non-monogamous (CNM) communities — who engage in multiple relationships with the consent of all partners involved — and structurally diverse families across the country to organize locally and pursue legal recognition of their relationships". Nor is this only a community-level issue, since the Massachusetts state's Attorney General issued an opinion in support of the bylaw in Arlington, Massachusetts.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've removed that whole section as grossly undue weight. It's not what this bill is about, nor is this commentary really encyclopedic or necessary to a full understanding of the bill. Hypotheticals upon hypotheticals. Neutralitytalk 03:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the line, which now is in the lede, should be remove. This is speculation from a non-academic source. For now, I added attribution to make clear that it is the opinion of a journalist and not something actually in the text of the law or opinion among the judiciary. But again, it should be removed altogether (from here, and from all pages the user has added it too). Eccekevin (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In the edit history, previously re-added material about polygamy, stating, "Section 4 would require the federal government to do the same" sounds like it does". And earlier,  re-added material about polygamy. Also, the edits on 13:55, 24 July 2022‎ and 17:38, 24 July 2022 indicate either support or toleration for some description of polygamy in the article. Media Matters for America and the University Press of New England are not fringe sources. In particular, the MMfA source appears to draw on this recent article from Harvard Law Review, which looks at the potential for getting a state court to legalize polygamy.
 * I will start an RfC on this and see what the consensus is.


