Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 10

1993 mass wedding in DC
Absolutely no mention is made in the history section of the 1993 mass wedding prior to the 1993 March on Washington that was attended by over 800,000 GLBT activists and which was a seminal event driving the nationwide activism that made same sex marriage possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Lesbian,_Gay_and_Bi_Equal_Rights_and_Liberation

You can find information on this event online if you Google it. The wikipedia entry is very poor. There was enormous coverage in the gay press at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.223.3 (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I added a line in the history narrative and did a little work on that terrible entry for the March. Marriage, I think, was not a principal focus of the March. Some 3,000 poeple staged the mass wedding. The 800,000 marched the next day. Frankly I have no memory of this demonstration though I was there that weekend. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage comes to Idaho at 9 AM PDT on October 15.
Order from the Ninth Circuit: https://www.scribd.com/doc/242857305/14-35420-196-Order-dissolving-stay S51438 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That document says October 15. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the name of this section to display the correct date. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So change the Idaho color on the map. Make it dark blue. M.Karelin (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the note has been changed. It's still pending on my calendar. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The document was either changed, or I read it wrong. Sorry for the confusion. S51438 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking Forward
Once same-sex marriage is legalized across the United States, I think a lot of this stuff is going to need to be shuffled off into a separate article; as-is. the article is long, rambly, and contains an enormous number of details, many of which probably aren't necessary for the main article; many probably either belong on state-specific pages, or in a general history of same-sex marriage in the United States. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. In fact, I'd suggest that the table for states with stayed rulings for SSM should be moved to the litigation section, and the list of states with SSM should be moved to its own article. The simplest thing to do might be to re-title "Legal issues" as "Recognition by jurisdiction", or something of that sort, and make the link to the list a "See" directly under the section title. Everything under The "Case law" section should likewise be moved to its own article and perhaps linked from the "History" section, since all the notable cases are already discussed there. Of course, putting under "In litigation" would also work, at least until the question is answered nationwide, at which point that section will likely disappear. -Rrius (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Florida
If we're going to step out against what seems to be the preponderance of reliable sources not showing Florida as being in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage, we need some high-quality secondary sources supporting that claim. I did a search and came up with nothing. What's our justification here? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Florida transition color is due to page 32 of the ruling in Florida: "The preliminary injunctions set out in paragraphs 4 and 6 are stayed and will not take effect until 91 days after stays have been denied or lifted in Bostic v. Schaefer, [etc.] The stay may be lifted or extended by further order." I'd personally leave it as stayed, but don't feel strongly enough to try and revert it. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat
 * I'm not saying it's incorrect, but it seems like WP:OR for Wikipedia to interpret the WP:PRIMARY source without reliable secondary sources backing it up. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the ruling of a stay in Florida's case was tied to the goings-on with these cases today and what the SCOTUS decided to do with them. Now that the high court passed on them, the ACLU in the state and other groups are calling on the judge to lift it and allow marriages to go forward. That doesn't mean FL AG Bondi won't continue the fight (she hasn't decided on her next move yet) or that she won't just ask a higher court to put in a new stay if ALCU et. al. succeed, but I guess that fits under "pending". http://flaglerlive.com/71258/gay-marriage-ending/ -Ghal416 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's premature to say "pending" without a reliable secondary source. By that logic, Texas could be "pending" too. Not trying to sound combative -- I just don't want us to be jumping the gun on this when there are serious and complex legal issues involved. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree per WP:OR the coloring needs to be changed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A fair point Kudzu1. Just stating is all. I defer to whatever you guys believe is the right course. Still trying to get the hang of how the proper rules are regarding sourcing. -Ghal416 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have found your secondary source. http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20141006/APN/310069725 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, 0nlyth3truth! That's very helpful. I do think we should follow the article's lead and wait for the attorney general's ruling. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A question I have regarding this...and this goes for other stays across the country...is Florida the only state with a stay that has this language regarding connection to the cases that were before the SCOTUS today and what the high court did, or were there others? Did Texas have a similar point in it's ruling? Just curious. That could help in seeing if there is a separation amongst the rulings on this concept. -Ghal416 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've rolled Florida back to the stayed beige for now. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. I guess we'll see how it goes. Still curious how FL's ruling point matches with others around the country, if anyone is able to answer. -Ghal416 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of any other ruling that incorporated similar language, but it will be interesting to see whether SCOTUS' decision not to set controlling precedent ends up setting a precedent, as it were. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe Florida's explicit reliance on SCOTUS action towards the stays is unique, although I may be forgetting something in an older ruling. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I share the same view as well Kudzu1. It appears that more was said...by not saying anything. It will depend on how AG Bondi sees it though of course. Even if Judge Hinkle does indeed lift the stay, AG Bondi could just ask the Circuit Court of Appeals to put in a new stay if she wants. We'll see. And yeah Dralwik, I don't recall another ruling that had such language in FL. -Ghal416 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We should not wait for the AG to step in before coloring Florida light blue. Once the temporary stay is extended then it can go back to gold. Otherwise, Florida should remain light blue until same-sex marriage is legal. Also, in the future- these discussions belong on the map's talk page, not here. Prcc twenty-seven (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with Prcc27 on all counts. The ruling was very clear. 