Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive 10

Bible citations in religious arguments section

 * The statement "Other passages are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and in the New Testament of the Bible, First Corinthians 6:8-10 and Romans 1:24-27, although none of these outright define marriage in a purely heterosexual way" seems misleading to me. What of Matthew 19:3-6:

55 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The reference here ("Have ye not read") is to Genesis 2:24. Mark 10:2-9 covers the same ground, and all these would seem to me to be defining marriage in a purely heterosexual way. Without entering into debate on the merits of gay marriage in violation of the guidelines for this page, I will mention that I am myself gay and not a Christian, and, unsurprisingly, in favour of full marriage rights for gay people. That doesn't mean that I want to see Wikipedia making an assertion which to me clearly leaves out relevant matter and is, in effect, not factual. In view of the controversy surrounding the subject and, seemingly, the page, I thought I would raise a query rather than make an edit. Apologies if it has been raised before, but none of the subject headings seemed to indicate that it had.

86.163.173.224 (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interpreting primary sources in any way on Wikipedia constitutes WP:Original Research. We would need to cite a secondary source from the so-called "Traditional Marriage Movement" interpreting Biblical sources to include theological claims.--Agnaramasi (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This could be a useful link.
http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf Outlines non-religious arguments on the topic.

--69.234.222.230 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think that those arguments would be useful for inclusion in the article, why aren't they being included? In addition, they haven't included all right-wing arguments against seeing interracial marriage as parallel to gay marriage. For example, one can make a case for interracial marriage using the Bible, while one can make a case against homosexual acts using the Bible. Examples of successful interracial marriages are Joseph and that Egyptian, Ruth the Moabite and Boaz the Israelite, and the Song of Solomon. In addition, Jesus never condemned Samaritans, who are Israelites mixed with something else. --69.234.194.85 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "But I do not believe that we should change the definition of marriage to include same-sex

couples. My reasons go to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that represents, symbolizes and protects the inherently reproductive human relationship. I believe that society needs such an institution." Hmm, that may be all that may be able to be worked into the article. While we're on the topic, maybe you should care to add this? http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/netherlandsstatement.cfm These are the devastating results of legalizing gay marriage in the Netherlands. Judging by what I have heard from my relatives in Canada, gay marriage increases taxes as well.--69.234.227.131 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are not the 'devastating results of legalizing gay marriage' in the Netherlands, but the results of cultural changes, period, over the last three decades: a widening gap between rich and poor, confusion over social roles for men and women, more people becoming educated at the university level than in the past, concerns over overpopulation and the environment, etc. I'm not entirely sure making gay marriage illegal would change any of this. Anyway, a more informative summary of arguments against gay marriage here: http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23914 demivisage (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an opinion piece written by a college junior, with no actual statistics or verifiable conclusions. Dayewalker (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Amusingly I noticed that one of the Dutch academics is called 'van Loon'. I wasn't sure whether you were being ironic or not in referring to your Canadian relatives? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Etiquette
I have removed the comment about same-sex couple surnames from the bottom of the page. It adds nothing to the page and is an unverifiable comment. I push for it to stay removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.37.24.95 (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems an odd deletion as forms of address for same sex married couples seems relevant to gay marriage and is verified by reference to the Washington Post of 2004. I have undone this deletion as the rationale for deletion is so unclear. Ashley VH (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to first comment's note, the section is highly opinion based and does noy flow with the body of the text. Removed it again.--Ignatiusantioch (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal status

 * Canada and Spain are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. Other nations all have residency requirements that apply to same-sex marriage that do not apply to opposite-sex marriage.

This doesn't seem to be in agreement with Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, which says:


 * Same-sex marriages are fully equivalent to opposite-sex marriages in the Netherlands with one restriction relating to adoption of children. [...]

Which is correct? René van Buuren (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are. The Netherlands is not exactly the same, due to the restriction on adoption. Jeffpw (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't have extra residency requirements, does it? "Other nations all have residency requirements [...]" René van Buuren (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and in Holland at least one partner has to have citizenship or be a resident. It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but that's the long and short of it. The page on marriage did not make a distinction between male-female marriage and same-sex marriage, so I would think it is the same rule for both. The only clear difference is the adoption requirement, but that would still make it different than Canada and Spain, where it is exactly the same. Perhaps the article needs to be somewhat differently worded for clarity, but the thrust seems clear and accurate to me. I'll delete ther word "residency". If anyone objects, feel free to revert me. Jeffpw (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that only Canada, Spain and soon South Africa grant the same "legal status" to same sex couples is technically not true. The legal status of same sex couples is exactly the same as opposite sex couples in at least the Netherlands and Belgium while the respective couples are inside the country; however, the so-called "residency requirements" are not directly imposed by either of these countries; rather, the resulting restriction is a result of the function of international private law whereby the Dutch and Belgian IPL only allows citizens of those countries which would recognize the marriage to marry. This is not in any way a restriction only to same sex couple, rather a restriction to all couples who cannot marry in their countries of citizenship. For example, a citizen of Canada can marry a citizen of Belgium in the Netherlands, as the IPR of the Netherlands only requires that EITHER the countries of the parties allow the marriage OR the parties be residents of the Netherlands. This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.96.229 (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is no real "restriction" here. I would like to add that since 2004, it is sufficient that one of the spouses has tree months' residence in Belgium to be able to marry there even if the country whose nationality a spouse has does not permit gay marriage. Sigur (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Maps
Who created those maps? The data is incorrect. There is no seperation between Church and state in many of the European nations and thus are opposed to the idea. WHoever labeled those nations orange is showing their bias on the issue.Thright (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you perhaps make your objections more specific? I didn't notice any particular inconsistencies, and nothing seemed obviously false. Is the "orange" you refer to on the maps or the table headings? Are there any particular instances where you know the data to be incorrect? Zahnrad (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * please READ subject line. WP:soapbox, maps are self created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 07:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I did read the subject line. Would you please re-read WP:SOAP and tell me how the creation of a map to represent data in a table falls into that category? I don't quite see the connection, but maybe I'm just missing it. I also would recommend reading WP:CIV if you have not done so, as it's pretty important to maintain civility. Zahnrad (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * :) answered on your talk page. I did not mean to sound rude.  SorryThright (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issue was resolved. I noticed you removed the maps from the article, but I don't think everybody agrees that this action is fair.  I followed your conversations around, and it seems like you ended the conversation with "I'm not interest in pushing this at the momment."   Any thoughts?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not restore the maps because I did not want to risk breaking the 3RR, and I was pretty sure my view would be the consensus one, so I expected that someone else would restore them (which they did). I do agree that sources should be indicated, but I think that obviously the fact that the maps are self-created is not a reason to delete them.Zahnrad (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just saw the edit summary for the most recent removal, and it doesn't make much sense to me. What I got out of the discussion (which was largely between two people, which I'm pretty sure isn't enough for consensus) was not that the maps do not meet "wiki standards" and should be deleted. My impression was that Thright thought they should be removed but was not going to pursue it further, because he didn't think it was a big enough issue.Zahnrad (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see another problem with the map. The legend says "red = same sex marriage banned". This seems nonsense, as either the laws allow for same sex marriage (violet) or they don't (everything else). If they do not allow for it, you cannot say it is banned - it just doesn't exist. SSM is no more banned in Poland than it is in Germany - it just doesn't exist.
 * Also, both the European and the US map should conform in regard what the colours mean - the current state makes it quite confusing.

Str1977 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Banned means the state constitution explicitly bans it, instead of not mentioning it at all. The difference is if a SSM case is made to the court, and it isn't banned, the court can rule a local ban on marriage unconstitutional. MantisEars (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

California
The California Supreme Court won't be in effect until next month. We should wait until same-sex marriage licenses are legally granted in California before saying that same-sex marriage is legal there. NoIdeaNick (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Same-sex marriage is not yet legal in California. To quote from the LA Times "Paul Drugan, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder, said the county was not immediately granting same-sex marriage licenses, noting that the court's decision would take effect in 30 days." NoIdeaNick (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, since for non-lawyers, the edit here is very hard to understand, there is euphoria everywhere since they thought it to be a done deal. But it is not: split decision 4-3. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruling is not yet final until 30 days
Lest non-lawyers readers be misled, the court decision 4-3, is not yet final, since it is highly divided, and one vote can change. So, under CA rules, an appeal or motion can be filed withing 30 days to stay it, and after May 15, as of now, no marriage can still be held pending the finality. Besides the November ballot might reverse or avoid this ruling by Constitutional amendment. I am a lawyer/judge, and our Philippine laws were copied from California federal rules of service. I repeat, just one vote can can change the 4-3 judgment. So I added this: Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that reversed interracial marriages ban, the Republican-dominated California Supreme Court, (in a 4-3 ruling, penned by Chief Justice Ronald George) struck down California's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar voter-approved 2000 law (passed with 61%). The judgment is not final, for the ruling can be reconsidered upon filing of appeal or motion within 30 days, as the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, inter aila, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. If the court denies the plea, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days. The 2006 census figures indicate that, California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households.news.yahoo.com, California's top court legalizes gay marriage Same-sex marriage opponents announced, however, that they gathered 1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to define marriage as between a man and woman, to effectively annul the decision.nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling --Florentino floro (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are a judge who also claims to be a psychic. Anyhow, I think it's highly unlikely that any of the justices will change their mind. Certainly, it is possible (although unlikely) that a stay will be granted, but it seems almost impossible that the opinion will be changed. Supreme court rulings are pretty much final.


 * Hmmm.... 108,734 households means that's a minimum of 217,468 people, and this figure does not include the people who aren't registered, who are LGBT but are single or who didn't reveal the nature of their living arrangements on the last census. Furthermore, 1.1 million signatures is rather insignificant considering that my state has over 38 million people. This would mean that less than 0.03% of the people here bothered to sign. California is a heavily Democratic state, bluest of the blues, so I find it highly unlikely that the amendment would pass, and if it did, it would not take much to repeal it, as one only needs a simple majority to amend our constitution through initiative process. Those backing such a hateful amendment had better be careful, since elevating this situation to the status of a constitutional amendment would possibly mean that this would be appealed to the federal district court level, which for us would be the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has the most liberal record in the nation. It could mean not only the amendment being rejected, but other amendments passed in neighboring states could be struck down also. That would then cause an uproar that might push this matter to the United States Supreme Court, which could invalidate all of the other hateful amendments across the nation on the basis that they violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 76.171.53.59 (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find the census figure of same-sex households anywhere in the Yahoo! story. Did the writer mean to say figures from 2006 Federal income tax returns, because the United States Census is held every ten years; the last census was held in 2000, and the next census will be held in 2010. Any help clarifying this greatly appreciated. Kinkyturnip (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Final on June 16? What about appeal to USA S.C.
I am a bit excited but am also wondering, why all these news, failed to include possible appeal the the USA S. Court, to enjoin the June 16 effectivity of this 4-3 ruling. At any rate, it is like the Big Brown Triple Crown, 30 years since Affirmed, affair this June 7, and with bated breath, the whole American racing nation could not wait, for this race and for this CA ruling to be final: In a one-page Resolution, the California Supreme Court on June 4, 2008 forthwith denied all petitions for rehearing and to reconsider the May 15 ruling, as it removed the final obstacle to same-sex marriages starting on June 17. It further rejected moves to delay enforcement of the decision until after the November election, when voters will decide whether to reinstate a ban on same-sex nuptials. Chief Justice Ronald George and Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno, voted for the resolution, while dissenting or voting to reconsider the judgment, were Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan.chicagotribune.com, Calif. court refuses to stall gay marriageThe judgment stated: “The decision filed on May 15, 2008, will become final on June 16, 2008, at 5 p.m.” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that marriages would be held “5:01” on June 16.nytimes.com, Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriageslatimes.com, California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage ... But for the benefit of those against gay marriage, there is little hope: "Both sides expect the fall campaign to be expensive and hard fought. The ballot initiative, which was certified by the secretary of state this week after supporters submitted more than one million signatures, would amend the state’s Constitution to define marriage in California as “between a man and a woman.” A Field poll in late May found that 51 percent of registered voters in the state favored the right of same-sex couples to marry, with 42 percent opposed."(NYT) --Florentino floro (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Florentiono--To answer your question--it is my understanding from discussing the matter with a couple local lawyers that SCOTUS appeal isn't on the board, that the CA SC decision relies entirely on the California Constitution and law, and therefore an appeal to SCOTUS is entirely unavailable. I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like an appeal to the US Supreme Court is entirely off the table.   But we should return to focusing on what should and shouldn't be in the article.   --Joe Decker (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)  (Updated a few minutes later to clarify ambiguous wording.)