 * I would like to add something about the edits of User:Epiphyllumlover that he has made to several articles related (directly or indirectly) to polygamy in the US. The editor is implying through his edits and tone something on the lines of "look, polygamy is being legalized in the US!!!". This is based on Utah which has "decriminalized" polygamy (not exactly decriminalized, since polygamy in Utah has simply been downgraded from a felony to an infraction) and on the fact that 3 communities in Massachusetts have enacted registered partnerships available for more than 2 people. It's important to point that in the US, not only is bigamy (being married to more than one person at the same time) illegal in all 50 states under state law, as well as illegal under federal law, but federal legislation - the Edmunds Act - also prohibits de facto polygamy, that is polygamous cohabitation even in the absence of marriage (as a misdemeanor). While in practice polygamous cohabitation itself is virtually never prosecuted, the prohibition is relevant for public policy such as recognition of polygamous unions, meaning that any local community policies have little recognition, at least outside the community. As for Utah legalizing polygamy, it's important to note that Utah constitution bans recognition of polygamous unions. The history of Utah's polygamy legal status is complicated: in 2013 a court struck down parts of Utah's law dealing with polygamous cohabitation, but this was overturned in 2016, re-criminalizing polygamy as a felony . Then, in 2020, the legislature downgraded polygamy from a felony to an infraction. But regardless of legal penalties, Utah can't legalize polygamy unless it changes its constitution. 2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:CCC4 (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC concerning polygamy
Should the article include a section on "Implications for polygamy legalization"?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. It's completely UNDUE. The entire section is for four opinions, one of which is from a blog and another which comes from the Washington Examiner, which is not listed as a good source at WP:RSP. There's no reason for its inclusion. --Kbabej (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Because "Washington Examiner" is colored yellow on the list, I had attributed the source so people would know that it is partisan. The Volokh Conspiracy is not any old blog, it is published in a green-colored publication (reason.com), and it is written by a group of law professors. The Wikipedia article for it states, "It is one of the most widely read and cited legal blogs in the United States".--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Epiphyllumlover thanks for the response. Even with blog being green-level, that arguably takes the RS up to three. Just because the Wash Examiner can technically be included doesn't mean it should be. This section gives undue weight to a fringe view. I can't say that I've seen "polygamy legalization" in any of the mainstream coverage I've seen about this bill, and it gives prominence to a fringe view. The blog source and the book source discussion Mormon polygamy don't discuss the proposed bill and potential polygamy effects with sigcov; it's mentioned as one of many criticisms. The book, for instance, is just the quote included in the article. There's just not much there. --Kbabej (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a paragraph of coverage of Edward Whelan's anti-polygamy testimony by People for the American Way back in 2011. (A link to the hearing.) It refuted him by saying that there was no organized movement to legalize it. By now there are multiple groups, which are listed under "organizations" on this website, like the Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition, which is drawn from Harvard Law School, the American Psychological Association, and the Chosen Family Law Center (which I haven't heard of). Also, Polyamory in the United States describes how California accepted three names on a birth certificate, with a book about it titled, Three Dads and a Baby. The article also mentions the polyamorous domestic partnerships in the communities in Massachusetts. So things have changed since then. I agree that the book alone would not be significant coverage, but think there is enough altogether from the other sources, which I found on google. Several google searches for reference: this and this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * With that additional information, I still think it's undue. The more I think about it, the more I think it's actually "grossly undue", a phrase @Neutrality used above. It's hypothesis stacking for a fringe view. --Kbabej (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Polyamory is not a fringe view. That said, there is insufficient material to suggest that polygamy legalization is a major political position and directly connected to this US-legislative topic sufficient to warrant inclusion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish, my belief that the discussion of polygamy as it relates to the Respect for Marriage Act is a fringe view, not polygamy in general. I agree with your second sentence: "there is insufficient material to suggest that polygamy legalization is a major political position and directly connected to this US-legislative topic sufficient to warrant inclusion." You put into words what I was trying to convey. --Kbabej (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , in the U.S., there is no major political party asking for it, but in Mexico, a Judge gives go-ahead for Mexico’s first polyamorous marriage. There are no major parties asking for polyamorous marriage in Mexico either, but they are already getting it according to this news article from July 22, 2022, from a media outlet thought to be reliable, which produced an English version of the story based on a Spanish article from El Universal. So I think that is too high of a bar to set for warranting inclusion. It should be enough that Whelan's testimony on polyamory and the Respect for Marriage Act was picked up by three independent sources, besides the statements from Somin and Cordileone.