90 days after the other cases were dealt with. Not 90 days after the cases are dealt with and Bondi says something. Swifty819 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A potential specter here is No original research. In its passage on primary sources, it states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." So stating the Florida stay is scheduled to expire in 91 days" would pass, but "same-sex marriages are scheduled to start in 91 days" fails by my reading, as it interprets the situation as ruling out action by the Attorney General. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 05:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern Dralwik, but at least until AG Bondi decides, in the interim is the case that Prcc brings up that the stay could "technically" be lifted. Just my opinion of course. Ghal416 (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-gay-marriage-scotus-decision-20141006-story.html From this article: "If Hinkle lifts the stay, Bondi could still ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to issue a stay pending an appeal. If that court refuses, and Hinkle lifts his own stay, then same-sex marriage could theoretically become legal within a month." In the same article about the federal case: "Hinkle stayed his ruling until similar cases in federal appeals courts elsewhere were heard by the Supreme Court. Now, that stay is being called into question."..."The district court said that the stay in our case will exist until the stays in the 4th and 10th circuit cases are denied, plus 91 days," said ACLU lawyer Tilley. "And the stays in those cases will be lifted today. Once Tilley asks the court to lift the stay, he expects the state to take all 17 days to respond."  Don't know if this helps, but just passing along. Ghal416 (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Florida is the only with this kind of exception but knowing Bondi she might appeal and as we are close to election that might pursue her to do it but like the actions of the SC today she might leave it and let Florida have marriage equality but seriously doubt it. NC ban should be struck by next Thursday if I read correctly as a judge might decide in 10 days.--Allan120102 (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah though the possibility is there, I feel Bondi will ultimately more than likely keep her stance. It's less than a month till the election and she likely won't want to piss off her base (we'll see but that does seem likely). Even if ACLU et al succeeds in getting Judge Hinkle to remove his stay, she could just as easily ask the Circuit Court of Appeals to apply a new stay. - Ghal416 (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We need to keep Florida the way it is now because Bondi has just announced that she has officially petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to rule on the issue, meaning that it is only a matter of time, waiting for them to address or decline it before FL has marriage equality. VisaBlack (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Idaho issuing licenses
Idaho has started issuing marriage licenses. Source: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/idaho-begins-issuing-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples/  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Asterixed status needs to be removed from the sidebar. --Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wish we could, but an admin with a happy trigger finger has protected it (due to "edit warring" over Idaho) and is refusing to change it now because, and I quote, "it might change again at any time" and has refused to lift the protection. So we're stuck with the asterisk for a while. Kumorifox (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A self-important Wiki-Warrior is holding the page hostage due to his own ego. Ugh…. Why am I not surprised? That's not how the asterix status works, and he needs to answer to us about it and here. --Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well....name-calling doesn't help. There is a history of warring re this template that he is trying to forestall, though at this point he couldn't be more wrong.
 * If anyone feels strongly about the nearly invisible asterisk, why not comment out the sidebar. Would anyone object? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no inherent problem with the asterisk being there, we can wait until protection is lifted to change it, if necessary. Also, I have no problem with the template being protected. It was being edited too much too fast, I completely agree. However, speculative prohibition of changing the information while sources indicate otherwise, along with refusing this change that (by now) has a very strong consensus, is not exactly something that would endear one to people. Hence my objections to said admin's actions. Kumorifox (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone who has previously asked the admin for unprotection of the template can start a request for the template to be unprotected. The relevant link is here: . I do not know if anyone has asked the admin directly for template unprotection. It seems as though there have only been edit requests so far . David O. Johnson (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Alaska
And now that there's a stay in Alaska, he's not looking entirely wrong. When it comes to the Ninth Circuit, all bets are off. http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/10/15/ninth-circuit-temporarily-halts-alaska-sex-marriages/ Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't worry much. The Alaskan hold is only going to last for 3 total days. There is no chance the Supreme Court will back the hault. VisaBlack (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Temporary stay; tables
How come Alaska is listed on the legal table but Florida is listed on the stay table when both have temporary stays..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's because the stay is brief and for a specific purpose (to allow the losers to seek a stay from the Supreme Court) or due to an oversight (or perhaps laziness, as in, "Why move this if we are likely to have to move this back Friday afternoon given that the Supreme Court denied a similar request in Latta just a couple of days ago?"). -Rrius (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

ARIZONA
Same-sex marriage is legal, as of right now, in Arizona. There is no stay of this decision. https://www.scribd.com/doc/243343079/2-14-cv-00024-88 216.165.95.66 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Congrats to Arizona for becoming the 31st state to legalize! I am glad this page has been so busy lately, that is indeed a good thing. VisaBlack (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wyoming
Governor Mead announced the state wont appeal and that the Attorney General will notice with the court declining to appeal prior to the October 23 deadline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:1E00:F4C:E035:A13B:766D:BF05 (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * New update: Same-sex marriage will become legal at precisely 10:00AM MDT tomorrow, 10/21. Wyoming should turn dark blue at that time. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Here is the source: -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ohio and Tennessee
