Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 15

State Law v. Territory Law
OK, so now we have all the states (and DC) recognizing SSM, so the state recognition section is very simple except what history needs to be kept and labeled as such. There is a separate section for Tribal Law, could we not have a section for Territory Law to deal with all our complications? If so, the map could be moved there, since the non-territory part of it should just be a sea of dark blue. This would make it much more useful. Difbobatl (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, but unfortunately some people think "consensus " means "only when everyone agrees with me. " Come on folks... compromise. Make KS blue. Enjoy it a couple days, then face reality... it's law and the map is of no encyclopedic value. Njsustain (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect and are presenting misleading information to make Kansas blue when those people there are not receiving recognition of their same-sex marriages. It is misinformation to pretend that equality already exists in Kansas when it still fails to recognize marriages there. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a newspaper (as per WP standards). No one is saying they won't comply, so it isn't misinformation. Brown vs. Board of Ed took years for full compliance. It's been 4 business days, and you're claiming my information is incorrect, as if this is a news source instead of an encyclopedic article. You have your head buried in the sand if you think KS can keep benefits from anyone for significantly longer. Njsustain (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate your "head in the sand" metaphor. Just because Kansas is certainly going to have to comply at some point doesn't mean the map should be changed to reflect a state of affairs that isn't even true yet. There is not indication that they won't comply, but there is no indication that Kansas is complying because it isn't complying as of the last update. Dustin  ( talk ) 18:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't justify having an entire map in this article just for one state not quite in 100% compliance (oh, and a couple of territories with a [non-voting] population the size of an apartment building). Njsustain (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are underrating the importance of the territories. Puerto Rico has a population higher than several states, and tens of thousands live elsewhere. Regardless of what you think of this as a person, think of it from an editor's standpoint. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the map isn't useless until every jurisdiction is colored dark blue. Otherwise, it's important information and should stay on the article. Prcc27 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * PR's compliance is a done deal, so that part of your argument is moot, or a lame duck at best. And from an editor's point of view, I would not put in a full map of the U.S. to show that KS is not in full compliance. Here's how I would do it, as an editor: Say "Kansas is not yet in full compliance." Njsustain (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But same-sex marriage isn't being enforced in PR, and the other territories haven't legalized same-sex marriage yet. And then there's American Samoa which will likely be without same-sex marriage for a while. Also, KS's non-compliance is important to note because same-sex couples don't receive benefits and recognition. All they get is a piece of paper that says they're married and federal recognition. As a result, the map still serves an important purpose. Prcc27 (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, these things are worth mentioning, but that does not translate into having a map. Sir or Madam, I greatly appreciate all the hard work you have done keeping this map updated over the months and years. It was the most accurate and up to date source of what was going on. But a few Kansas state agencies and a couple of territories does not justify having an entire map of the US on this page. You are of course free to discuss the minutia on the acutual map page, for what it's worth, but like Bobby Jindal, it is time to let it go. Njsustain (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic toward this point of view. A map - or any graphic, for that matter - is only useful insofar as its presentation of information is superior to other methods.  When there were dozens of states in different categories, a map made a whole lot of sense; that is no longer the case.  A map is not required to convey a single outlier state and a few territories.  This could easily be covered in text or with a small table whose entries could simply be removed when the corresponding state/territory "goes blue" so to speak. Shereth 21:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What I don't get is why we can't just have patience and wait just a few weeks more to maintain this map. It has been years; I'm not saying your logic doesn't have a point, and could work for the main article maybe, but I at least don't think we should remove the map for the SSM by state page until only American Samoa remains. Some people don't want to read; that's another thing to take note of. I still argue that we aren't quite at the point that a few notes provide information more quickly than a glance at a map and a few territories. Patience is key here. Dustin  ( talk ) 21:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, maps are supposed to be a visual guide to the situation of same-sex marriage in the United States. There are still a few jurisdictions that aren't dark blue and the map makes it easier to keep track of which jurisdictions don't have full same-sex marriage. Prcc27 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay... VISUAL guide. So we have one rectangular state, and some teeny, weeny, tiny (on the map) territories that no one outside of an upper level college geography class would recognize, if they could even see them. This isn't consensus... this is YOU grasping at straws. Give it up already! Njsustain (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure most Americans know what Puerto Rico looks like, I sure do! But even if they don't know what the other territories look like- the people in those territories know what it looks like and those readers are interested in their territory's status. Prcc27 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Njsustain: You lose credibility when you shout. And your "grasping at straws" statement takes me to the verge of just not wanting to listen to you. All that aside, you haven't actually provided any valid reason. Just because someone does not agree with you doesn't mean said person is grasping at straws. I also don't think you have to be in any "upper level college geography class" to recognize at least some of the territories of the United States (especially Puerto Rico).  