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What's happening in Mexico is not being paralleled in the US and is unrelated to the US legislation. And I didn't say anything about political parties.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was summoned by a bot (because I offered to help in RfCs). I don't know much about the subject. I see two different questions: "are the points of view expressed notorious and pertinent?" and "should there be a section for these points of view". The first question is more important in my view. The second is only about the organization of the content. My answer to the first question is if a reference to polygamy is one of the main arguments of a significant group, then neutrality requires that the point of view of this group be included and attributed. I don't know what is the case, because I don't know the subject, but I will continue to follow the discussion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I looked to see if notable people opposing the bill were talking about polygamy in a notorious way like you said, and found this from Salvatore Cordileone, a Catholic archbishop known for conservative politics. He was writing due to his role as the chairman of a committee of bishops covering marriage and other topics, and he stated:
 * "The concern that the bill could require federal recognition of “marriages” of more than two persons is not far-fetched, as at least three cities in Massachusetts have already legally enshrined so-called polyamorous domestic partnerships. By making federal recognition of such relationships automatic upon their recognition by any state, the bill would create a massive incentive for radical activists to concentrate their efforts in a single state – further lending plausibility to this potentially disastrous scenario."
 * Earlier, in another letter which he had addressed to the House, instead of to the Senate like the other letter, and he stated
 * "The “Respect for Marriage Act,” would do... In the case of the latter, in section 4 of the bill, there is a question whether it would even be limited to two persons."
 * I also looked for supporters citing polygamy or polyamory, and found one non-notable person. Also there was a vague statement from a Representative from Utah. (All four Representatives from Utah voted for it.) He worded his statement in a way that was ambiguous about whether he was talking about same-sex, inter-racial, or polygamous marriage. It didn't seem worth putting in the article without media attention directed towards it with respect to polygamy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the kind of analysis that must be done. I wait to see if someone can find notable persons that you have not found, then that's it: if there is no notable person or a representative of a notable group expressing the view of the group in a reliable source, then it has no place in WP. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You added "in section 4 of the bill, there is a question whether it would even be limited to two persons". This is a bit of a support, but it is still very low weight. I wait to see what else can be added. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No - Fringe slippery slope mongering based on opinion columns and low quality sources. PS: the material attributed to the left-leaning Media Matters for America show [interview] is not an MMfA interview, it's just a transcript from Real America's Voice posted to the MMfA website. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a list of the Real America's Voice shows at mediamatters.org. So they are republishing from Real America's Voice. Yes, I misunderstood the source of the interview. Now that you corrected me, I looked, but can't find any color coding for it on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If that is this website, I don’t think any editor could in good conscience argue that meets sourcing requirements in any way. Their articles, which feature no bylines, include such gems as “Dr. Jill, Cry Me A River” (seen here) and “The January 6th Obsession Claims Another Victim” (seen here). This should not be used as a source in any capacity. —Kbabej (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the WP link you've included for Real America's Voice is for an uninvolved project, sourced to PRN Newswire, which fails RSP. See WP:PRNEWSWIRE. Removing that now. --Kbabej (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was trying to trace who exactly was producing the show, and it was the only mention I could find for it on wikipedia. It incidentally discussed Real America's Voice in distinction to the other media outlet, so I linked to the part of the article discussing the difference. Why are you editing my response to remove a wikilink on a talk page?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Epiphyllumlover When I said "Removing that now", I was talking about the mention of Real America's Voice on the unrelated page sourced to PRN Newswire, not your response. Editing other editors' responses is not acceptable on WP, and I did not do that here. Sorry I was not clearer on that. --Kbabej (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. I feel better about your remarks now. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Grossly undue weight, for reasons explained above (quality of sourcing, quantity of sourcing, tenuous relationship to topic). Neutralitytalk 21:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I stand by what I said when I started this section yesterday. And there certainly shouldn’t be a whole section just for a legal scholar’s thought experiment, one vague sentence from a book, and a handful of pundits’ slippery slope arguments. There are far more opinion pieces nd news stories about this legislation that don’t mention polygamy, and no one is trying to include those. Why the fixation on including polygamy in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:A503:4CA9:3518:8002:E0F8:CFE0 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But something does not add up with this article. One would obviously expect a lot of criticisms and arguments against this act, but there is nothing. The section that gives the text is clearly primary source material. Primary source material is fine, but the main content should be based on secondary source material: the various opinions of notable people and experts about this primary source material. The article says almost nothing about the arguments in favour or against it. The details of the procedures, the fact that it was delayed and things like that are not really opinions about the act. So, perhaps polygamy was not central in the discussions in favour and against it, but I cannot tell, because the article is not based on secondary sources (in favour and against it) that provide opinions about the act.