Shouldn't Ohio and Tennessee be listed as states legalizing SSM with stayed rulings? Shouldn't they also be in the table of cases with stayed rulings pending appeal. Both of these cases were heard by the the 6th Ciruit, and both Justices stated the laws were unconstitutional. They both stayed further rulings pending appeal. Any ruling the 6th Circuit makes will directly affect all four states. Unlike in the 9th and 4th circuits. --Celtic hackr (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they should. Laikalynx (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In TN, the judge did not issue any order about recognizing SSM generally. He issued an order that applied only to the three plaintiff couples. So no for Tennessee, since there's no stayed ruling that would apply state-wide if allowed to go into effect. In Ohio I think the judge's order was only about birth and death certificates and (at most) about recognizing marriages from other jurisdictions. What happens when the 6th Circuit rules should be interesting. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, that the judge's injunction was for just the three couples. But the ruling applies to the law itself and the Constitutinal amendment. Once the appeals process is exhausted, if not overturned, the ruling will apply state-wide. Hence a court has ruled SSM legal in Tennesee, but issued an injunction for just the couples involved. It's a peculiar order. The ruling applies state-wide, but the injunction only for three couples. Therefore it is my conclusion that the Federal Tennessee court has ruled SSM legal pending appeal. The Tennesse case was heard along with the other cases, and will be ruled on by the Circuit at the same time. It makes no sense to leave the Tennessee state as "banned" and the other three as "Judicial rulings overturning...". The court has ruled, the appeal heard, and awaiting the 6th Circuit to publish it's opinion. In Ohio, there were two cases and in one case the laws were ruled unconstitutional. Ohio is no longer about just the death certificate. All four states are about full SSM rights, and all four should be treated the same. The stayed injunctions are not the controlling factor. The ruling of the legality of the laws at issue is the controlling factor. If a law is ruled illegal or unconstitutional it is struck down. Period. Celtic hackr (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Animated image of the map of SSM legal status by State creating a Time Line?
Would anyone be interested in created an animated image showing the evolution and spread of rights across the map? It would ideally resemble this animated US map of statehood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_states_by_date_of_statehood3.gif The evolution of the map, of the legal status by each state of SSM, I think is absolutely fascinating, separate from SSM specifically, but the larger umbrella of how a culture defines itself here an now, and how political rights and ideas spread. I think it would be very informative animation about the process of national consensus on civil rights. Is there a better place to direct this question? (It is have been so long since I last logged in, I will have to search for my proper login/handle, which might have been npendleton, but will use ip address for now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.110.210 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good idea to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Very nice idea. Would you want every step animated (i.e. from the first statue and/or constitutional bans to striking down to stays to full legality) or just legality (so starting with Massachusetts and continuing down the line)? Kumorifox (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be cool. Would it be possible to have some compromise between the one-tick-per-event version seen on the statehood map, and a simple linear timeline (i.e., each year is two seconds)? Because the one tick per event loses the sense of how slow things were and how rapid things like the past week are, but a strict timeline either takes forever or reduces some interesting periods of a lot happening into single simultaneous events. (But anything would be good, I'm not trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good here.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to try my hand at making this, but what would be the general idea that people want to see? Just marriage legality, so a list of 29 or so images with every state changing as it goes, or everything from the repealing of sodomy laws to the legality of civil unions and limited rights to full marriage equality like is happening now? Kumorifox (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ideally, I would want to see variations of a single color, to represent a single continuity of possibilities. Sodomy laws are a bit of a red herring in this; they are parallel to but not directly overlapping with the marriage question. So I'd want to see something like this:
 * White: State with a constitutional or voter-approved ban on SSM, and no civil unions (or domestic partnerships or other marriagesque statuses)
 * Light green: State without a constitutional or voter-approved ban on SSM, but without SSM or civil unions
 * Medium green: State with civil unions but not SSM
 * Solid green: State that grants SSM
 * Than means skipping things like "stayed rulings", just so we can stay on a single clear axis; introducing multiple colors rather than just depth of color I think will confuse rather than help create a clear visual representation of what has been going on (I have no idea how that flies with accessibility concerns.) If I were to add one more color, it would be between "medium" and "solid", for states that recognize but do not grant SSM. I suggest green simply because it doesn't have the political implications of red or blue; I'm not saying such implications would be utterly invalid, but it's not needed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone begun work on this yet? If not, I'd be happy to do so. VisaBlack (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't yet, but I managed to gather the information about dates of bans, civil unions, and full equality. I was just wondering how to transition them, if they would be done by year, by state or by ruling, or some other fashion. For example, California had its first ruling for equality and the subsequent prop 8 ban within a single year, so there would be a very brief window for transition in the animation. Maybe a year in 4 seconds, so there are 3 months per second? Or would that be excessively slow if you count from 1992 (when DC allowed domestic partnerships)? Kumorifox (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I made an animated map, but I'd like people's input about it before it is used elsewhere. Be gentle, this is my first time ever making an animated gif, but please let me know what you think of issues like colour choice and transition speed, or anything else you feel is important. I have a legend on the Commons page, not sure how to add one here as well. Thanks for your input, folks!