It is actually legal, the status of which could change in the future as noted. The window for a stay does not invalidate the ruling, no matter how unanimous or closely split. A stay only means a delay in the access, not a reversal of the legality. This will be moot in a few days anyway.Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

California Bans Same Sex Marriage?
With the 2008 election came the option for California to ban same sex marriage, now does it look like this is going to pass? The last I heard it seemed likely.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * At this time, Yes on Proposition 8 leading. However, the results have not yet been certified by California's Attorney General and so cannot be reported. Also, several lawsuits have been filed to have Prop 8 declared a "revision" of the California Constitution, which can only be done by an act of the state Legislature, and not an "amendment," which can be done by petition and popular vote; it is likely that the result of the Prop 8 vote will be suspended until the courts can review these lawsuits. TechBear (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Handling of divorces
If you type in a search for "Gay divorce", you won't get what you expect. It would be interesting if someone can find information on how these divorces are handled. Are they all given to a specific family court judge? Do the state-by-state variations in the U.S. create ways that people use to "game the system" to get a more desirable outcome? Can people in a gay marriage file for divorce in a state that does not recognize it? In cases of child custody does the biological father or mother have a strong assurance of winning? There's all sorts of stuff that should be coming out now. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. "Gay Divorce" is, of course, the title of a marvelous Cole Porter show, renamed The Gay Divorcee when it went to film....Your questions are good ones; I've not seen any reliable sources discuss the issue, and there's probably not much case law yet regarding it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In Massachusetts, dissolutions of same-sex marriages would be just like dissolutions of opposite-sex marriages and would be handled in the same courts. States that with statutes or constitutional provisions saying same-sex marriages are not "recognized" in the state certainly won't grant same-sex divorces. Since divorce is a creature of statute and since divorce statutes are often part of the marriage statute, courts will likely say they don't have jurisdiction to grant divorces to same-sex couples. That is what happened in Rhode Island. Chambers v. Ormiston, 935 A.2d 956 (R.I. 2007). -Rrius (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Having been involved in the litigation of a couple gay divorces (as the lawyer, not the spouse, oy), I can say that there's more than enough information out there for articles on Same-sex divorce in Massachusetts and Same-sex divorce generally. There's case law and commentary on child custody issues specific to LGBT parents, federal tax issues (the IRS, as a federal agency, does not recognize same-sex marriages in MA), difficulties in separating 401(k)s and other retirement plans (again, ERISA and the IRS don't recognize same-sex marriages), whether courts will recognize a couple that has been together for 20 years but only married since Goodridge as a "long term marriage", plus all the cross-state issues others have mentioned above.  Fireplace (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I created a stub article on same-sex divorce. Feel free to add to it.--agr (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed text
I have removed this text from the article:


 * Another argument in favor of traditional marriage is that it reflects the biological imperative and construct between males and females; that despite the natural desire to procreate, there is also a biological desire to mate with the opposite gender. Hence the fundamental differences between males and females as seen as natural as the XX chromosomes of the female, and the XY chromosomes of the male, are reflected in the social structure of traditional marriage; and such exists such independently of religion or social prejudice.

because, per WP:BURDEN, "[t]he burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation[.]" The reference given is not from a reliable source (as has been pointed out in edit summaries, the home page is currently an advertisement for a hosting company, and this is some random self-published page off the site), and if we ignore the reference, then it is not appropriate to include at all, because all claims must be verifiable.

If someone actually makes this argument, cite their writings in a reliable, published source and it will be included. Until then, it shouldn't be. — confusionball (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi confusionball. I have heard this argued many times, sometimes with different terminology, but always the same argument from many people. It would have been preferable to find a source rather than simply removing the text. In any case, I would ask that you restore it with the following sources: http://media.www.ramcigar.com/media/storage/paper366/news/2004/03/17/Editorialopinion/Gay-Marriage.Is.Unnatural-634712.shtml, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3108349.stm (see unnatural). The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I should make clear (since it's not clear above) that this was actually a reversion of an attempt to add this text to the article, not extant text that I removed — although I would have done that as well. Anyway, you may have heard this argument before because it is policy (WP:V). I don't believe it is too much to ask that all claims made, especially over such a contentious issue as this, be supplied with references. (Of course, this article still has a way to go in that area.) Regardless, this text was indeed added after an editor attached a real reference to it. Cheers! — confusionball (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Norway
In one week, June 11th, a bill that recognizes same-sex marriages in Norway is expected to be passed. These are the changes made to the current law:

Marriages between two persons of the same sex will be recognized

The state church will be given the right, but not be required to marry two persons of the same sex.

The civil unions law will be removed, and it will be possible but not necessary to change registered civil unions to marriages.

Same-sex spouses will be given the same right to be evaluated as adoptive parents as other spouses.

Lesbian couples who are married or living together under marriage-like circumstances will be given the same right to be evaluated for artificial insemination as heterosexual couples.

However, the law is expected to first be in effect from 2009. Should the information be added after the bill has been passed or after the law is in effect? Harepusbrenning (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight for US in current status section?
There is rather a lot of detail here. We could for instance start a new article about same-sex marriage in the United States, and shorten this section.

Also, is it really true, as the box at the top claims, that New York recognizes foreign same-sex marriages but not ones from California or Massachusetts? That seems really strange.

Anticipated demand in the United Kingdom
Is that paragraph really necessary? I think it would be better off phrased somewhere in the article with other recognizations instead of having its own paragraph and bold header. Pieuvre (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it completely. It sits odd - best dealt with on the UK page. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

First gay marriages in Greece
Why isn't Greece among the countries allowing same sex marriage?

Didn't you hear the news?

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15473&t=Greece%3A+gay+marriage+in+the+land+of+Sappho

Should I prepare a paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgios.delft (talk • contribs) 12:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably not. See Template_talk:Same-sex_unions MantisEars (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a mistake. The marriages are still valid and registered. No prosecution took place. I personally know one of the guys who got married. Georgios.delft (talk • contribs)14:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC);
 * Prepare a paragraph, then. MantisEars (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess this paragraph can go at the end of "Current status": In Greece, the gay and lesbian rights organisations have discovered a loophole in the law of 1982, which defines the Civil Marriage. No requirement over the gender is mentioned in the law, which just refers to the couple-to-be as "persons". That means that the same law applies for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. On 3 June 2008, the mayor of Tilos, Anastasios Aliferis, married two homosexual couples, two lesbians and two gay men, citing the legal loophole. He was heavily criticized by clergymen of the Church of Greece, which in the past had also opposed the introduction of heterosexual Civil Marriage, the original intent of the 1982 law. Justice Minister Sotirios Hatzigakis declared the Tilos marriages "invalid" and Supreme Court prosecutor Georgios Sanidas warned Mayor Aliferis of the legal repercussions of his "breach of duty", but he said he had "no intention of annulling the marriages".

And we can move Greece from "Recognition debated" to the top with the rest 6 countries ("Same-sex maariage") and change the map.Georgios.delft (talk Georgios.delft (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC);

Agreed! The artical states that same sex marriage is legal in Greece. I dont see why it should'nt be moved? Azcolvin429 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG! it's huge!
OK, made you look! This article is quite large and possibly the easiest split would be to give the entire "controversy section" (a new name and) its own article. Banje boi 20:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article could be shorter. Frankly, much of the "Controversy" section is centered on the US. It could be pared down rather easily; if necessary, text could be transferred to Same-sex marriage in the United States or an new article covering debate in the US. -Rrius (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Having come across this article for the first time I really find it quite hard to navigate. There's a lot of repetition and much of the material might be better off in other articles (ie marriage in the US etc). I think we need to do a bit of work to make this a bit punchier and sharper and not just make it US focused. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage photos
1. The current picture at the top of the article (Image:Hendricks-leboeuf.jpg) isn't that informative of an illustration of same-sex marriage. It's basically just a kiss between two males; it doesn't really convey a "wedding ceremony" to me. 2. Image:Weddinginholland.jpg (which is a good illustration of a wedding ceremony) is relegated to halfway down the "Civil unions and partnerships" section. This strikes me as strange, because the picture is of a marriage, not a civil union or partnership. It doesn't fit there.

Therefore, I suggest replacing Image:Hendricks-leboeuf.jpg with Image:Weddinginholland.jpg, so that Image:Weddinginholland.jpg (which better illustrates same-sex marriage) is at the top. Image:Hendricks-leboeuf.jpg, which doesn't convey "marriage" much, just "kissing", could be moved to Kiss or wherever else it's appropriate. Any objections? -kotra (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with point one; it seems clear to me that it is at a same-sex wedding. All the same, the image quality is rather poor, so I would support its removal. -Rrius (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and made the replacement. -kotra (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly no objection from me; it was my weddding, after all :-) Jeffpw (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits re California march
An editor added a blurb to the "Controversy" section about a march being planned for November. The first problem is that it was placed in a paragraph discussing LGBT groups that oppose same-sex marriage, but is not itself clear whether the march by "GLBT" groups is in support of or in opposition to same-sex marriage. Further, inclusion of the text seems to me to make an already excessively US-centered section even more so. For these reasons, I have reverted the edits. -Rrius (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Coquille tribe in Oregon permits same-sex marriage
They are not subject to the Oregon Constitution. I'm not sure where in this suite of articles it belongs, but it's today's news: -- Evertype·✆ 20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

tribes, first nations, aboriginal communities throughout the world
Are there other aboriginal communities debating same sex marriage? Could Coquille be included in the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.175.17 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

need more info
Hello everybody ..

My boyfriend and i wish to get marry soon. He is Finnish and i'm an Asian .. I will be the person who relocate to Europe

My question is : Can we get marry in somewhere else such in South Africa or New Zealand or somewhere which marriage/partnership is legalised outside from Europe country and then register our partnership/marriage in Finland ? Is that possible ?

Anyone have the info where, how and what do we need ?