Dustin  ( talk ) 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr. V.S., you lose credibility by confronting me AND (sorry if I was shouting) not addressing my points. Njsustain (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please calm down. It isn't the end of the world here. Please use italics rather than capital letters for emphasis. You are not conveying the right message to me in your comments at the current time. Dustin  ( talk ) 00:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing any actual editing as it would only result in an edit war with people taking ownership of the article. I don't see that there is consensus to keep the map on this page. Prcc27, can you please give me one good reason why a table listing the few holdouts would not better convey the information better than your precious map? (And that someone doesn't like my tone is not a valid reason.) Njsustain (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do we have to chose between having one or the other? We have had a table and  a map for very, very long. These two things obviously serve different purposes. A map is visual and conveys the gist of the situation without being verbose. For those that only skim the article, this is ideal. A table goes more into depth about the situation and is more verbose. But a table would still be more verbose and not everyone will want to take the time to read it. Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree as well that this map is virtually useless at this point and the arguments presented for retaining it are grasping at straws. Also, it's potentially misleading as it signals out Kansas as having a unique "complication" not present in any other state; this does not seem to be supported by a reliable source. The "complicated legal status" claim appears to be nothing short of original research. Gay marriage is being practiced in every county in Kansas and the state govt is not explicitly rejecting recognition of same sex marriages; in fact both the state AG and the Gov's office have acknowledged that they must abide by the ruling. The issue here is that the departmental policies at the state government level simply have not been updated following the ruling as the state administration is still 'reviewing' the ruling and determining what changes need to be made. Kansas is not the only state yet to make all the governmental adjustments to comply with the ruling so the map is misleading.

Likewise, the map is misleading in claiming that there is a unique legal situation in the territories. The source provided explicitly makes clear that the ruling applies to all of the territories, the only possible exception being American Samoa. The issue there is not clear as it is not necessarily subject to the constitution in every way. This is worth mentioning. But a map of the whole country is not necessary to demonstrate that it's legal everywhere except for possibly one island with a population of 55,000 is not necessary. The unique legal situations singled out on the map appear to be arbitrary original research on the part of a couple editors. Please correct me if I'm factually wrong on any of these points, but it would appear that the map is not only unnecessary at this point, but misleading, arbitrary and not reliably sourced. It should absolutely come down if no one can present a compelling counterpoint. S warm  we ♥ our hive  00:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * How is it original research? Kansas has yet to recognize same-sex marriages . Unless you have a source that says otherwise you are the one violating WP:OR! The state is still "reviewing" the ruling, but hasn't implemented same-sex marriage recognition yet. Kansas has not conceded that same-sex marriage is legal like the other states have so dark blue would be inappropriate for Kansas. But obviously this discussion belongs on the map's talk page. Where exactly does the map say that there is a unique legal situation in the territories? The only territory colored purple is American Samoa which you seem to agree has a unique legal situation. Same-sex marriage isn't legal in Kansas and many of the territories (including Puerto Rico) so the map is necessary. Here's a reliable source for Puerto Rico not being dark blue: . And you can find reliable sources for the other territories either on the map's talk page or on the map's edit history on Commons. Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Absurd. Absolutely absurd. What you're trying to say is not reflected in reality. You're quite simply wrong. It's obvious to pretty much everyone that the anti-gay marriage governor's administration is deliberately taking its time in adjusting to and extending benefits, but they quite simply are, and have acknowledged that they are, subject to the SCOTUS ruling. They are not openly refusing to recognize same-sex marriage, in defiance of SCOTUS, as you're trying to allege here. In fact, the source you've presented says "The conservative governor said the state will move “as expeditiously as we can” to make changes, but he didn’t have a timetable." So right there you have a quote from the governor saying that they will make the changes, they just have not done so yet. The given reasoning? "You have to understand and get the mechanisms in place...We’ve had meetings with the attorney general, with the relevant Cabinet agencies. We want to make sure to do this right.” Yeah, many people think they're deliberately dragging their heels on the matter, but that's the administration's given position and the state is issuing marriage licenses, assigning the claim that the state gov is "refusing to recognize same sex marriage" is misleading, non-neutral, and not entirely true. The article can discuss this controversy but it's not relevant to the map and does not change the fact that same-sex marriage is legal there, even if the state gov has not fully extended benefits to same-sex couples yet. We operate based on reliable sources here, plain and simple, and none of the arguments for the map have refuted the facts that bring its accuracy into question. I am not involved in the map's maintenance, I am merely pointing out that those who are are not doing a good job right now and even if they were it's not necessary for this article. S warm   we ♥ our hive  06:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. They are refusing to recognize same-sex marriages because well that's what they've been doing every since a federal district ruled that their ban is unconstitutional. But know that SCOUTS has ruled they are "reviewing" the