Kumorifox (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's very good and appreciated. But why not use the same color-scheme of 'red' and 'blue' as the article? --Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The ordering of the table was disrupted, I fixed it
There were two discussions, both started by me, in which it was discussed that the table should be sorted by the enactment/ordered date. Someone went back and changed this without consulting the talk page. I have went through and fixed this. Please do not revert. The ordering that was on before my fix was insane. Even if it was going for enforcement order, it was sorting Utah before Illinois due to a limited number of licenses that went out before the stay. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that was the first to make the problematic, undiscussed re-order . After which for whatever reason the edit was accepted, and others just went with it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason it was accepted was because it's the right edit. When a court or whatever grants same-sex marriage the things that matters is when the state starts issuing same-sex marriage.  I put them in the correct order of the state when those states started issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Just because a state has legalized same-sex marriage doesn't matter.  What matters is issuing same-sex marriage.  The effective date of the legalization is more important than when it was issues.  Also there are states like Utah that issues marriage licenses and those where still recognized by the federal government.  That means Utah should behind New Mexico in terms of legalization. AHC300 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, there was no consensus. If you look at the discussions above 1 2(and the position of Rrius below) your position does not have any support. Your edit got washed in a sea of edits (and worse without an edit summary). People didn't catch your edit, which is why it lasted as long as it did. More importantly, if your edit did have consensus, then someone would have reverted my fix. Also, we have to go with what reliable sources say as well, which will say IL is 16, NM 17, OR 18, PA 19, etc... . Thegreyanomaly (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One you do not have to be so rude. Wiki is not your own Stalinist personal dictatorship.  Other people can edit and disagree with you. Two is it's not right. Illinois is not the 16th.  My state of Pennsylvania had same-sex marriage legal statewide before Illinois.  To say otherwise is factual wrong.  It seems you only want edits that favor what ever YOU want.AHC300 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It makes the most sense to either order by (1) the date the statute became law or decision was made on the merits in the last relevant court, or (2) the date from which marriage was permanently available, i.e., the date the statute took effect or the last stay, if any, was lifted. That is especially true since those are the dates we list in the table. -Rrius (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the edit was accepted not because it was "the right edit", but because no major policy was violated. I can say this with 100% confidence because I am the one who accepted it. Pending changes is about keeping out vandalism, BLP violations, and other obvious crap. In the words of WP:Pending changes, "Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the correctness of the edit." I could have reverted the change, just as any editor could have, but chose not to. I was busy reverting another series of edits that were part of that large block of unreviewed edits and did not want to put the time into reviewing the effects of the changes and whether they violated a pre-existing consensus (as appears to be the case) or made any sense at all. With respect to changes I didn't necessarily agree with, but was not in a strong position to judge, my choice to do nothing aside from accepting them was in line with the guidance given at WP:Reviewing. -Rrius (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the double rows for Utah, Wisconsin, and Indiana. I integrated the fact that some SSMs were performed pre-stay into the notes box. By the logic of UT/WI/IN, Iowa should also have a double line (as there was one couple to get an SSM pending their stay way back when), so it had to be fixed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted your disruptive edit. There is absolutely no consensus for your edit. If you repeat it and do no have any demonstrable consensus, I (or someone else) will revert it and then I will report you for edit warring. Please stop! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Caling in other recent editors
Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ,, - you three were the only ones to respond to the two previous discussions on this matter. I was wondering if you could re-formalize your support/opposition to AHC300's disruptive edit (see ) where the states were put in "effective legalization of same-sex marriage in the state." Please note in this method, it means the first time ever SSMs are performed is the "effective date", and thus Utah would precede Illinois... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * : You are all registered users who have made edits to the article since AHC300 first reorganized the legalization table (I have missed some people, I went through quickly):
 * I am pinging you all to ask your opinion of whether the legalization table should:
 * 1) Remain as is and be organized based on the date a law/case was enacted or ordered (and by ordered I mean the last ruling on the merits of the case; also note the last ruling on the merits isn't always the last ruling (e.g., Hollingsworth v. Perry)). This is the existing consensus that we have been using for a very long time (or possibly forever), which AHC300 is seeking to replace.
 * 2) "the date from which marriage was permanently available, i.e., the date the statute took effect or the last stay, if any, was lifted." (per )
 * 3) or use AHC300's order see ) where the states were put in "effective legalization of same-sex marriage in the state." Please note in this method, it means the first time ever SSMs are performed is the "effective date", and thus Utah would precede Illinois.