Really need help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ts shiera (talk • contribs) 09:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to sound a party-pooper but wikipedia unfortunately isn't the forum for such questions. You might be best speaking to a lawyer or LGBT advisory group. But wishing you the best anyway. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of same-sex relationships to same-sex marriage
Much of the discussion about same-sex marriages stem from discussion about same-sex relationships in general. For example, the history section includes the sentence "Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton." The Christian opposition section states "Some Biblical scholars interpret Genesis 19:5 as indicating that homosexual behavior led to the destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah." Likewise under Christian acceptance it says "Some moderate and liberal Christians claim, however, that Biblical passages concerning homosexual behavior are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts." I believe discussion about same-sex relationships is crucial to this article. Perhaps we can have a small section with a link to same-sex relationship. It can include something like "Same-sex relationships have existed throughout human history. Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton. Research has found same-sex and opposite-sex couples to be equivalent to each other on measures of relationship satisfaction and commitment...  Some Biblical scholars interpret Genesis 19:5 as indicating that homosexual behavior led to the destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but more moderate and liberal Christians claim, however, that Biblical passages concerning homosexual behavior are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts." and so on. Of course, this only an idea. The flow still needs to be worked on. Taking these sections out of the religious sections and elsewhere will free up those sections so they can focus on same-sex marriages while still dealing with the the very crucial discussion about same-sex relationships in its own section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay marriage listings
I have started a discussion here, that needs more input, regarding removing the Coquille Indian Tribe (Oregon) as a place where marriage is legal. It is not a state, and is giving undue weight to the tribe, and regarding it on the same level as a state or country.  C t j f 8 3 Talk 23:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Section on need for a father and a mother
Science has shown the unique contributions that only a father can give a child and the unique contributions that only a mother can give. There is no "claiming". It is fact. Opponents often refer to these studies. This is not synthesis, it is the crux of the argument. These studies need to be in there and presented as facts, just like studies of how the divorce rate in heterosexual couples drop after allowing same-sex marriages are presented as fact. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "There is no "claiming." It is a fact" - you seem not to understand our WP:NPOV policy which is non-negotiable. Wikipedia presents verifiable views, not truth.  Opponents refer to these studies?  Okay, provide citations for the books or articles in which they refer to those studies - that can go in without violating WP:NOR.  Or find an article in a scientific journal in which the scientist uses his or her research to argue that same-sex marriage is bad.  You seem to have your own beliefs about what is true.  You cannot use this article to forward those beliefs.  Calling them "facts" is beside the point; the only "fact" is that some people make these claims; it is also a fact that other people reject these claims. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand. Don't jump on me here, but I'm trying to figure out why the studies don't belong.  In other words, I understand why we can't put "opponents refer to the studies that prove X", but we can put "Studies prove X" using the studies themselves as a reference (as long as we remove any conclusions).  Maybe (like you said in the next section), it's because they don't specifically refer to same-sex marriage?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, editors can never put their own views into articles. All our core policies - NPOV, V and NOR - say that we need to provide notable views from verifiable sources.  If the view is itself an argument, it is a violation of WP:SYNTH for an editor to take elements of the argument and string them together.  That is what this article did, by having sources saying that children need both their mothers and their fathers, and then putting those sources in a section explaining an argument against gay marriage.  Look, if those sources actually said in their conclusions that they therefore recommend against gay marriage (or a gay couple having children), there would be no problem: we would be citing the source that makes the argument.  But these sources do not make the argument.  That means it is the Wikipedia editors who are making the argument and this is forbidden.  I realize it may seem obvious to someone that if person x does research that reveals the importance of a father to children, then this means that there is a problem with two women rearing a child.  But it is not obvious and it is not our job as editors to second-guess the researcher.  It is possible that the researcher may have a set of reasons for supporting same-sex couples rearing children.  I can think of various situations where this is imaginable.  But the bottom line is, we aren't supposed to imagine these things.  If a source says "x then y" we can include it.  But a Wikipedia editor cannot provide a source saying "x" and then just add - the editor's view "then y."  That is what WP:SYNTH is all about! Your suggestion to remove the conclusion makes things even worse - it only further misrepresents the view being presented in the source!  Wikipedia is about verifiable claims, not truth.  But if we include a view in an article, we need to represent that view accurately.  To put this research in this article, out of context, misrepresents the views of the researchers by attributing to them views they themselves did not express. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. However, we might want to wait until Joshuajohanson replies before we move on.  Just because I agree doesn't necessarily mean that he does.  Also, try not to come on too strong :)  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. I have started to add the appropriate sources showing opponents of same-sex marriage using these studies to argue against same-sex marriage.  I'll work on expanding that. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that flies. The opponent-sources very obviously have an extremist point of view (rendering them unreliable), and the wording used made their claims sound credible. Now, I'm not saying they are or aren't, but the neutral point of view, specifically the section on undue weight forbids the promotion of views that are not discussed by reliable sources. They do not need to be discussed positively, or with any judgement at all, in fact. They just need to be discussed, and the content must honestly report the RS's take on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliability depends largely on what the sources are being used for. I agree that these sources cannot be used to represent the "scientific" point of view.  But they can be used to represent the point of view (beliefs) of people opposed to same-sex marriage.  This is standard practice at Wikipedia.  For example, we use creationist sources to document and explain the views of creationists.  Even if these sources are rejected by all mainstream evolutionary scientists, we do not reject them as "unreliable."  They are not reliable sources on evolution, but they are reliable sources on creationism.  It is not for us to judge whether people opposed to (or in favor of) same sex marriage are right or wrong.  We need to include both views.  And sources by/from those opposed to same sex marriage are reliable sources on what people opposed to same-sex marriage believe. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We actually don't need to include, as it is important not to conflate notability and significance. Intelligent design should have an article on Wikipedia, but it should not be mentioned on Evolution. However, the argument in question is likely both, since it's a fairly common one. The argument is probably OK here, but it needs to remain very clear who is making which claims, as the sources at present really only let us call them opinions. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The scientific studies themselves aren't biased, they simply represent facts. It is the application of those studies towards arguments for or against same-sex marriage that is opinion and should be represented as an opinion.  In this case, it is scientifically proven fact that children do better when raised by an active father and mother in a low-conflict marriage.  However, the application of the fact towards arguments against same-sex marriage is an opinion, and are represented as such.  This is similar to the equality section, which states as a fact that "there are at least 1,138 federal laws in which marital status is a factor."  There isn't debate there.  However, it is an opinion that "A denial of rights or benefits without substantive due process directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides for equal protection of all citizens."  The opinion is represented as an opinion by saying "assert the proponents of same-sex marriage", though I think that could be cleaned up. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"it is scientifically proven fact that children do better when raised by an active father and mother in a low-conflict marriage. However, the application of the fact towards arguments against same-sex marriage is an opinion, and are represented as such." This statement is vague because it is not explicit about "better" than what - but if you mean "better than same-sex parents," well, no. This is not an established fact, it is something scientists continue to debte and the article you just removed actually reaches the opposite conclusion, so this is a contested claim, not a "proven fact." According to the review article you once used but recently removed, most scientists claim that their data shows that children of heterosexual parents do not do any better than children of same-sex couples. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is not scientifically proven fact that children do better when raised by an active father and mother in a low-conflict marriage than by same-sex parents. That is the opinion presented by opponents of same-sex marriage.  What is scientifically proven is that children do better when raised by an active father and mother in a low-conflict marriage than children who are not raised by an active father and mother in a low-conflict marriage.  It is this scientific fact that opponents of same-sex marriage point to to express their opinion that children should be raised by a mother and a father.  I have not seen any scientific study that compares children raised by a same-sex couple in a low-conflict marriage versus opposite-sex couples in a low conflict marriage.  Most studies focus on sexual orientation, and have determined that sexual orientation does not adversely affect the children.  However, this includes children raised in homes with single mothers, where you have the same problem with a lack of an active father that you would have with two mothers.  Also, it includes LGBT people in mixed-orientation marriages. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand you now - thank you for the clarification. We just need to make sure that the article makes this point as clearly. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguments concerning children and family
It may well me that tons of opponents of same-sex marriage refer to these scientific studies. However, none of the studies I looked through specifically refer to same-sex marriage. therefore the violate WP:NOR - its pretty clear-cut. We can add sources that explicitly refer to these or other studies in order to challenge same-sex marriage. But we cannot use articles on the importance of mothers or fathers made in one context (not explicitly about same-sex marriage) to make an argument in this context. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely correct. It clearly violates WP:NOR to make the leap described by Slrubenstein.PelleSmith (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But let's not use extremist sources, as were recently added to support the SYNTH-violating material. The material needs to be presented in a neutral manner, and that does not involve making such sources sound reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you define extremist sources? Any source that disagrees with you?  These sources are at the forefront of the opposition to same-sex marriage.  They aren't extreme. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Joshua, it's WP:RS that defines sources as "extremist" or "questionable" - not users. Please read RS and Verifiability.  Slrubenstein is correct - using a source that may be tangentially relevant to a subject but is not directly about it is original research because it uses the source in an essay-style synthesis.  If the sources in question are not about same-sex marriage they do not belong here--Cailil   talk 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing what the Lutherans and Catholics think regarding gay marriage is unlikely to result in balanced anything, IMHO, unless the article is about same-sex parenting issues in the Lutheran church, etc. If you're going to liberally sprinkle the article using such sources they would have to be balance with pro-gay marriage groups who likely would state rather the opposite. It's likely better to lean on more neutral sourcing. I've seen studies that LGBT parents do a better or equal job and studies that two parents are generally better than one but I don't think I've seen any neutral studies comparing same-sex parenting vs straight counterparts showing either did much better or worse. My hunch is that smae-sex parents have a few more societal stressors and financial pressures but otherwise do about the same, I'd be willing to bet that about sums up the present research. --  Banje boi   02:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguments concerning divorce rates
It may well be that tons of supporters of same-sex marriage refer to how the number of divorces have gone down these scientific studies. However, none of the data I looked through specifically refer to same-sex marriage. therefore they violate WP:NOR - its pretty clear-cut. We can add sources that explicitly refer to these or other studies in order to support same-sex marriage. But we cannot use articles on the decline of divorces made in one context (not explicitly about same-sex marriage) to make an argument in this context. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your removal of this material. It would be good if someone found reliable sources that explicitly make the arguments - but it is not for an editor to make the case. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Stacey and Biblarz article
Joshuajohanson added a citation to an article by Stacey and Biblarz to support the claim that "the presence of a father in the home increases children's cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health." This is a major misrepresentation of the article. There aregumnt is that it is such beliefs - the prevailing belief that a normal family is headed by a heterosexual mother and father - that have led to a distortion of research on the effects of same-sex marriage on children. They conclude that children of same-sex partners have high self-esteem and show no cognitive impairment compared to children of heterosexual couples.