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with swapping out the section on polygamy with a section that covers all of the support/opposition to the bill, with a roughly equal word count for each side's arguments/arguers. Polygamy/polyamory would be part of it, but not most of it. Earlier today, I made a step in that direction, but 2603... reverted it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agreee with 2603 reverting that addition. I'm not sure why you are intent on adding polygamist information when it seems to be polygamy legalization is not directly connected to this topic. I don't think you should be adding it back until a consensus has been reached in this discussion. --Kbabej (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I need useful content related information based on sources. "I agree with ...", "... until a consensus ..." are political or procedural comments that do not help me. The statement "polygamy legalization is not directly connected to this topic" is content related, but it must be discussed in terms of sources. The question I ask is why the article does not cover the notable arguments in favour and against the act. I would need an answer in terms of sources. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what you need, per se. The ONUS is on editors wanting to add information to the article to gain consensus about topics before making changes. Right now, at least with this RfC, the consensus seems to be there is not agreement for a polygamy section. My comment is stating just what it says: I agree with the IP with reverting the addition. I think the polygamy discussion is giving undue weight for a tangentially related subject, as other editors have stated as well. If you are not sure what a consensus is (saying that doesn't help you), then you likely should not be adding information to a contentious article. --Kbabej (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what you need, per se is rude and you likely should not be adding information to a contentious article is also rude. On that basis, you will understand that I find this other comment of yours even less useful and I ignore it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dominic Mayers, you can choose to ignore any comments you'd like, which is your prerogative. I'm simply reminding you about the policy on verifiability, which is "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You will likely not achieve that consensus if you will not discuss procedural comments, but how you go about building consensus is again your decision. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A significant consensus requires discussions about the content and sources. It should not rely on mere votes or on editors speaking of consensus or saying "I agree with" instead of discussing content and sources to actually achieve a useful consensus. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Grossly undue weight, for reasons explained above.Eccekevin (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Closing the RfC
There is an almost unanimous, if not unanimous, agreement that there should not be a section focusing on polygamy. I don't think it's useful to continue to collect mere votes on that issue. If the author of the RfC agrees, I propose that he closes the RfC without creating a new one immediately. Instead, he should close the RfC and simply ask the question in the PdD "Should the arguments in favour and against the act be presented and why not?" The point is that we do not do a RfC before a significant discussion has already started in the PdD. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dominic Mayers that seems like a coatrack way to just introduce the polygamy info once again when consensus has obviously determined it is undue. --Kbabej (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I have been summoned by bot. I have absolutely no interest in pushing one way or another. The new question that I propose shows it, because it does not push one way or another. I am just here to help. I would rather say that it's your comment that raises suspicions about your motivation. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the latter suggestion, it's much too broad. Sections which are just "for" and "against" are usually better avoided, but of course we include various perspectives of advocates and critics. There wouldn't really be any disagreement on that -- it's just a matter of which ones, based on sources. I think all of that is already assumed in the current RfC (i.e. yes, we want to include perspectives, but this particular perspective is WP:UNDUE). BTW: What is PdD? An odd typo for RfC or something I'm not familiar with (clearly not WP:PDD :) ). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposed question is simply should the article present the arguments in favour and against the act. It does not mention "section". I would like to add that it's not a rhetorical question. It could be that editors really think that it's not possible to do that, because even sources avoid covering that or for some other reasons. It's better to ask the question, just to be clear on the matter.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this until now. Looks like it is already closed, which I do not contest. I'm pretty sure this article will be less controversial after the Senate has decided on it. Maybe then would be a better opportunity to work on this article. Less controversy means more time writing it.