implications of the ruling before recognizing same-sex marriages. Just because they will make the changes doesn't mean they did make the changes. The map is supposed to reflect the current status of same-sex marriage and since same-sex couples aren't being recognized dark blue is grossly inaccurate. The footnote does not say "refusing to recognize same-sex marriage" it says "does not recognize same-sex marriage" which is accurate according to the reliable sources. Prcc27 (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The map is *supposed to* convey information better than the manner text would at THIS point, and regardless of how one classifies Kansas, the map is no longer serving that purpose. There is clearly no longer consensus to keep this map in the article. As things are clearly different now since the SCOTUS decision, it is now the burden of those who wish to keep the map to make a compelling argument why rather than to maintain the *former* status quo that no longer exists. You haven't addressed the map's current benefit, just gone on and on about the minutia on Kansas and the tiny, literally and figuratively, territories. The map needs to go, and now. Njsustain (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC) you're repeating yourself, also shouting with other formating and punctuation marks, and have given no reason whatsoever for why a map conveys this information better --- the population of p.r. being a completely specious reason for an image being required over text. you're frankly embarrassing yourself at this point. please call a request for comment or administrative intervention If you don't see consensus for removing the map. there is certainly none for keeping it. you repeating the same specious facts is not consensus. Njsustain (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Puerto Rico has over 3.5 million people, which is more than some states (including Kansas)!!! And the reason I was talking about Kansas was because you seemed to think it should be dark blue which isn't the case. And you haven't addressed how removing the map would benefit the article. What good would it do? You are equally responsible for making a compelling argument as I am. At this point, it is still easier to look at the map and get the gist of the situation than read the article and try to figure out who's complying and who's not. Prcc27 (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, please avoid unnecessary capitalization per WP:SHOUT. Prcc27 (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I mentioned PR's population because I thought that you were under the impression that the territories are a bunch of small, sparsely populated islands that don't really matter. That's not my argument for keeping the map, I was just letting you know that the territories are more important than you think. As a result, my point about PR is not embarrassing.. I will start an RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have little interest in continuing this discussion considering Njsustain's rude behavior and refusal to accept that other people disagreeing with him/her are not idiots. I am not a hypocrite for pointing this out as Njsustain seems to think. This isn't a reason for or against removal, but a reason to leave this horrendous discussion thread. Dustin  ( talk ) 15:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Time for Some Major Restructuring
Before making my case, I'd like to point you to the article Interracial marriage in the United States. Please take a moment to review it, as I believe it to offers a very reasonable template for this present Wikipedia article and provides the right context and perspective. Now for my case: there is an extraordinary amount of information in this article couched in terms of "prior to Obergefell..."; I believe the continued presence of much of that information violates WP:Notability/Historical/Importance. It was certainly notable before the decision, but the release of the decision reverses that reality. In a fun twist, the Traditional purpose of this article (as a locus of developing information on the topic of SSM in the USA) has been superseded by a new understanding of what its purpose should be (as a record of how SSM came to be in USA and a repository for various facts and stats [see link in first sentence]). More specifically I think the following sections should be completely removed: Information to be saved can be moved to Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States and History of same-sex marriage in the United States, and information that violates WP:Notability/Historical/Importance can simply be discarded. Additionally, the infamous map, as many have pointed out, is already or will soon be completely useless. I believe it should be replaced by a map that isn't useless, perhaps a similar one to the interracial marriage map, and I provide two examples of such maps at the left. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Same-sex marriage in the United States
 * Same-sex marriage in the United States
 * There may be a point at which the map is no longer useful, but that time is not now. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The appropriate thought pattern is not "is the old map useful?" but rather "are there other maps that are more useful?" Within 25 days, every last state will be dark blue. One could imagine making a map that only includes territories at that point, and it would then be untenable to support the present map over the hypothetical one restricted to territories. But regardless of the map, could you offer an opinion on the removal of the two sections mentioned above? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It almost goes without saying, at this point, that a timeline map is immensely more useful than the current status map. In the given example, states that are not currently offering SSM are indicated, thus no information would be lost by replacing the map.  I think it could do with a little simplification - rather than striped states I would prefer to see a decision made to color a state based upon when SSM was either first legalized or finally legalized - but that may be a discussion more for the map itself than on this page.  A version of the "legalization method" map might be useful, although in its current form it suffers from too much specificity and information overload and I feel it's inclusion as-is might not be worth it. Shereth 20:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is not solely on the status of same-sex marriage in the United States, it is also on the history of same-sex marriage in the United States, a history that has some fascinating aspects that I suspect will draw attention for a long time to come. Ideally, I'd love to see the map animated, showing not just the status but the progression from the turn of this century to the situation as it will be in a month... but I realize that is not a trivial undertaking. Barring that, a single map where color indicates the year of legalization would be better than none. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Could we please have more discussion on the proposed removable sections rather than the maps? 0nlyth3truth (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you asked. The "In Litigation" section is now pretty superfluous, and could be safely removed - the information on the individual cases would not be lost, as it would still be available on the pages for the cases themselves.  The "Local laws" section you might have a harder time convincing folks to remove but I sympathize as well, as the information is largely superfluous, and probably better suited to the individual articles about the status/history of SSM on a state by state basis. Shereth 20:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We should keep the local laws prior to Obergefell section because it has important information. Prcc27 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In Litigation can go, as there is no more effective litigation, though Local Laws prior to Obergefell should stay. Kumorifox (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I support the restructuring proposed by 0nlyth3truth. Difbobatl (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that restructuring is needed, but there is WP:NODEADLINE. There's a lot of attention to this topic and article right now, and emotions are running high. Any attempt to make major edits will lead to lots of unnecessary bickering and even more pointless spilled (digital) ink. Wait a few weeks for the 25-day period to expire and the various protesting politicians to fade out of the news cycle, give the editors that have been dutifully updating the maps and lists their chance to see it all blue, and then go for the makeover. In the meantime, start sandboxing a new version of the article somewhere in Draft: space. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 21:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

People seem to be wrongly thinking there is some 25 day period before SCOTUS decisions go into effect. That is not the case. It is law now and anyone not following it is in violation of the constitution and their oath of office. Please stop refering to 25 days as some waiting-period. Difbobatl (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that WP:NODEADLINE is a not a Wikipedia guideline or policy. WP:BOLD is, so I'm going to be bold and remove the "In litigation" section but retain the other section given the concerns raised by a few. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 03:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making a policy-based argument. Yes, there's no policy reason to not update the page now. I was, however, making a diplomacy-based argument. It's just not worth the hassle when this stuff will all be resolved in a few weeks, and you can use that time to draft a much better article somewhere other than the live article where you will be subject to constant arguments and reversions. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

I do think we need a better map that shows the timeline of legalization. The one there is now has just shades of blue that makes it difficult to see the differences. Rather than just using the shades of one color, I think it's better to follow the model used in say the interracial marriage legalization map. Perhaps 2004-2009, 2010-Windsor, Windsor-Obergefell, post-Obergefell. Something of that nature. What do you all think? Gabe (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reservations about using Windsor as a breakpoint in the timeline, as it was a decision relating to the federal DOMA laws and not, directly, the legalization of same-sex marriage; doing so seems arbitrary and subjective. Sher<b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 23:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course Windsor only struck down a federal law and didn't directly affect or legalize SSM in any state but it did so indirectly. It was marking a new timeline of legalizing.  With the exception of Illinois and Hawaii (possibly New Mexico as well), Windsor marked the tidal wave of SSM becoming legal in nearly 20 states that the ruling indirectly created.  Indirect, but certainly was the primary reason why it happened.  Gabe (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish someone would BE BOLD and get rid of the state map. It really serves no purpose anymore, but to cause disputes... Difbobatl (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who does will immediately get reverted and someone will whine about "consensus". Maybe it's time to talk about WP: Ownership (you can look up the wikilink yourself, pals). Njsustain (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone a head and done it. Looks like a developing consensus here on the talk page, and in any event, displaying a map that is one color except for a single state holdout is no longer useful.  This information is now better conveyed in other formats, such as simple text. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 18:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try not to say I told you so...oops. Njsustain (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is clearly consensus here. It should be done (and wouldn't even be bold at this point).  If someone complains, at this point they are wrong about consensus.  People can just undo their undo.  There IS consensus now if we have to involve higher powers to over-ride the person that thinks they own this.  Difbobatl (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Charts
Now that Obergefell has been ruled, I think it's safe to say these charts of states being legalized or stayed rulings are unnecessary now. They can be replaced perhaps with a very brief expansion of history section. But they now seem to be a huge waste of space. Suggestions? Gabe (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the tables are probably no longer necessary. Moving some information to the "Before Obergefell" section with a link to Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state (which itself has further links to detailed information by state) serves the same encyclopedic purpose without providing undue weight to the legal status of gay marriage at a somewhat arbitrarily chosen point in history. ~ RobTalk 01:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe a simpler chart of the states that legalized SSM prior to Obergefell, the date, and the method of legalization?