Wikipedia has ambitions to be a great encyclopedia. To achieve this it is not enough just to add citations to an article; we need to represent them accurately. It does great damage to the integrity of the article and the encyclopedia to see an article being used to support claims that the article not only does not make, but actually disproves. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch! I have removed the study. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It should not be removed, it should be moved to a section on scientific research on children of same-sex couples. It is directly relevant to this article since it is explicitly about the efects of same-sex marriage on children. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ecuador now has same sex marriage
The new constitution approved by atleast  two thirds of voters proposes same-sex marriage   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.135.105 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, the new constitution appears to create or allow for some sort of civil union, but it specifically states that "marriage is a union between man and woman" at article 67. -Rrius (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags
There are way too many fact tags on this page. A lot of them come to OR. They should be fixed or removed within the next couple days. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you're adding them, at the same time removing other content I suggest you hold off on the call for deleting content as such. This easily can be seen as tendentious editing. I appreciate the POV you have and it can result in bringing content more into balance but it also can be used to pull things out of balance. What I see as adding context you may see as a tangent - and vice versa. I'm quite uncomfortable with the amount of material including sources and high-quality wikilinks you are deleting. Coupled with adding fact tags and then calling for all fact tagged material to be fixed or deleted within "the next couple days" seems to counter a collaborative process and makes for a stressful environment. -- Banje boi  07:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, the fact tags I just recently added shouldn't be removed within the next couple days. I was referring to the ones that I didn't add, then I added a few.  I didn't make that clear.  I apologize.  You also have a point with the high amount of editing I am doing, I should be more patient to allow other contributors to address the concerns.  Still, some of these fact tags have been here since June. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I waited a week. Many of those tags seemed to be original research. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted content
This seems worthy of inclusion: In terms of numbers, the 2000 U.S. Census reports more than 600,000 same-sex couples (unmarried domestic partners on the Census form) in the United States. The Census Bureau estimates that this number would be over 770,000 in 2005. While a post-Census study by UCLA economist Dr. M.V. Lee Badgett found that there was a significant undercount of same-sex couples in 2000, the Census reports that among the couples answering they are a same-sex couple, one-third of lesbian couples and one-fifth of gay male couples have children under 18 living in the home. It seems well sourced as well. -- Banje <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#CC0000">oi 06:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think with a little bit of work it could be included. It is well sourced, but the application to same-sex marriage is unclear.  I think what whoever added this content wants to imply was that same-sex marriage would affect more than 600,000 same-sex couples in the US.  It is with this point I disagree, since many gay activists are against same-sex marriage and there is no telling how many of those 600,000 couples would want a same-sex marriage even if it were offered to them.  The percentage of same-sex couples who are married in places where it is legal is extremely small compared to that of opposite sex couples, and those that do get married have a higher divorce rate, which supports the argument that many same-sex couples would not benefit from making same-sex marriage available.  I think this is a very important point to make, but we need to find reliable sources that make that point for us, rather than just quoting numbers of same-sex couples in the US and assume everyone knows how same-sex marriage will affect same-sex couples.  Again, it is not the facts themselves that I disagree with nor the relevance to the article.  It is how they are presented which I believe violates WP:SYNTH.  I made the same mistake with adding information about how children need both a father and a mother without finding a source that ties that to same-sex marriage. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Joshua, I reverted some citations from you because (having looked them up) it seemed to me that you were citing only parts of the abstracts which seemed to support a POV that SSM was detrimental. Since the quotations you took from those citations were not balanced, it does not seem to me that these were encyclopaedic. -- Evertype·✆ 07:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the checks and balances of Wikipedia. I have rewritten the section to include more citations to support SSM, such as the conclusion that children without fathers spend more time with their mothers. Hopefully, that will bring more balance. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Flaged NPOV
The article structure and its contents lack a neutral point of view. The article consists of points of the opposition with the occasional embedded rebuttal. The article needs to be organized to be balanced. <font color="#808080">Phantom85 <sup style="color:#808080;">Communicate /<sub style="color:#808080;">Hauntings 06:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "points of the opposition"? The intent of the article is surely to explain what same-sex marriage is and what the different views of it are. Would you be able to provide specific examples of a lack of neutrality? Sunray (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorely tempted to remove the POV tag. It's not that I disagree, it's that I have little basis on which to disagree because the complaint is so vague. Maybe I'm just being overly whiny because this is one of my pet peeves, but I think if you want to claim there is a POV problem, or any problem that induces you to put a dispute tag at the top of the article, you need to be specific about your complaints. Are you really saying the whole article is problematic, or just the "Controversy" section and its subparts? If it is the latter, move the tag to that section, bring specifics here, and make some suggestions for improvement. If it is the former, it is even more imperative that you bring those suggestions here as that is most unexpected. -Rrius (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rrius, and I have some additional thoughts. The article -- unlike some other articles on Wikipedia that deal with controversial issues -- actually does present both sides of the debate.  While that may be unpalatable to some, it is not POV.  In fact, until some good work was recently done on the article by Joshuajohanson and others, I felt that the article was a bit POV in the opposite direction.  I think the tag is uncalled-for.

SCBC (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Phantom 85 has failed to provide any examples to support the "neutrality" tag. Three other editors have commented and do not agree. I will remove the tag. Sunray (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The rise of Christianity led to the persecution of gays.
First of all, what does this have to do with same-sex marriage? It seems like a sympathy ploy, gays have been persecuted in the past, so therefore we should allow same-sex marriage. Second, I doubt the validity of the statement. The source is a Wikipedia article, which isn't a source. All it seems to be saying is the rise of Christianity coincided with laws against gay sex. This isn't necessarily against people with a homosexual orientation, since many catamites were unwilling sex slaves. It might have been aimed more to protect the poor class then persecute gays. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If same-sex marriage was practiced prior to the rise of Christianity and disallowed afterward, as referenced in the History section, then documentation of the Christian church's attitudes as evidenced by its persecution of gays is historically relevant. Citation of historical documentation is valid; the fact that a reader may or may not feel sympathetic as a result does not make it a "sympathy ploy." As for the "catamite" argument, "the source is a Wikipedia article, which isn't a source." Rangergordon (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that persecution of gays was caused by a rise in Christianity. It may have simply occurred at the same time.  The reference for the statement is Violence_against_LGBT_people, which as you pointed out "the source is a Wikipedia article, which isn't a source."  The fact that a couple emperors who happened to be Christians persecuted gays does not mean that it was caused by a rise in Christianity or that it didn't exist beforehand.  It sounds like WP:SYNTH  Furthermore, you still haven't explained what persecution of gays has to do with same-sex marriage. I offered the catamite argument as a counter argument to the original research in the article.  I don't need to prove my counter argument.  The article needs to prove the original research and synthesis. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A number of health and child welfare organizations, however, disagree.
The problem paragraph reads as follows:
 * Some object on the grounds that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or raise children or to have access to reproductive technologies, and that same-sex marriage would make such arrangements easier. A number of health and child welfare organizations, however, disagree. They include the Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers

First of all, what is it that they are disagreeing with? That same-sex marriage would make arrangements easier? I don't think so, but that is how the sentence reads. I read the report, and it contains the following statement:
 * Because of this research and because exclusions based on traits other than one’s ability to be a good parent are contrary to good child welfare policy and practice, the Child Welfare League of America has issued a public statement supporting the parenting of children by lesbians and gay men, and condemning attempts to restrict competent, caring adults from serving as foster and/or adoptive parents. I am happy to report that CWLA is joined by every other major child health and welfare organization in this regard. These other organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children.

This quote does not mention anything about same-sex marriage, but only that gay men and lesbians can be good parents. Nowhere in the section did it say that gay men wouldn't be good fathers and lesbians wouldn't be good mothers. Adoption is a completely different issue, since these kids already do not have the ideal of a father and a mother. Qualifications for being married is different than qualifications for adopting a kid. Siblings can raise children together. Single people can raise children together. By saying a child should ideally be raised by a father and a mother does not indicate that single parents or same sex couples are bad parents, or even that they are worse parents than a heterosexually married couple. There are several factors on what makes good parents. However, the argument is that everything else being equal, being raised by a father and a mother is better for the children than being raised without a father or without a mother. Obviously, many children besides those raised by same-sex couples are raised without a father or a mother. However, the purpose of the state recognizing marriage is to promote the ideal, and being raised without a father or a mother is not ideal, or at least that is the argument. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The changes to this section were better, but did not suffice. I still see nowhere in the article where it says these organizations support same-sex marriage.  It simply says they support the adoption of kids.  These are two different, but related issues. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

To Do list
There are several important topics that have not been addressed yet. They play a major role in the debate on same-sex marriages. There are so many issues that haven't even been touched upon. I will work on trying to get good references to support these issues. Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The impact it will have on freedom of speech and religious freedoms
 * 2) Concerns over the tax-exempt status of churches who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman
 * 3) Concerns over lack of monogamy in same-sex relationships and the negative impact they would have on children
 * 4) Concerns over the negative health issues as it affects women in lesbian relationships (Only men are briefly talked about here)
 * 5) Concerns over school curriculum that will undermine parent authority to teach their own children about sexuality
 * 6) Concerns over the right of ex-gays to assemble and seek support from each other.
 * 7) Complaints that same-sex marriage is legalized through courts, not through popular vote.

This Article Is Not About Its Stated Topic
The vast majority of this article is about the same-sex marriage controversy, not about same-sex marriage itself. It includes ample information on arguments both for and against the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in various jurisdictions, but contains little or no information regarding such marriages in and of themselves. Yes, it's undeniable that the controversy exists--the "controversy" section makes up the bulk of the article. So perhaps this material belongs in a "Same-sex Marriage Controversy" article. As it is, editors are confusing the controversy with the subject, treating same-sex marriage as though such marriages don't exist apart from the political controversy. (Example: In Jan. 2008, a paragraph regarding forms of address for same-sex married couples, with a reference to an authoritative source published in a major periodical, was deleted on the grounds that it was "unvarifyable [sic and contraversial [sic] ]" and "adds nothing to the page." If information on how to address same-sex couples does not belong in an article on same-sex marriage, where does it belong?) However controversial they are, the existence of legally recognized marriages between same-sex couples is an undeniable fact in today's world. The main part of this article should therefore contain information on such marriages, their function in society, their relative newness, how such couples are addressed, etc. Otherwise, the name of this article should be changed to reflect the real topic. Rangergordon (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Full agreement that a split is called for on the basis of content (N.B. the intentions expressed in the previous section) as well as size, since editors are informed that "This page is [currently] 84 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Article size." Numerous other pages have "Controversy" siblings, e.g. Global warming & Global warming controversy.  --EqualRights (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur I think a split into two articles, with one fully on subject and one outlining the controversy, would be a good move. TechBear (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the split. Right now there is undue weight given to the controversy. However, I do think that even after the split a substantial chunk of the content should remain in this article, because the controversy is a very important aspect of same-sex marriage. Once there is less content related to the controversy, other sections could be expanded such as history (with information coming from subarticles), perhaps something about parenting, divorce rates, etc. A look over the general marriage article might provide good ideas. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with that. Certainly mention the controversy in the main article, but summarize it in no more than three paragraphs. Put a link at the top of the controversy subject that points to the main article of Same Sex Marriage Controversy, as was done with the History and other sections. TechBear (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, I think lots of the information in the controversy section is directly relevant to same-sex marriages, such as the high divorce rates and the fact that kids raised by a lesbian couple are more likely to perceive themselves to be less cognitively and physically competent.  This is directly related to same-sex marriage, beyond any controversy that may entail. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the history of same-sex marriage is far more important. Therefore, we should take most of the History of same-sex unions article and work it into this one, correct? If we are going to duplicate most of what would go into a separate controversy article, why have a separate article at all? TechBear (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know that we should get into what is more important, but the "History" section probably could be expanded. -Rrius (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with having a fairly short summary, say three or four paragraphs 500-600 words, which is in line with other summaries in this article. This will help stabilize this article and perhaps get it back to FA. Also, the main noun in the new article should be "debate" or "arguments', not "controversy", to more precisely describe its scope. Court, election, and legislative efforts to legalize or ban SSM could and should be developed more fully, perhaps into a second-level heading. By limiting the scope of the arguments section, we can forestall discussions in the future suggesting that those things all deal with the controversy, and should just be in that sub article and section even though they don't really fit in with those topics. Presumably there are other topics to which the same logic applies, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. -Rrius (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two different issues going on here: The most immediate concern is the split; there is ample material here to form the basis for a "same-sex marriage controversy" article--in fact, that article is likely to be longer, at first, than the "same-sex marriage" article itself. As for "history of same-sex unions," it may very well be relevant to the emerging "same-sex marriage" article, depending on editorial consensus regarding differences between "marriages" and "unions." (To some, the terms may seem closely synonymous; others will likely disagree. This disagreement, however, is likely to invoke the controversy, so—for the moment—it may be best to maintain the "history" and "same-sex marriage" articles separately, at least until the split can be achieved.) Rangergordon (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur with the article split, based upon the reasoning at the start of this section.— <font color="Green">Dæ dαlus<font color="Green">Contribs /Improve 11:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. the map of Same Sex Marriage in the US
The Connecticut marriage ruling held that Connecticut's civil union law was inherently discriminatory, therefore unconstitutional, and that it was for this reason in part that the Court ruled in favor of equal marriage. It would seem to me that the map showing Connecticut as having only same-sex marriage is more accurate than the map showing Connecticut as having both same-sex marriage and a marriage equivalent. Thoughts? TechBear (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The ruling opened up marriage to same-sex couples, but did not cancel the civil unions law, therefore the map should show both options. Rrius has a good explanation. FromSelts (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The map seems to keep being deleted and restored. I think this kind of map could be informative and valuable—I wouldn't be so bold as to delete it--but it does have some problems in its current form. Mainly, the stripes. Those stripes make the map difficult to read. No stripes appear in the legend: The reader must think for a moment to puzzle out, for example, that Oregon's orange and green stripes probably represent the idea that the state allows "unions granting rights similar to marriage" but that its "constitution bans same-sex marriage." This is a lot for the reader to deduce all on his/her own. Additionally, the distinction between green and indigo ("unions granting rights similar to marriage" and "unions granting limited/enumerated rights") is not explicitly stated. Where does one draw the line?