Discussion
One other thing that needs to be noted, is that we ought to strip the numbers out if we are to change anything. This would allow us to not be actively going against reliable sources with use enacted/ordered orde (except when they can't do math (i.e., everything between Prop 8 and Hollingsworth v. Perry, where they counted legalizations but somehow always forgot CA)). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Leave it "as is". The tables are currently User orderable by selected column heading. If a Reader wants to order the table by date they can. I see no reason to change this. If you are asking about the default state, I'd say leave it in alphabetical order by state. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the current state (i.e., "as is") is bullet 1, where the states are sorted by the date the bill was enacted for the final ruling was ordered per the existing consensus. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The table is not "completely" orderable, because California gets split as soon as the order is changed, and is not re-merged when the original order is restored. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 23:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would go by the date of the initial (earliest) affirmative ruling of the case that got carried through the entire court hierarchy until legalisation took place, and not the date of the latest ruling. This would put both Utah and Oklahoma before Oregon, for example, as Utah had an initial ruling of December 20, 2013, Oklahoma had a ruling on January 14, 2014, and Oregon had a ruling on May 19, 2014. The fact that the Utah and Oklahoma rulings were stayed and appealed does not deter from the fact that those rulings (by Judge Shelby and Judge Kern, respectively) were the ones that ultimately led to marriage equality in those states, as those two cases (Kitchen and Bishop) were the ones that went the full way up the ladder. Kumorifox (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was referring to either option one or option two as sensible choices. I think the proposed change puts undo emphasis on "window marriages", some of which are not recognized by the relevant state, even if they are recognized by the federal government. That puts us in the position of potentially having to research into the state's position on window marriages to figure out where to put some states. What's more, we have columns for two dates: when the legal event occurred, and when the legal event took effect. Why on earth would we order states by some other date? Using the proposed order would only lead to our having to revert editors who well-meaningly try to put the states back in order based on the dates we actually do display. And adding two more columns to show window start and end dates is just too much for this table. The Notes column is squished as it is. -Rrius (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I strong object to organizing it by date of enactment/ruling because it makes states like mine (Pennsylvania) below Illinois. Illinois did NOT legalize gay marriage in Nov. 2013.  It was June 1, 2014 that gay marriage was legalized nationwide.  Saying otherwise is kinda of insulting to the people of my state.AHC300 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Illinois signed the bill before there was a ruling in Pennsylvania, so Illinois had legality first. Ergo, Illinois should be listed first. No offence to Pennsylvanians. Kumorifox (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? The bill was signed in Nov 2013. That doesn't mean gay marriage was legal there.  PA had a federal judge strike it down on May 20, 2014 and Illinois became legal on June 1, 2014. So you are wrong.  Illinois did not legalize it first because PA was issuing gay marriages before Illinois.  All that matters is when the marriages start becoming issues.  Don't Ask Don't Tell wasn't repealed in Dec 2010 when Obama signed the bill into law.  It was September 2011 when it was repealed.AHC300 (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite the legislation setting a start date of June 1, 2014, marriages began on February 21, 2014 in Illinois after a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman. Therefore any argument between Illinois and Pennsylvania/Oregon being listed first shouldn't matter since both court rulings came after marriages actually began in Illinois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:1E00:F4C:706E:AD69:BE31:CF6F (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The signing of the bill is far less important than its effective date. That's was effective means. By contrast, the phrase you use "had legality" doesn't make sense -- "had legality" but no same-sex marriage was recognize and no same-sex couple get a marriage license. "Had legality" is a very strange concept. Similarly, MA did not have SSM in early 2004 while waiting for the court decision to take effect. We didn't "have legality". We had promise and anticipation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wanting ones state to appear higher/lower in the list is not valid rationale for Wikipedia. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, forgive my ignorance. But then we do get an interesting dichotomy with states like New Mexico. In 2004, marriages were performed in NM without a ban being in place, and these marriages were never annulled by court order or legislation, according to the NM page. Therefore, NM should be listed as 2004 instead, and not as 2013. Kumorifox (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * - this is the problem with AHC's proposal. Additionally, Iowa would have to be put up ahead in 2007 instead of 2009, due to the marriage of Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan. The dates used should be the dates of permanence, we can logically debate between enacted/ordered permanence vs. enforeced permanence, but the idea that marriages that "leaked" out before a stay way placed should influence the table is completely bogus Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullet 2 is my preference. AHC300 makes a good point about PA and IL above, a good example of why bullet 2 is preferable. And I'll second Habit's point. It's important that the list be fully sortable. The way California is handled now prevents that. And BTW, "Legislative statute" is an odd phrase. Don't we just mean "Enacted" here? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Legislative statute differentiates from referendum Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Date first available: They should go in order of the date same-sex marriage was legalized throughout the state. If it was stayed, overturned, or repealed and later reinstated, that should be noted as well without affecting the order. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullet 2, permanent implementation. I'd order the states by when licenses were issued and not since revoked. Thus, I would have California listed in June 2013. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 01:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * California would need to be second in June 2008. Those marriages were never revoked. Same-sex marriage in California today (until the statute goes into effect) is legal due to In re Marriage cases. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My primary preference is bullet 1, but I would take bullet 2 over AHC300's proposal. Permanence trumps marriages that were perform in temporary stay free window. Also, before someone idiotically brings it up, California is in no way homologous to OK/WI/IN/etc. The marriages in 2011 in CA were started and stopped by independent legal actions, unlike the stay debacles in the other states. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the table should be ordered by performance date, not legalization date. Also, I think dates of when states performed same-sex marriage should be included even if there was stay that halted them. Prcc27 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then will you back moving Iowa to 2007 or New Mexico to 2004? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not... the table only deals with statewide legalization not countywide, which is why New Mexico wasn't added to the table until the state supreme court issued a ruling on the matter. Prcc27 (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But there was never any state ban on marriage in NM in the first place, neither statutory nor constitutional. Therefore, regardless of whether the initial marriages were restricted to a single county, and the NM state supreme court just confirmed the legality but did not implement it, meaning NM should actually be the first state in the list. Kumorifox (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then how come in 2013 when 8 counties in New Mexico issued licenses to same-sex couples New Mexico wasn't included in the table..? (It's because same-sex marriage wasn't legal statewide; it doesn't matter whether or not there is a ban). Prcc27 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because back then (and even currently until the existing consensus is thoroughly overthrown) we organized the table by state-wide enactment/ordering even if it was not enforced right away. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why NM wasn't included in 2013, but if you want to go by date of performance, it should have been. Kumorifox (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. If performance date is chosen, we'll have to reorder the list to ensure accuracy. NM and IA should be moved to 2004 and 2007, respectively, and this should be reflected in the article as well, and not just in the table. CA should then move to 4th place, for 2008, and Utah will move to 2013 instead, well before Pennsylvania and Illinois. Kumorifox (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The name of the table is States that license same-sex marriage and therefore should be in order by issuance of licenses to same-sex couples- not legalization of same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The title is not a constant. We frequently have put states in there before the SSMs actually started. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is just about the states, then alphabetical ordering would do the trick, I think? Kumorifox (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical order could also work.. but I think most people want to see in what order same-sex marriage became legal in each state (not to be confused with legalized). Whatever the outcome is- we should have two dates for Utah and other applicable states, just like we do for California. Prcc27 (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh... I pointed this out (before someone idiotically brings it up, California is in no way homologous to OK/WI/IN/etc. The marriages in 2011 in CA were started and stopped by independent legal actions, unlike the stay debacles in the other states.) and I still get this response... Utah/Wisconsin/Indiana/etc. where marriages leaked out before a stay was put in to place are in no way analogous to California where the State SC ordered SSM, and then a reactionary later-determined-unconstitutional state constitutional amendment temporarily ceased SSM. Also, if UT/etc. get a double row for the pre-stay marriages, then IA and NM logically would need them too. Iowa is perfectly homologous to some of the pre-stay marriage states. New Mexico had legally recognized SSM in 2004, so it would logically be first. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Iowa is not comparable because the first order didn't apply statewide. It doesn't matter if New Mexico recognized same-sex marriage; this map only deals with performance (otherwise Missouri would be added to the table). Prcc27 (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they would be thoroughly comparable. Also, remember in some of the window states some counties started on different days. Those NM marriages were completely valid and recognized by the entire state, so they must count towards the date under bullet 3. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really.. I'm suggesting we order it by the first statewide effective date (of the law) and add other statewide effective dates that follow that. Counties would not be included in the table and if it is too hard for people to understand why counties are included, we could always revise the wording of the note. Prcc27 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Problem, all of states with window marriages went one county at a time generally. I remember for Utah at one point it was a question if any county other than SLC would perform SSM
 * It doesn't matter when the counties began issuing. What matters is when the law goes into effect. Even if the law goes into effect and counties aren't issuing (either because they aren't following the law or it happens to be a weekend) the table would still only show the effective date like it does now. I'm not suggesting we switch the table from de jure to de facto, I'm only suggesting we order it by effective date and add other effective dates that have been omitted. Prcc27 (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I know California had marriage equality for a few months and the remaining window states only for a week or so at most, but that shouldn't matter. Those marriages were never invalidated, they were performed in the state and recognised by the state. Even if only one county issued marriage licenses on a particular day, and those licenses were recognised by the state, then that date should go into the table if we go by date of effect. Also, Alaska went into effect on a weekend, and it was only the Monday after that people could apply for licenses, so should we list Alaska on the Monday instead? I know it won't matter for the table order, I'm just looking for clarification on this. Kumorifox (talk)