If anyone feels inclined to try and get me punished over this RfC, before you go and file a complaint against me, please keep this in mind: At the time I started the RfC I thought of the four accounts or IPs who from their edits and edit summaries were more or less supportive of adding one line about polygamy, in addition to two words added to a list. So it seemed plausible that the proposal might succeed at the time. I wasn't trying to make people miserable.

Dominic Mayers, if you want to start a new discussion on a broader topic, you have my support in doing so, but I don't see myself starting a new discussion at the moment. I don't see myself taking such an assertive lead in the hypothetical new discussion as I did in the RfC, but I would try to participate. An exception to this intention is that if someone files a complaint about me over this RfC, I might decide to stay away to help my case.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what reasons people could have to file a complaint about you. I feel you contributed to the RfC in a very nice manner. I don't think I will take the lead on any thing here either, simply because I do not know the subject enough. In fact, maybe the question that I mentioned (without asking it explicitly) was superfluous. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, your question is what the RfC should have been in the first place. This was my first RfC; in the past when I've thought about starting RfCs, I was too afraid that I'd get a complaint filed against me for starting one. Thank you for evaluating my comments, your opinion could help deter someone from filing a complaint.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone needs to be concerned about a complaint or improper conduct. An RFC is not improper. You are entitled to bring an RFC that fails (to a point), though now that you understand the issues better and the present consensus of editors, try to learn from that. It is OK to learn by failing and make mistakes from time to time, not that this is really a mistake per se. In the future though, you might want to discuss further before going straight to an RFC. We used to say on Wikipedia that "voting is evil" because it can shut down productive discussion. A poll is a good way to gauge consensus or make it very explicit, but they are not necessary to achieve consensus. Andrevan @ 18:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * correct me if I am wrong, but you did not mean to imply that we discuss before the RfC, because the RfC is not the time for discussions. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. WP:RFCBEFORE Andrevan @ 21:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, this is also what I wrote in one of my comments above. My question was about whether you imply by that that the discussion stops when the RfC starts. I am pretty sure that you did not mean that and you might wonder why I would think that, but I like when these things are said explicitly. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No of course the discussion doesn't stop, but as a practical matter it can have a chilling effect on the discussion. Andrevan @ 21:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer to speak of the expected effect of the RfC on the discussion rather than to speak of the expected effect of the past discussion on the RfC. The expected effect of the RfC is, of course, to add more ingredients to the discussion, some times, even to help restart a stuck discussion by bringing new insights. As far as the expected effect of the past discussion is concerned, the first goal is of course to make the RfC even unnecessary, which I assume is what you meant.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, in this case, I think the RFC was probably not necessary or helpful, but it was not overly harmful. Just an extra layer of process which could have continued in a freeform discussion. Anyway, the result is clear. You may still continue to discuss the matter, but there's clearly a consensus that this material was UNDUE. Andrevan @ 22:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * this material was UNDUE: My understanding of the situation is that it's very clear to every one that we should not ask the same question for the same material with the same sources again. There are no problematic editors here. There is no need to worry about that. But, "UNDUE" is relative to the weight given to the argument (or point of view) in the article and to the importance given to it in the sources that are known thus far. These things are not frozen and not all possibilities have been discussed. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there may be other possibilities that weren't discussed. I'm not accusing any editors of problematic behavior. I do think that there's a pretty clear consensus here that the section proposed was "undue weight" due to "quality" and "quantity" of sourcing. You are free to propose an alternative treatment of the material, but keep in mind that WP:FRINGE may apply here. I closed the RFC which had a very clear consensus, but I am not making any statements as to what has to happen now. If you believe there are still issues to discuss you are certainly free to do so. Andrevan @ 00:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You speak to me as if I was an editor interested in pushing a view in the article, but my concern here is only to make sure that there is no attitude that discourages discussions in this PdD. We should not warn editors regarding a specific rule in advance, because there are so many rules, some encouraging inclusions, some discouraging them and so you can create a bias in doing that. Besides, it creates a bad feeling. Please stop doing that. Honestly, I haven't even check what is WP:FRINGE. It's irrelevant.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I think this is where I leave you, as I am not involved in this discussion, I simply closed the RFC. I would advise caution with the material in the RFC as it was controversial, and there was a consensus that the inclusion was not appropriate. I am sorry if you feel that my comments are creating a bad feeling or muddying the waters as that is not my intention. The point of FRINGE might have to do with amplifying a perspective that actually isn't held by many people or reflected in many sources. I'll leave it up to the involved editors to decide if that is useful advice. Best wishes. Andrevan @ 01:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not that much involved in the discussion. Yes, I participated, but did not take position. It might only be that we have the same purpose, making sure that things go well, but focused on different aspects.  In my case, my concern was that a good discussion can happen if needed without unnecessary fear. You might see things that I do not see. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrevan, thank you for your advice and supportive response; yes, the high level of controversy gave me pause.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Continued polygamy additions
I'm not sure why, since this was settled mere days ago in the above RfC, but @Epiphyllumlover has added a paragraph of polygamist content to the lead. This not only goes against WP:LEAD ("significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"), it also runs afoul of WP:ONUS and the RfC. Up above, Epiphyllumlover said If anyone feels inclined to try and get me punished over this RfC, before you go and file a complaint against me.... When reading that I thought, "Why would anyone bring this to admin attention?" After the recent addition espousing fringe commentary on the subject, however, I'm seeing where administrator action may be needed (perhaps a topic ban?). What are other editor's thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The text you reverted, which hadn't been part of the RfC, was:
 * On July 26, 2022, Representative Mike Gallagher stated that the text of the legislation would require federal recognition for marriages with more than two individuals, should someday a state legalize marriages between three or more people. He thought this could possibly happen someday, and had voted against the bill.[ref1] A representative for the Human Rights Campaign supported the bill, stating that conservatives were making "nonsensical accusations" and that their fears "have not come to pass since marriage equality began in 2005, and there's no legitimate reason to suspect that they ever will."[ref2]