 * I propose that the map could be more easily read, and more useful to the reader, with a slightly different key and color scheme. If the laws of different states can be regarded as lying along a continuum--with states like Utah (having constitutional amendments opposing both marriage and civil unions) lying at one end of the spectrum, and states like Massachusetts (with full marriage equity) lying at the other end--then, it makes sense to express that continuum using the color spectrum. For instance, the map uses violet to represent full marriage equity--logically, then, indigo or blue (not green) should represent civil unions. (The map does a good job with the other end of the spectrum, with orange for constitutional bans against marriage only, and red for states like Utah, with constitutional bans against both marriage and civil unions.)


 * Stripes should never be used. If a state such as Oregon recognizes "rights similar to marriage," it should have the civil-union color. The fact that it doesn't recognize marriage is understood--and, for the purposes of this map, it may be irrelevant whether marriage is banned by statute or by constitutional amendment. If that distinction is necessary, then civil-unions-with-marriage-banned-by-statute should be represented by its own color, a color closer to violet than the color representing civil-unions-with-marriage-banned-by-amendment. It's a logical continuum. This would make the map much easier to read.


 * Finally, since a separate color is used to represent "limited/enumerated rights" as opposed to "civil unions" (which are already limited and enumerated, compared to marriage) the distinction between "limited rights" and "civil unions" needs to be explicitly stated. Rangergordon (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Health Arguments?
Opponents of same-sex marriage have brought up concerns for the health of men who have sex with men.[104][105] A 2003 study found that most new HIV infections among homosexual men in Amsterdam occur within steady relationships.[106] Men in registered partnerships with other men were also believed to be at at an elevated cancer risk in Denmark.[107] In general, men who have sex with men also have higher prevalence of HIV, Hepatitis B virus, Hepatitis C virus, HHV-8,[108] syphilis,[109] and human papillomavirus[110]

Sorry I don't see the relevance in this. Maybe this could be constructed as an argument against homosexuality (well male homosexuality) but what does it have to do with same-sex marriage? Unless it's being claimed that by legalising gay marriage more men will become gay. While it's probably true that gay men are more of a risk from STDs than straight men the part mentioning the Amsterdam study seems to be implying that gay men in committed relationships are more of a risk than those gays not in ones which is blatantly untrue. After legalizing civil unions Denmark found the exact opposite. . So if anything a health argument could be made for same-sex marriage.

Either way the section in its present state doesn't come off as very neutral and I think someone should amend it to conform to a more NPOV. MaesterTonberry (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent point; none of the references compares the health of MSM who are in relationships to those who aren't, so I've deleted the section as irrelevant to same-sex marriage.  (MSM already has a health section with much of this content.)  --EqualRights (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument, whether you agree with it or not, is that same-sex marriages encourage risky sexual behavior, such as anal sex between men. It has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the participants.  Not all men who are attracted to other men have sex with men.  Many are happily and faithfully married to women.  The BBC news report you suggest is (1) only a theory and (2) only compares MSM and WSW in committed relationships with those who aren't.  It doesn't compare people with a homosexual orientation who have sex with their own gender with people who do.  Anyhow, it is an argument used by the opposition.  Obviously, not everyone agrees with it, that is why you have two sides to the argument. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is specifically about same-sex marriage, not same-sex sexual relations &mdash; keep articles focused.


 * There are arguments that same-sex marriage promotes unhealthy behavior, such as men who have sex with men.[104][105]

This sentence uses weasel words. Neither interest group's article is a reliable secondary source for medical matters. The first reference provides speculation rather than reliable synthesis: "The study should also fuel debate on the wisdom of legalizing so-called same-sex marriage". The second reference is a footnote in another secondary article referring to the same primary source as the first reference.


 * One group of physicians presented to Canadian Parliamentarians evidence that same-sex marriage is a health risk.[106]

This "group of physicians" secondary reference is neither notable nor reliable.


 * Supporters of this view point to a 2003 study which found that most new HIV infections among homosexual men in Amsterdam occur within steady relationships.[107]

The study (which is the primary source of the first two secondary references) is misused in an original synthesis; the study reaches the following distinct conclusion: "Primary infections play a more important role in transmission from casual partners than in transmission from steady partners."


 * Men in registered partnerships with other men were also believed to be at at an elevated cancer risk in Denmark.[108]

This primary source compares the partnered cohort to the general population.


 * They also point to other studies which show that men who have sex with men have higher prevalence of HIV, Hepatitis B virus, Hepatitis C virus, HHV-8,[109] syphilis,[110] and human papillomavirus[111]

This material is relevant to and is already present in the article on men who have sex with men; it is not specifically relevant to men who are married to men. Some time ago you applied a strict citation test to an edit elsewhere, which I accepted. Your argument there applies here as well: Until you provide a reliable source for the claim that same-sex marriage has health effects distinct from same-sex sexual relations, the section will remain off this page. --EqualRights (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The deleted section did not say that same-sex marriage definitely causes health problems. What the article say is some people believe that same-sex marriage would encourage unhealthy sex behaviors, such as sex between men.  The articles that they cite are reliable.  The application to same-sex marriage is their opinion.  The controversy section is for presenting their opinions as opinions.  If I had came up with those opinions myself, then that would be synthesis, but it is well documented that many opponents of same-sex marriage worry about the negative health effects it may cause. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The opinions presented were referenced directly to their primary source; Wikipedia requires references to secondary sources. See also independent sourcing - these are indications of notability.  (Otherwise, for example, any opinion expressed by GLBT organizations would be likewise worthy of inclusion throughout Wikipedia.)  --EqualRights (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The opposition based on health reasons is significant. It would be unreliable to say same-sex marriage is bad for men's health, but it would not be unreliable to say opponents of same-sex marriage say it is bad for men's health.  This is a significant point of opposition and can't be ignored. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If every argument advanced by opponents of same-sex marriage, no matter how tenuous, is relevant, then every last scrap of their political literature should be reproduced verbatim in this article without the benefit of editorial review. I move we do so now, and see what happens. Rangergordon (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Such an assertion is insufficient demonstration of significance (or anything else.) That's why Wikipedia has content policies and guidelines.  --EqualRights (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nepal
According to the following articles, Nepal has legalized same-sex marriages:


 * Nepal Supreme Court approves same-sex marriage - JURIST


 * Nepal SC approves same-sex marriage - Hindustan Times

and so on....someone please make the appropriate modifications. Thank you.UberCryxic (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone had made the modifications, and then were reversed right after I updated the staus of same sex marriage image (global scale). The articles do say that it was legalized, thus needing to be changed. AGAIN...Azcolvin429 (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The articles say that the NSC ruling is a directive and that "laws will be formulated soon to provide legal recognition to same-sex marriage", i.e. hold your horses... —EqualRights (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So if your implicit standard is that same-sex marriage must be currently available in a particular jurisdiction, why is Norway listed with the other five nations? A Supreme Court order is a Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is legal, and that means that same-sex marriage is constitutionally legal. When, where, and how same-sex couples get married is a little pickle that the Nepalese government will have to resolve in due time, but it does not change the legality of the act itself. In other words, the mechanics of the practice should take a backseat to constitutional law, at least as I understand this article. Norway has been included without any same-sex couples getting married and the label of "Legal Recognition" seems to fit the case of Nepal perfectly since the Supreme Court has recognized such unions.UberCryxic (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I changed it at one point, and it was changed back. So im giving up until the issue is solved. Azcolvin429 (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am putting this back in again. We can debate the state of affairs regarding the practice endlessly, but same-sex marriage is constitutionally legal in Nepal.UberCryxic (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have now updated the SSM template to include Nepal. If you do not agree with this decision, please voice your concerns here first. Do not start reverting edits.UberCryxic (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, someone changed it back! Please debate it here before doing so. Every article found states that Nepal has legalized same sex marriage, thus meaning Nepal should be placed in the list. UberCryxic is correct and it has obviously been agreed upon because no one has reponded in argument. Azcolvin429 (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated Nepal. This whole affair is absurd.UberCryxic (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, stop taking Nepal off!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.34.24 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

http://gaynews.outinasheville.com/2008/11/19/1106/

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=7c190914-f498-427c-ad0b-97559a3aae71&Headline=Nepal+SC+approves+same-sex+marriage

http://1minionsopinion.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/nepal-becomes-7th-country-to-legalize-gay-marriage/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/19/201643/19/259/663836

http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/thread/2097717/Nepal+legalizes+same-sex+marriage?t=anon

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83589

http://www.gayagenda.com/2008/11/gay-marriage-legalized-in-nepal/

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid36049.asp

http://pewforum.org/news/rss.php?NewsID=17001

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/samesex-marriage-gets-court-nod-in-nepal/78418-2-6.html

I have re-written the article on same sex marriage in Nepal, and changed the right bar, and even discussed it in the discussion over the template. Ther reason the template keeps being reverted is because they are discussing it over there and think its illegal. So I voiced my opinion and we will have to see what happens. Azcolvin429 (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In Portugal
I don't know how it translates, but I am pretty sure this article is wrong. The legal term for what is possible in portugal is União de Facto which is by all means a Civil Partnership. I don't understand the distinction made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.74.101 (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalist
Hi, the Unitarian Universalist's acceptance of same sex marriage is noted under the area about Christian acceptance. The Unitarian Universalist church is not Christian. They have Jewish-Christian roots, but no actual creed. The United Church of Christ is an example of a Christian chruch, or rather a church with congregation, that allow same-sex marriage.
 * UU was Christian until it seceded from Christianity in 1995. Or so I heard. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

True, maybe the sections called chrstian opposition and christian support should be called religious opposition and religious support. That might make it sound more neutral??? Azcolvin429 (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Discussion??
Condsider a simple quote, even though factual, the documented research was not allowed to be included on the Wikipedia page concerning same sex marriage. We believed it helped present a more open discussion about same sex marriage. The quote for consideration is by Dr. Laura Haynes from the publication Homosexual Marriage: A Social Science View:

'''"Some psychotherapists who treat children of same sex couples are reporting that the children do long for the gendered parent they do not have." - Dr. Laura Haynes'''

This quote is documented, was referenced with web links, is factual, and is not disrespectful in any way. The public has a right to this information so they can make an informed discovery at Wikipedia. Other inclusions of scientific research on same sex marriage were also deleted after published.