 *  Option #4  Option 2 makes the most sense - the date same-sex marriage went into effect throughout the state. California should be a special case and still remain #2 with an explanation. UPDATE: My point is that California would be broken up into two positions. If there's a way to fix that and keep it at #2, that would be my preference. Also, the date effective column should go before the enacted/ruling column. That's my final answer! lol Teammm  $talk email$ 01:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean by option 4? According to a plain reading of option 2, California would still be #2. Some people above may have been incorrectly conflating the situation in California with the situation in UT/WI/IN/etc (which are not at all homologous) leading to an incorrect interpretation of said option. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why California should be the only special case. Because Prop 8 was legislative action, whereas Utah, Arkansas, Michigan etc. were stayed by the courts? Could someone please clarify this for me? Kumorifox (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * California established SSM based on the unstayable unappealable decision of its highest court that the California Constitution would not allow a statutory SSM ban (In re Marriage Cases); the right to SSM was revoked by a completely different entity (the passage of Proposition 8). The right to SSM in the window states was only because judges (stupidly) failed to stay their rulings. The SSM windows in their state were merely present due to the time it took to get a stay put in place. The start and stop of SSM were not due to independent actions. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Option #2 does not make sense. I was married in California in 2008, and my marriage was never determined to be illegal.  To say that California legalized ssm in 2013 is not correct.  It was legalized in 2008, and then new ss marriages were prohibited by a law that was found to be unconstitutional.  Striking down the 2008 proposition made the 2008 ruling the prevailing law.  How do you define "permanent" when talking about law?  It seems to me that we only have two choices -- either we order by the date of the ruling or legislative action that was ultimately upheld to make ssm legal, or we order by the date that the ruling went into effect.  We have to choose one of these, because they are the only two dates that are in our chart.  If we were to choose any other date (like the date that the first marriage license was issued) we'd be ordering the chart in an unexplained way.  This would just asking for trouble, as editors passing by would most likely assume that someone had messed up the chart and try to reorder it and "fix" it.  To remedy this, you would have to add a column for the date when the first ssm license was issued.  I don't think this is workable, as there is so much variation and inconsistency around the date of first issuance.  Would you count Utah from before or after the stay?  How about the states where just one or a very small handful of licenses were issued?  What about the counties that issued SSM licenses before the rest of the state?  (I got a marriage license from San Francisco in 2004!)  I don't think this third option is workable.  So we have to pick either the date that court decision / legislative action, or the date of implementation.  Either way is possible, but I think the former (bullet 1) is better.  The main reason I think so, is because it is the date that is historically more important and more interesting.  The date a court, electorate, or legislature decided the issue was the date that it was big news.  The date of implementation is less relevant and less news worthy.  For example,  When Illinois made the decision it was major news.  When it went into effect is was minor news.  However, If anyone can cite consistent third party sources that lists the states one way over the other,  I would find that to be a good reason to choose that approach.  -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman  01:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in total agreement. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Second that. Kumorifox (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * does this then mean you support option 1? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but possibly in slightly amended form. I would place Utah in December 2013 and Oklahoma In January 2014, as these were the dates the cases that ultimately won received their first rulings, i.e. the day it was "major news", like Sam said above. Not sure if that is what you meant by "merits of the case", if it was, then I support option 1 without amending. Kumorifox (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is actually highly problematic, because for Massachusetts, California (2008), Connecticut, Iowa, California (2013), New Jersey, and New Mexico, we are using the date of the final ruling on the merits of the case (i.e., ruling on same-sex marriage not ruling on the legality of who is appealing as was the case in Hollingsworth v. Perry). We should not use December/January for Utah or Oklahoma. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm confused by what you mean with "merits of the case". I thought the date of the California supreme court ruling was the first, and judge Walker's ruling was the one used for the second part in California, and not the appeals cases. Kumorifox (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the original legalization of SSM in California and legalization of SSM in all other judicial ruling states, we use the date for the last ruling on the merits of the case. A ruling on the merits of the case is a ruling that actually rules on same-sex marriage as opposed to a ruling on some legal procedure. For example, in the Proposition 8 case, the SCOTUS ruling on Hollingsworth v. Perry did not rule on whether SSM should be legal, they just ruled that prop 8 proponents were never allowed to appeal; thus for California's second line we use Walker's district court ruling date (as that is the only valid ruling on the merits of the case). In every other case, the merits of SSM were addressed, so the merits of the case isn't really a variable to think about. For Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana,... the last ruling on the cases (which all ruled on the merits of the respective cases) were in June, July, and September, not December/January/February. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification. So I guess what I was proposing is the date of the first ruling instead? Kumorifox (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and first ruling date is pretty much untenable. First rulings legally do not mean anything unless they are the only (valid) ruling. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see. I did not know that. Then yes, the final ruling date or the day of signing the bill is the one that I support. Kumorifox (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement. My initial position (way up higher on the page) which I reiterated just above, is that the first date should be the date decision that ultimately decided the case (after any stays were lifted), and this would usually be the appeals court decision.  The second date would be the date that the court set for SSM to go into effect. If there were two decisions that led to SSM going into effect (like in CA) there would be two entries. So yes, Utah's first date would be December 2013, and Oklahoma would be January 2014.-- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman  18:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * then you two actually aren't in agreement. For Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana,... the "decision[s] that ultimately decided the case[s]" were in June, July, and September. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad. I do actually agree with the later dates.  I got confused.  I think the distinction is between whether the merits of the case were argued again by the court, of if the matter being discussed was simply the lifting of a stay. So if an appeal court reheard the case the decision date would be the date of the ruling by the appeals court.  However, if a court just discusses and decides to lift a stay, the previous date would be the one we use.  If a court decides that the decision from a previous decision made about a different state now applies to another, it would be new date not the previous one.  -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman  15:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No consensus