 * The sources were this 1a, this 1b, and this 1c. Reference 1b was copied to other at least three papers. If the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which has an allsides.com bias rating of "center" can write about this, why not use it here?


 * The recent content satisfies the Undue concerns, because previously the previous additions were...


 * ...the "opinion of a journalist and not something actually in the text". This is not the opinion of a journalist, it is a statement of fact by a Representative who parsed the text of the bill and explained what it meant.


 * ..."Fringe slippery slope mongering based on opinion columns and low quality sources." Now, there are better sources. A major metro daily owned by the Gannett Company, citing a legislator parsing the text of legislation is not that. Also, Gallagher specifically rejected slippery slope concerns; he doesn't believe in the slippery slope concerns like some conservatives do. Instead of slippery slope, he was looking at cause-and-effect.


 * Also, the recent content satisfies Fringe, because I have been unable to find any reliable sources on either side of the political spectrum which say that the text of the bill forbids marriages of three or more people. The opposing view to Gallagher's parsing of the text isn't that the bill can't require the federal recognition of polygamy, it is that such recognition won't happen because states won't legalize it. So Gallagher's analysis about what the text of the bill entails is not fringe.


 * In response to "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", I am willing to move it to a new section for "Mike Gallagher comments", "Congressional comments and responses", "Support and opposition", or something else that might be suitable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Epiphyllumlover, I'm not sure why you are so adamant information on polygamy appears in this article. It was discussed at length in the RfC, and it is completely UNDUE, as many editors have stated above. If the information is added back, I will be requesting a topic ban from this information and article for you. --Kbabej (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not have enough evidence here to ban anyone. What I see is that  Epiphyllumlover is willing to discuss and that he took into account what was said. He seems not to be aware of all rules, such as the rule that the lead should be a summary of content in the body of the article, but that is certainly not material for a ban. Assume good faith applies very much here. It's not admins that are needed at this time, but more editors interested in the subject, because this would only help to create more balance. But editors will not come if there are talks of ban without any serious evidence of continuous disruptive edits. This being said, you might see things that I do not see. I am not judging you. I am only responding in terms of what I see.  Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair assessment, @Dominic Mayers, but I think administrator action will be needed if the material is added back. It's been thoroughly discussed above, and at this point it seems to be just a failure to "get the point" (see WP:ICANTHEARYOU). The material is obviously contentious, was excluded with the RfC, and ONUS has been pointed out multiple times. If the editor is not willing to listen to community consensus or try to gain new consensus before adding back, I think a topic ban would be completely appropriate. I am not the arbiter of those, of course, but I'm happy to open the discussion if the disruptive editing continues. --Kbabej (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I have opened a discussion at WP:AN. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At Administrators%27_noticeboard, I left a note saying that I thought it would be best for everyone as a whole to postpone these proceedings until after the bill is passed, or until after Congress adjourns for August.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

the bill passed
The bill just passed the senate a few minutes ago, 62 votes to 37, with 12 republicans joining all democrats in voting for the act. 73.51.146.248 (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * What got voted on was the motion to cloture. It hasn't officially passed yet.
 * However, I definitely think a legislative voting map should be added once it is completed. (Something like this.) KlayCax (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Legislative history House/Senate map request
Would anyone will willing to upload a legislative history map for the House of Representatives and Senate for this bill? (Similar to how the Affordable Care Act article has one.)

Thanks, KlayCax (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Should it be called bipartisan?
Most of the republican party opposes it. I don't think means both parties are cooperating. The big parsely (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly take trouble with it being called "bipartisan" in the very first sentence; I don't think there's much precedent for doing so, looking at other major bipartisan bills (Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) it's mentioned later in the lead. That makes intuitive sense to me: we should define a bill by its contents and effects, not by its supporters. So I've removed it. Ovinus (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Grammer issue
There is a grammer problem on the house vote to agree to senate amendment, but I can't seem to fix it. If someone else could, it would be a huge help LordEnma8 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I fixed the capitalization, which is what I assume you're talking about. The grammar is fine, I think. Ovinus (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"strong majority"?
The lead states that a "strong majority" of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage. However the polling data provided later in the article has hovered around 60% for the past few years. This is not and should not be interpreted as a significant majority. It's a definite majority but hardly enough to be characterized as strong. Simply stating "a majority of Americans" without any adjectives would be sufficient. 2600:8801:710E:7E00:452F:D4D2:F4F0:8A1D (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Multiple polls from recent years show support for same-sex marriage hovering around 70%, not 60%. And 70% is undoubtedly a very strong majority, especially given how devisive the issue was just a decade or two ago. Guycn2 (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and the Law
— Assignment last updated by Fbodine (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)