We believed the Wikipedia process and community would welcome further research in the topic of same sex marriage and we are disappointed at the Wikipedia process on this event. When a topic is popularly sought after, Wikipedia ought to take duty to expand the knowledge base for their guests. Abbyearth (Talk)


 * (Please remember to sign comments; I've inserted a minimal one.) The edit's problems included malformatting and undue weight, and its weasel-worded quote added nothing to the detailed information already present in the article's Arguments concerning children and the family section.  --EqualRights (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

POV of article
It needs some serious balancing, because, after reading through it, I have found about one argument arguing for same-sex marriage, versus the large amount of arguments against it. I would like to tag the article/section because of this. I am taking this here first as this is a heated topic at the moment.— <font color="Green">Dæ dαlus<font color="Green">Contribs /Improve 07:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, see This Article Is Not About Its Stated Topic above, with consensus solution (I haven't yet had a chance to implement it.) --EqualRights (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

2 Assumptions
I have removed this section of the article for several reasons. 1st The 2 assumptions that had been given are not universal to all points of view on the matter, which was the way the section was worded. The 2 assumptions given may be subscribed to by a large number of people but certainly not all. Therefore if they are to be present this needs to be made clear. 2nd It did not fit at the top of the article. There is extensive discussion of the controversy and views on same-sex marriage in the controversy section. If these views need to be discussed they should be discussed there.

Loganrah (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

California prop 8
The understandable distress of several over the results of the Proposition 8 vote in California seems to be leading to a refusal to allow facts to be reported in this article. The fact is - it passed. Trying to suppress that fact because the election is not certified makes as much sense as saying the results of the presidential election should not be documented because the Electoral College has not met. Saying the results of the election should not be reported because there are lawsuits being filed is essentially claiming that future events could result in the past not having happened. (See Nineteen Eighty-Four).

I suggest that whether we like what happened or not has nothing to do with what is documented in Wikipedia. Rknasc (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Judging by your reference to 1984, I'm guessing you have an axe to grind. The fact that should be stated in this article (and the same fact is stated in prop8#uncertainty) is that prop8's result is uncertain.  I don't think we should remove all mention of prop8, but instead lay out where it stands.  Again, it's not important that there are lawsuits, it's not important that it hasn't been certified, however the facts are the facts:  there is uncertainty.  Millions of *uncounted* absentee ballots.  Even fox-news has listed this as "too close to call".  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest it be entered that it passed with the following percentages: Yes: 6,462,874 Votes 52.1% No: 5,945,537 47.9% And that the State Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases which may overturn the peoples vote. The main argument being that it ammends the state constitution and that to officially ammend the state constitution requires a legislative act, not just a vote of the people. 12.234.186.226 (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.186.226 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans
I'm surprised there's nothing here about certain groups of Native Americans, who have practiced same-sex marriage for centuries at the least, though it involves a symbolic change of gender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.242.123 (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good point, and I concur wholeheartedly. Do you have any sources on this? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Now Legal in Sweden
The Swedish parliament broke its deadlock on the subject and has either voted or is set to vote shortly on the bill, which will pass easily since only one minority party is opposed to it. Gay marriage will be legal there as of May 1, 2009. Someone might want to update things accordingly. (It's late here, or I'd do it myself!) --Arvedui (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the latest English-language news reports I could find, it's not yet a done deal (Sweden could allow gay church weddings by May 2009: PM) —EqualRights (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The big hold-up was getting the thing to a vote at all, over the opposition of the Christian Democrats. Now that they've worked that out (via a free-vote, I understand, according to Sweden's English-language radio service last night), there's basically no way it's going to fail. Every other party in parliament is in favor. --Arvedui (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is, it's not passed yet. Anything could happen between now and the vote. It could be shelved... It could be defeated. Very unlikely, I know, but the Wiki is not a crystal ball. You could mention this in "Same-sex marriage in Sweden" on the possibly of it and point out the possible date. Until the bill is passed and signed by the Swedish king, gay marriage is still not legal in Sweden. So we can't update the infobox yet putting Sweden in "recognization" catergory. Pieuvre. 24.202.31.204 (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we might be jumping the gun on this one. Wait until the parliment at least votes. The king's signature is not important. It is just a rubber stamp. But, we need to have something to have happened. Not just politicians talking on the radio or TV what they are going to do. IF someone does have a vote in parliment (with a web link - swedish is fine -) then let's change the article right away. If not, let's wait till something actually occurs. Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.66.250 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Participants in a same-sex marriage
I would argue that, since a woman getting married is a bride and a man getting married is a groom, same sex couples are therefore "bridal couples" and "groom couples". I wonder whether that's the best terminology for those couples. Does the media have any other suggestions? 204.52.215.107 (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Concern at tone of article
It is my humble opinion that this article uses far too many wishy-washy statements in an attempt to avoid looking controversial. Some examples:
 * The use of the word some on 44 occasions, most of which are qualifiers for "some people" who hold a given opinion.
 * The use of the word conservative on 9 occasions, and liberal on 2 occasions. Were they in a better context, it may be appropriate, but see the following: Conservatives and some moderate Christians argue that the book of Leviticus contains a prohibition against male-male sexuality. and Some moderate and liberal Christians such as the Metropolitan Community Church interpret the passage in Romans as relating to specific instances of Graeco-Roman temple sex acts. Both of these statements are painfully vague (who determines if Metropolitan Community Church is moderate/liberal, for example?).
 * The article looks like it's composed of poorly written lists. It's "so-and-so supports, so-and-so is against" and "this country does this." This should be pruned; the article need not be a list of every organization and philosopher that supports or opposes. It ought to be summarized better. And individual countries ought to be summarized better or listed; the prose does not flow well at all.
 * The article puts the emphasis in the wrong places. It ought to have more information on the history and current status, IMHO. We probably ought to cut down the Transgender and intersex persons section (9 paragraphs; an article already exists). We also need to cut down on the controversy section, as stated below. Perhaps this should be forked into another article: Criticism of same-sex marriage.
 * Listing individual religions is fine; listing religions popular in the United States is silly. There are religions other than Christianity and Judaism. However, if we're just going to include another "some support, some oppose" for these religions without giving a better written history and overall trends, forget it.

On a separate issue, the article does appear to be a bit biased (e.g., the headline "Use of scare quotes in print and online media" - can we refine the term for this?). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your fourth bullet, current status is already covered in Status of same-sex marriage and Same-sex marriage in the United States. There's already been reasonable consensus in favor of splitting out the controversy; see This Article Is Not About Its Stated Topic. —EqualRights (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Americanism
I can see this article has expanded enormously over the last year (probably since US-Americans are lately so concerned about this topic). What is good is that there is more information here. What is bad is that it is mainly focused on US examples, legislation and so on. This is just a friendly reminder to some of you that the world is more than just the US. *sigh*. And also, some of the stories should go to Same-sex marriage in the United States. 亮HH (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I also dont think that the image of the U.S. recognition should be displayed. This is a same sex marriage article for the overal status on a global scale. Azcolvin429 (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think everyone agrees on this point, hence the ugly looking globalize template above one section. I suggest fixing it; doesn't appear to be controversial. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Nations which have a strong federal system most definately need a state-by-state larger area map. This is necessary fot eh USA, as each state has starkly varying policies regarding the matter at hand. Canada, for instance,does not need a further breakdown, as gender neutral marriage is in effect for the entire country. Europe should also be displayed in this manner, as it represents the main area of progess on this matter. The European countries and American states are also too small on the world map, so that an effective display and useful map interpretation would not be possible. I suggest the USA STATE BY STATE and EUROPEAN maps stay and be updated.

Civil Unions vs. Same Sex Marriage & Future recognition
Ok, I have an interesting topic. What we call a "civil union" in America is not the same as a marriage. In many other countries, "civil union" persay is exactly the same as marriage, it just has a different name. United Kindom and Equador both are marked "civil Unions" on wikipedia, but there constitutions consider it the same thing as marriage, just with a different name. We have many countries that are marked with civil unions on the article, but shouldnt be considered the same as a common civil union.

For example: Equador is marked civil unions, but there law states that marriage is between a man and a women, BUT they have created an equal form of marriage with a different name; called civil unions. Now in New Hampshire, civil unions are not the same as marriage. Its a different name for a different status. Think about it-if it was the same, then states that recognize same sex marriage after having civil union laws would abolish all civil unions and turn them into marriage. But they dont, because its not the same.

Should we note this, or catagorize this some how?

Also, should we have a catagory on the "Legal recognition of Same-sex relationships" bar on the right with a section labled "Future recognition of same sex marriage" or something to that manner? Then we could place countries such as Nepal, Sweden, and Norway in the section.Azcolvin429 (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your points:


 * What the template calls "civil unions and registered partnerships", and the article "Civil unions", refer specifically to structures which are not marriage but which offer certain rights to same-sex couples (sometimes these rights are identical to those offered by marriage). In certain countries, like Sweden, the UK, Denmark and Iceland, what are known as civil unions or registered partnerships offer all of the rights of marriage, and are essentially "marriage with just a different name". So, are you proposing that we should draw a distinction between those countries which offer full equality, and those which only offer some rights? This may be a valuable distinction. Indeed, some registered partnership schemes, such as those in Slovenia or Uruguay, are quite limited, and are very different from UK or Scandinavian style schemes. On the other hand, it may clutter the template too much: we already have three categories of recognition (Same-sex marriage, Civil unions and Unregistered cohabitation). But this is an important point. I should also add: within unregistered cohabitation schemes, the level of rights varies immensely. In Australia, de facto (unregistered cohabitating) same-sex partners get almost all of the rights of marriage (indeed, more rights than in a Slovenian registered partnership). In Argentina, cohabitating same-sex partners get only one single right (pension rights). However, Australia and Argentina are placed in the same category in the template.


 * I don't think a new section labelled "Future recognition" should be created. There is already a section for "Debated recognition", which includes countries debating future recognition. This means that the "Future recognition" section would only include countries where legalisation of same-sex marriage is definite (like Norway). Since there will only ever be around 1-2 countries in this category at any given time, I think it's more useful just to include them in the general "Same-sex marriage recognised" category, with the date of legalisation in brackets. For countries like Sweden and Nepal, where it is still not 100% certain that same-sex marriage will be legalised in the future, I think we should leave them in the debate section. Ronline ✉ 14:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)



Title doesn't seem accurate to me
Okay, I've looked through a fair portion of the archives (back to January 2005) and couldn't find anyone discuss this topic, which surprised me. I find the article title to be inaccurate. I don't know of a single country that has introduced same-sex marriage recognition to the exclusion of marriages that are neither same- or opposite-sex. In my limited understanding of intersex issues, intersex persons are neither male nor female (or are both) in terms of their sex (with gender being a separate issue). If I'm not mistaken, all the countries with "same-sex marriage" have actually brought in "sex-neutral marriages". I realise that "sex-neutral marriage" is a very uncommon term, and I know I will probably lose this debate (Wikipedia seems to value popular thinking over accuracy) but what are Wikipedians' thoughts? I for one would be willing to compromise with "gender-neutral marriage" due to the fact that it's more popular, even though it is still inaccurate it is an improvement over the current title which in turn is an improvement over "gay marriage". I've also just checked to find that sex-neutral marriage didn't even exist as an article, so at the very least I'm going to create a redirect from there to here, for now.