Feel free to add yourself or move yourself if you change your mind or if I misread you Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Option 1:, , ,
 * Option 2:, ,
 * Option 3:, , ,
 * Option 1 or 2:

I took a tally of what positions have been expressed. There are a few things I can infer: Option 1 has a narrow plurality, Option 3 has the least support, and there clearly is no consensus on the matter. Due to no consensus, the status quo holds until a new consensus is formed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I still support option 3, but prefer option 2 over option 1. Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if all option 3 supporters moved to option 2, that would be 6-4 and still too narrow to be a consensus. Basically, unless more people show up, this discussion is not going to change the existing consensus. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Table for states banning SSMAR
Wouldnt it make sense to include a sortable table of the states that currently ban same sex marriage? then we would have 3 tables for all the states and their statuses (stati?), along with percentages of us population under the various rulings. I would be bold and create one, but i dont have that editing skill (user:Mercurywoodrose)99.101.137.230 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Comment - just a preemptive notice to anyone trying to implement this, 6-4 is not a consensus. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to one of your questions: stati is objectively wrong. The Latin plural of status is statūs not statī. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I support adding a table for states that ban same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose as it would be superfluous. There are no states that don't have SSM that don't ban it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose. Not sure what the sortable content would be. Start dates don't matter, etc. We should at least name them, so I added a quick list right after where we name the 32 legals. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I think the most interesting sortable information would be the date of the most recent law to support the ban. That may include constitutional amendments or other referenda as well as traditional legislation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. For those worried about being superfluous, there are better cuts we could make (like one of the 3 or 4 maps of the US, at least two of which are only minimally different in purpose; isn't one map showing where SSM is legal enough?). This, on the other hand, seems like a good way to streamline and contrast information in table form. It's a needed balance and counterpoint to the table showing where SSM is legal. It's also more pertinent and definitive than the table showing where SSM is pending. --Downthewikiwormhole (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. It will give a complete overview of all the states and balance the article with both sides of the matter being reported. Addition of other information, such as current court cases and the last date of the constitutional ban (there are no states with only statutory bans by now) would give more sortable content. It will also facilitate for easier moving of information to the other tables if any court cases advance with stays or if the bans are struck down. Kumorifox (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: would territories be included..? If so, what do we do about the territories with no law for or against..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, territories should be included as they are part of the US, but I'd keep them together in a separate table for now. So far, there is no territory with SSM legality, so columns are easy to apply, and in the "notes" section, it can be stated whether there is no law for or against. Once territories start legalising, we can add columns that show legal and effective dates, or we can move them to the main tables if necessary. DC was incorporated into the main table despite not being a state, so I don't see why that cannot be done with territories once the time comes. If that would make things too convoluted, I'd suggest placing Puerto Rico and the remaining territory with a ban (can't remember which one it is, the Virgin Islands?) in the "banned" table, and the remaining ones in a new "no law" table, which will likely disappear over time. Kumorifox (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Puerto Rico is the only territory included in the population estimate we are using... maybe we could have a whole separate section for the territories like we do for tribal jurisdictions? Prcc27 (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This makes sense I mean why not include all 50 states here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support both states and territories, separate table or addendum for no law, as Prcc27 suggests. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Such a table would be extraneous and this article is long enough; a reader can use process of elimination to know which states are not listed yet. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 02:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose as it would be superfluous. Difbobatl (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not going to implement it, but what margin would be required for consensus to be called, just to be clear? Indeed though, 6-4 is WAY too close. Kumorifox (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this is not a policy-based matter (it is just personal preference), I don't think arguments for/against can be weighted (i.e., if 5 people had policy based positions and 5 people had "just didn't like it" positions, then consensus would not be numerical). I am not sure if there is a hard and fast number for a consensus. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the clarification. Kumorifox (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The topic of when and how states decided to ban SSM is definitely wiki-worthy. Nobody needs to reach consensus on that, as the topic is obviously notable.  The only question, I think, is weighing where the information should go, and in what form. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman  22:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I support Adding a table of the states that ban ssm it will give the reader a complete highlight and the total population that still lack marital rights. Sorry if I am late hope my vote counts.--Allan120102 (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose. It is not needed at all. It would be superfluous and it would add nothing besides clutter to the page. Whoever came up with this idea must be bored and looking for something to occupy their time. My advise, work on another article that needs it. VisaBlack (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)