Google hits for various terms Same-sex marriage: 6,080,000 Same-gender marriage: 34,100 Gay marriage: 14,800,000 Sex-neutral marriage: 139 (as I said, I know it is very uncommon) Gender-neutral marriage: 15,100

☮ AussieDingo1983 (talk•my edits) 17:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would totally have to agree. The entire issue is about treating same sex couples the SAME as opposite sex couples. Jurisdictions actually do no "permit" same sex marriage, as much as they stop refusing people of the same sex to marry. The whole point is that there is no longer any difference between how the partners in the marriage are treated with regards to sex. I think gender-neutral marriage or perhaps just "Marriage" would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.112.57 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If 'gay marriage' is the most common term, it should be the title of the article. XINOPH | TALK


 * 'Gay marriage' is a common term (I can't say if it is the most common term), but it is factually incorrect: there are no legal marriage requirements based on sexual orientation. Different-sex couples can be legally married whether or not they are heterosexual or physically intimate with one another, correct? Likewise, allowing same-sex couples to be legally married would not be predicated on whether they are homosexual or physically intimate with one another. TechBear (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy doesn't mean it can't be factual or based on facts
Just because something is controversial doesn't mean that it can't be talked about in a fair and balanced way. And just because controversy is rife in it, doesn't mean that it should be marked by the moderators as somehow lacking in neutrality, etc. That just flags it in the minds of readers who come across it when browsing that the subject is biased in some flawed way. This process makes it more controversial. Let's just let it be based on facts. And there are plenty of facts to consider, including the decisions of court rulings as well as opinions of various organizations. Their opinions may not be in and of themselves facts, but the fact that they hold those opinions should be considered a fact.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

2 countries are "first"?
in same paragraph (under "current status" subheading)

- "The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001."

- "In 2005, Spain became the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage, including adoption rights, on equal terms and under the same law."

if there is a distinction to be made here, it is unclear.

also, footnote 13 belongs after "Connecticut" and not at end of sentence. it is not supporting entire sentence, merely CT. --98.116.115.220 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Massive Block Quotations
I am trying to understand why several huge, multi-paragraph block quotations from one court case relating to same-sex marriage have been inserted into the article. I don't think this makes any sense at all. The article is lengthy to begin with. I don't believe that these quotations add anything, and I would prefer to remove them. Any objections?

74.70.44.210 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; users who want to read the full document can use the cited sources to do so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Block quotations have been removed and/or summarized. BSOR (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like the massive block quotations and think there should be more of them. Summaries aren't sufficient and most people don't have time to go look it up somewhere else. Thus, why not allow for them in this context. What's the big deal if this article is lengthier than other articles. It's an encyclopedia for goodness sake, it's supposed to be lengthy and full of citations, especially quotes as important as the ones pertaining to California's May 15, 2008 Supreme Court ruling. Why are there so many people who are bent on rubbing all of our noses in the fact that Proposition 8 was overturned. Duh... We all know that already. But it is still being debated in terms of it's constitutionality and will hopefully be overturned in Spring/Summer of 2009 If anyone has a direct link to the court rulings by Massachusetts, Connecticut and California in support of same-sex marriage, it would be helpful to the readers who browse this page to get more specific rationales for why they decided in favor of gay marriage, despite all the opposition from the religious right and conservatives in general.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed your latest addition, as it seemed to not only be out of place, but also a massive copyright violation. Please summarize as requested above. Dayewalker (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And now I've reverted it again. I'll leave a comment on your talk page in case you're not watching this one. Dayewalker (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

American College of Pediatricians
This intentionally confusingly named organization is a small group with a political agenda- the group exists mainly to put out position papers that support conservative political positions that give the impression that their positions are medically supported. The real major national organization of pediatricians is the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose position can be summed up by this quote, "Research comparing children raised by homosexual parents to children raised by heterosexual parents has found no developmental differences in intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, or peer popularity between them. That's why I removed the statement that the American College of Pediatricians opposes same-sex marriage; they are not in agreement with the best available sources on the subject of whether such marriages cause harm to children. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit also reverted a couple of other changes. Was that intentional?  Powers T 20:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! I thought I'd only gone two diffs back; the only changes I meant to undo were the one I discussed and the one that changed 'columnist' to 'scholar' on Maggie Gallagher, which seemed fairly uncontroversial.  I'll go back and try to do what I meant to... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FisherQueen, I respectfully disagree with the removal of the sentence I added regarding the American College of Pediatricians. You describe the ACP as a small organization with a political agenda.  If your objection to its inclusion is based on the size of the organization (e.g. that it is not noteworthy enough to be included), I would challenge you on the basis that the organization is at least as noteworthy as John Rawls, whose perspective on the subject of same-sex parenting is included in the article.  If you are challenging the objectivity of the organization, I would respond that the organizations listed in the article could well be described as having every bit as much of a political agenda as the ACP does.  In fact, according to the ACP, the politically driven nature of the American Academy of Pediatrics' advocacy and internal decisionmaking was the very reason that the ACP was created in the first place.  I believe that the current version of the article is unbalanced, because it makes it appear that every professional organization that has weighed in on the issue supports same-sex parenting.  I am restoring the deleted sentence.  If you still disagree with its inclusion, please utilize Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to resolve the disagreement.  I will (of course) respect the results of the process.  Thank you.  BSOR (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSOR (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FisherQueen's edit should remain for now. As BSOR added something which is now in dispute, the onus should be on BSOR to provide justification for its inclusion. This talk page should be used for reaching consensus on the matter. That's the first step. We should only go to a dispute resolution outside of this talk page if consensus cannot be reached. I'm thinking WP:FRINGE may apply here. Just a thought. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">talk</FONT> 15:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Let's try to reach consensus, then.  I disagree that WP:FRINGE applies here.  We are talking about the proposition that same-sex parenting is less optimal for children than parenting by a mother and father.  While this is certainly a minority perspective within certain professional associations, a strong case could be made that it is a majority perspective amongst the general population in this country.  For this reason alone, it would be a mistake to view this perspective as a fringe perspective.  Also, I want to point out a pitfall that I would like us to be aware of and avoid in situations like this:  (a) organization A is coopted by a group that wants to advance a certain ideology; (b) a dissenting organization is formed to oppose the new "majority" ideology promoted by organization A; (c) organization A ignores the dissenting view and refuses to give it any exposure; (d) others dismiss the minority perspective because it has not received sufficient exposure from more established voices (e.g. organization A) to be deemed noteworthy.
 * I maintain that this section is unbalanced, because it makes it appear that every professional organization that has weighed in on the issue supports same-sex parenting. BSOR (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If a strong case could be made about the majority opinion, then by all means please make it. I challenge you because I know the data does not support your position. It would however have no weight on WP:FRINGE as regards to this organization. This is because they claim to represent the real science on the issue of same sex parenting by taking a position that is in stark contrast to the vast majority opinion in their field, including its largest professional organizations. By giving them a stated position in this article when they are clearly a fringe minority within their own professional field, would be using Wikipedia to promote their cause and would not be encyclopedic knowledge. That is because inclusion would not further the reader's understanding of what the vast majority of mental health professionals and mental health research says about the topic. And just to point out the non-scientific stance of this group, they state that they are "committed to fulfilling its mission as outlined in the statements", yet the mission states that "we recognize the basic father-mother family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for childhood development". How can you claim a scientific prospective if your stated mission is to prejudge the data? Maybe this is why they can not find agreement with what the research actually has found. Dkriegls (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"globalize"
Editors Bookish.blogger & 97.87.16.163 continue to remove US-specific text (in what appears to be one-sided way). It's fine to seek other examples and add globalize templates, but I don't see the point in removing text until better examples are found. As the template text says: "Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page." AV3000 (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I, User:Bookish.blogger, also represent the changes made by 97.87.16.163. Accusations of bias are not in accord with my edits, especially when viewed under the lens of my edit comments.  I have added other citations and points of view that were reflected in a more objective manner in the Majority Rules arguments section.  Just because I remove the mention of Proposition 8 does not reflect a view on my part one way or the other on Proposition 8. Perpetually mentioning Proposition 8 and the politics of same-sex marriage, specifically in California, does little to contribute to the worldview of same-sex marriage, which is the focus of this article.  I stand by my edit removing the mention of Evan Wolfson in the image subtext, especially as mentioning him as the exclusive founder of the same-sex movement.  While I agree with AV3000's relabeling of Evan Wolfson as "U.S. Same-sex marriage movement founder" it is still evident that mentioning him in this subtext further constricts the article to a discussion about same-sex marriage in the United States.  Furthermore, AV3000 is wrong to assume that leaving specifically American references while hoping that someone else adds other world references somehow doesn't constrict the particular content (in this case, the subtext of the image in question) to an American point of view.  If there were no specifics mentioned with regard to a specific country, the reader would not frame that part of the article into the context of a specific country, rather, it would be "country-neutral" allowing the reader to think about the subject of the article, which, in this case, is Same-sex marriage not Same-sex marriage (insert country/place). Of course, these statements should not be construed to suggest that there should not any mention of the status of same-sex marriage United States at all.  AV3000 is narrowly interpeting the Globalize template's meaning of improve to mean revise; improvements, however, should not be restricted to revising or rewording a text, but removing a text that is not relevant, thereby keeping the article on topic (i.e., improving it).  —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC).


 * My interpretation is hardly so narrow; in the absence of other references, I leave it to consensus to judge whether the text is relevant and whether removing relevant region-specific text would be an improvement. ( is the only British court case I've found, for instance.)  Personally, to reiterate, I regard the disputed text as useful.  Other opinions?  AV3000 (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How, exactly, is undoing my edit leaving it to consensus? You overtly declare that this is your opinion ("Personally, to reiterate, I regard the disputed text as useful.") and then, for the second time, imply that I am biased and basing this on opinions.  I'll ignore that you have ignored the majority of my response to your concern.  However, you can't ignore that there is no opinion involved in my logical assertion that
 * Specifically mentioning a country in an otherwise country-neutral statement narrows the focus of the article to that country.
 * You are contending that country specific content should remain in country-neutral sections.
 * Therefore, you are attempting to narrow the focus of the article to a specific country.
 * Notice: there are no opinions involved - it's just a logical analysis of what you are doing. It lends you no credence to accuse me of bias, when that couldn't be further from the case. And please, don't pick apart my response fussing over semantics again; continually poking at words also lends no credence to your case, nor do ad hominem attacks on me personally. If you can't keep this dispute civil, perhaps you should refrain from making serious edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.16.163 (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To recap: your original elision was justified with "Made section less specific to issue in US; removed bias: section introduced the majority rules argument then attempted to rebut it (reflecting bias)". I reverted it, saying "restore content per WP:BALANCE - the major section is 'Controversy', so it's not biased to present both arguments".  Your subsequent reversion was justified with "A specific reference to an opinion of a non-federal court within a country does not represent a worldview of 'Majority Rules arguments'".
 * I'm aware of no policy that requires the removal of region-specific text, so editors need to judge whether it's better to retain region-specific text versus POV imbalance resulting from its removal. This is the crux of the dispute as far as I'm concerned, and it's normal procedure to request other opinions in seeking resolution.
 * Regarding the spurious claim of ad hominem argument: disputing a particular edit is not considered a personal attack. I have retained an assumption of good faith, and I request that you do likewise.
 * (I'll be on vacation soon and rarely online.) AV3000 (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I want to apologize for any accusations. I know we both just want this page to be objective and I think this conversation has helped clarify "globalize" issues for other editors.  With that said, I agree with your edits and I also agree that we should try to find other world examples rather than delete references to only one country.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookish.blogger (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this necessary?
"While accepted in these jurisdictions, the practice is widely debated, contested, and banned in much of the world." I don't think this sentence is pertinent. Why do people need to be told that same-sex marriage is contested and banned in much of the world. As though this adds anything that people don't already know about the subject. And, by saying that it is widely debated, there is an implication that same-sex marriage is somehow not okay or morally repugnant. Thus, I propose to change this sentence to something to the effect of: "Same-sex marriage is a practice that is gaining acceptance in various places throughout the world, despite religious and conservative qualms regarding it's moral application to society at large. Historically there have been bans on same-sex marriages throughout the world, but due to the significant social changes and sexual revolution of the late 20th century in many industrialized nations (and some developing countries), there is a greater understanding and acceptance of same-sex marriage obtaining legalization and societal legitimacy."--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that what I am about to say does not affirm or contest your opinion of same-sex marriage. There is nothing untruthful or biased about making the observation that same-sex marriage is widely debated, contested and banned in much of the world. Conversely, can you honestly deny that there aren't at least some partisan or biased undertones in your suggested change(s)? Wikipedia readers should not be able to identify editors' opinions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.16.163 (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Although there might seem to be an issue of PoV in the use of three words, 'debated, contested and banned', where perhaps one would do, ultimately the usage is of undue weight. More importantly, in both versions of the passage, there is a lack of verifiability. The former versions' "in much of the world" and "in various places throughout the world", are too wide ranging and therefore vague and therefore unverifiable as they stand. I suggest limiting comments such as these to say, Europe, Asia, etc or even Southeast Asia, China, or individual countries. I note that the second version does attempt to make distinctions that reduce the problem of vagueness by specifying developing countries and industrialized nations, and that it further qualifies the whole issue by giving it a historical perspective and the points of view of both sides of the issue. It is the preferable version, but it still needs to be divided up by geographical areas.

I suggest that 'debated' gives an intuitive understanding of the possible scene of such a debate, 'contested' does not. 'Banned' cannot be included without a cite, and really any and all of the these phrases should be cited. And 97.97, your definition of bias puts you in danger of confusing the readers' perspicacity with PoV, and issues with factions that have a PoV about those issues. Their ability to identify a connection between a statement of the issues and factions with a PoV about issues does not make that statement of the issues itself, PoV. In short, your hypothetical readers are cleverer than the material is biased. An all too common typo in the second version, James: should read 'regarding its moral application'; possessive of 'it' needs to be distinguished from contraction of 'it is'Anarchangel (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC) <BR>
 * Here's a revision of the above passage I suggested: "Same-sex marriage is a practice that is gaining acceptance throughout the world today in all societies across the board. Some societies are farther along in this process than others (as cited below). Historically there have been bans on same-sex marriages throughout the world, but due to the significant social changes of recent decades, there is greater acceptance of same-sex marriage obtaining legalization and societal legitimacy."

<BR> I don't think it is necessary to put links or references for this statement, since it is obvious and is shown by this article in itself. As well, this statement summarizes what this article will be discussing later on. I would have to put a bunch of redundant references to other areas in this article, that is implied more sufficiently by "(as cited below)." It's pretty clear from reading this article that same-sex marriage is where every society is headed toward, if they have not already arrived at that destination.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making this assessment: "It's pretty clear from reading this article that same-sex marriage is where every society is headed toward, if they have not already arrived at that destination," - it really makes understanding your proposed edit easier when we know what your underlying assessment is. I think that it's pretty clear from reading the article that SOME societies are heading toward legalizing same-sex marriage, but definitely not EVERY society. There are numerous references to opposition to same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Based on the numerous references to the success of Proposition 8 in California, for example, I find it hard to infer from the article that same-sex marriage is what California is headed for. It's also hard to see it as an up and coming thing when |the article also reports that there are more countries that believe homosexuality can be punished by death than there are countries that allow same-sex marriage.  So, considering things like this, I believe it is a bit of an overstatement (to say the least) to rewrite the article to say that "Same-sex marriage is a practice that is gaining acceptance throughout the world today in all societies across the board."  Saying that "Historically there have been bans on same-sex marriages throughout the world" seems to suggest that same-sex marriage being banned is a thing of the past when presently only seven of the world's 246 countries (well, there are 246 according to |this; it naturally depends on what list you go by) allow the practice.  When you consider this, it seems EQUALLY as valid to say, "some countries are farther along in banning same-sex marriage than others (as cited below)."  Also, to say "there is greater acceptance of same-sex marriage obtaining legalization and societal legitimacy" ignores the vehement opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage that is opposite the support of legalizing it. Much of the article also deals with opposition to same-sex marriage as well; a revision should reflect this as well. Oh yeah, just because I don't agree with your edit doesn't mean that I'm confusing reader's perspicacity with PoV.  I'm, of course, not suggesting that the ability to identify a connection between a statement of the issues and factions with a PoV about issues somehow makes those statements PoV, rather, that your edits, specifically, reflect PoV and therefore should not be made a part of the article as long as they do reflect PoV.

<BR><BR>All I am saying is that same-sex marriage being legalized appears to be a trend that is increasing over time and thus within the next however many years, same-sex marriage will be legalized everywhere. It is only a matter of when, not if. And, this isn't merely a point of view, it is based on facts. And, it is more than likely (if not almost certain) that California's Supreme Court will overturn Proposition 8, because it is absolutely and FACTUALLY against the fundamental liberty interest in the constitution. Same-sex marriage is becoming more and more accepted. Since 2001 we've had 6 countries adopt it. So that means that by 2015, we should have about 12 countries that have legalized it, and by 2022 there will be 18 and so on. However, the rate of legalization could increase significantly during this time, due to interventions from world organizations such as the United Nations and World Health Organization. In addition, it is likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule within the next 10 years on the matter of same-sex marriage - it will most likely rule in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, if recent court decisions are any indication.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you see a trend isn't enough for inclusion here. You will have to find a published, verifiable expert in the field who says so, or your contributions will be deleted as WP:Original research. Another consideration at work here is that Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. We report what is and what was, not what will be. The closest we can get to 'what will be' is by saying "this expert says that such and such is likely to happen." Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP rules are tough. But fair (I know I have some objections, others probably do, but in general, fair). What would really help you is cites. An expert in the field, the closer to what you said the better. The strenuous objections I had for analysis like Rauch, below, do not apply as strongly to a generalization of the kind above. Otherwise, you run the risk of having to dilute your statement so much it will be a truism. Anarchangel (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried about WP:CRYSTAL predictions as well. Whether is is "gaining acceptance"... we don't know future trends yet, since they haven't happened. In fact, as much as I hope trends are such, the California proposition is at least one case of "losing acceptance" too. We should just say what the current status is, and not try to imply or state trends that may or may not come about. LotLE × talk 05:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rauch notability
Resolved. Please explain what keeps Rauch and his theories off the WP:FRINGE list. Not saying they sound nutty, just that there are no other scholars mentioned; if his work has not been considered, or is considered not notable by the mainstream, then it cannot be included. Anarchangel (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Rauch is noted by the mainstream, given the fact that everything he has argued has been presented in mainstream media such as The Economist, National Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. Thus, how can you say that his theories are somehow not notable by the mainstream or on the fringe of society? And when you refer to "other scholars," I'm not sure I understand why it is an issue? If you want to add those "other scholars" who have debated with Rauch about his theories, which is easily found online, then that would be an addition that I would respect. However, I was only interested in presenting his theories about this concept because it is held with respect by those in the media, such as the corporations I listed above in which his ideas were published originally. What's the point of adding the "other scholars'" opinions about this concept, because I don't see how it would add much substance to the topic... As well, I have cited with references and links Jonathan Rauch's journals and book. And I also included a link to Jonathan Rauch's page on Wikipedia.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Groovy. That's what I wanted. Thank you. Find those Economist, NJ, AM and NYT articles, and cite the heck out of them. K? I respect your work and your good faith, just want to be sure it is nice and tight according to WP policies and guidelines. What I do when I think something should be cited but I can't be bothered or just can't find the cite is put a citation needed tag on it, that goes like this: Sometimes what happens is someone comes along and decides that means it should be deleted, of course, there are quite a few of those, but if that happens, you just restore it. And because it is tagged, it is more likely that someone else will find the cite. Anarchangel (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The really long discussion of Rauch's rather idiosyncratic arguments is way out of proportion in the article. I don't think the opinions are per-se WP:FRINGE, but neither are they within a stone's throw of being so significant or well-known as to merit their own section.  I think a much, much briefer mention within the flow of another seciton would be OK, but not the grossly WP:UNDUE weight.  LotLE × talk  07:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with LotLE. Regardless of Rauch's arguments or qualifications, some of the edits to insert his words (sometimes directly) have been way past undue weight. There are probably thousands of columnists who have written about the subject and hundreds of books, why should Rauch's comments take up so much space in the article? What makes them more notable than the other sources? Dayewalker (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

With regard to LotLE and Dayewalker's objections, I would like to suggest that just because there are many other columnists/authors who have written about the subject of same-sex marriage, the reason why Jonathan Rauch's arguments are more notable is that they are arguing about it in a very different way than anyone else has ever argued about the subject. Thus, it brings about the entirely new topic being added to this page. As well, I have selected from Rauch's arguments some of the most salient points that he makes. I could have added at least 7 more paragraphs, but in terms of fairness to the readers, I kept it at two paragraphs. Additionally, just because someone's arguments are "idiosyncratic" does not justify relegating them to an "insignificant" status. They are arguments that merit the attention of those who are trying to understand the topic and his arguments are unique and thus salient enough to be given their own section on this page. Rauch's arguments are important to the overall discussion, enough so as to warrant a mere two paragraphs on a page like this.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If Rauch's arguments really are so very different from anyone else's, than we are prohibited from including them in this article. As a new user, I think Jamesmichaelsf may have mistaken the point of WP article as presenting the best arguments for positions.  It isn't, pure and simple.  We are only here to characterize widely held opinions or well-cited facts, not to decide which beliefs are the best or most compelling.  Fortunately fro Rauch, he really isn't so very distinct as all that, so it does not seem outrageous to include perhaps a sentence characterizing him... more than that is absolutely unencyclopedic, and just reads as WP:SOAPBOX.  LotLE × talk  08:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments on Rauch. However, saying that your opinion is that his arguments are in a different vein and thus more deserving of coverage isn't exactly maintaing a neutral point of view on the matter. Can you show through secondary sources how Rauch is seen as more notable than other columnists? I'm certainly not an expert on the subject nor on the columnists who discuss it, so if you could indicate how Rauch stands out, it would go a long way towards helping us understand. Dayewalker (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to this whole issue of Rauch's notability, why is it so important to have secondary sources about this? The fact is, he is presenting an argument that has merit and what secondary sources would need to be given in order for him to obtain some kind of permission to be represented on this page in the way that I portrayed it. This is not a place to only characterize widely held opinions. What about the other opinions that are not in the majority? Do they belong in a throw-away section, to be dismissed as somehow undeserving of attention. The reason they have been in the minority for so long is because people in positions of power (such as on here and printed media) do not allow their voices to be given equal representation. Fairness isn't about a majority rules dogma, rather it is giving equal attention to all opinions regardless of their being thought of as good, bad, interesting, absurd, etc. They all deserve mentioning. I may not be able to mention all of them, but I can add the ones I am familiar with. This is a communal effort to provide the world with information that is unbiased. Thus, my additions are not mere "soapbox" rants about the topic, but are widely-held sentiments in the LGBT community, about which this topic is of utmost importance to. To say that the side against same-sex marriage is allowed more room/space on here to rant and the other side must be relegated to throw-away status suggests a heterosexism endemic to your own points of view about this topic.--Jamesmichaelsf (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)