 * {|class="wikitable sortable"

! State or territory !! Date Effective !! Legalization method !!Notes
 * + States legalizing same-sex marriage before Obergefell ruling
 * + States legalizing same-sex marriage before Obergefell ruling
 * Massachusetts
 * 2004-05-17
 * State court decision
 * California
 * 2008-06-16 2013-06-18
 * State court decision Federal court decision
 * State court decision overturned by Proposition 8 (2008) Prop 8 nullified by federal courts
 * Connecticut
 * 2008-11-12
 * State court decision
 * }
 * The population data and details of specific rulings/statutes can be excluded - they're already amply explained in the history section. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2008-11-12
 * State court decision
 * }
 * The population data and details of specific rulings/statutes can be excluded - they're already amply explained in the history section. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The population data and details of specific rulings/statutes can be excluded - they're already amply explained in the history section. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I really like that. If no one has objections I think we should do that.  The chart we have now is too large.  Readers can click on the wiki-links to the respective page for each state on the chart.    Gabe (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Populations
I have just removed the state population/total population that allows SSM as it is now redundant. In my strong opinion we don't need a list that says 100% of the USA licenses SSM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a list of states that allowed SSM prior to Obergefell. If it only lists those states then IMO it should not be removed and is not redundant. Prcc27 (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Before Obergefell numbers
The Same-sex marriage in the United States numbers seem to have a problem. It says: "Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage was legal to at least some degree in thirty-seven states, one territory (Guam) and the District of Columbia; of the states, Missouri, Kansas, and Alabama had restrictions."

(emphasis added) This seems to imply 37 states, including Missouri, Kansas and Alabama (which had restrictions) had same sex marriage to some degree. But if you look at the Same-sex marriage in the United States section, the table for States and territories that fully licensed/recognized same-sex marriage has 35 states. Alabama, Kansas and Missouri are not any of these 35. (There used to be in a seperate table [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&diff=668764722&oldid=668764588#States_where_same-sex_marriage_licensing_is_legally_complicated].) So either 38 states had some degree prior to Obergefell, one of the 35 states doesn't belong in the table, or some further explanation is needed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Answering my own question, I look more carefully at the older version of this article. Notably [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&diff=668764722&oldid=668764588#State_law] includes the number 37, but a complete list. It's clear from that list that 37 is without Alabama. Looking at Same-sex marriage in Alabama, I think Alabama may belong in the 38/37 with the disclaimer of it being complicated. But regardless, if we're going to include Alabama, the number should be 38.
 * So I've changed it to 38 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&diff=670368877&oldid=670287408]. If people feel Alabama doesn't belong, feel free to change it back to 37, but remove Alabama from the list of states with "restrictions".
 * BTW, are we sure Same-sex marriage in Texas, Same-sex marriage in Arkansas and Same-sex marriage in Michigan don't also belong (bringing the total to 40)? From a quick read of these articles, all 3 of these seem to have had some marriage licences before Obergefell.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Toward the Future
Well everyone, this has been a long time coming and I'm glad that we have made it to this point of finality. I may have been a little late to the editing fun, but you have become a community to me; as well as a source of knowledge. I know we aren't technically supposed to put random banter here, but I would like to thank all of you for helping me get familiarized with Wikipedia; as well as keeping the legal situation of LGBT rights in the United States the most accurate on the internet. I won't be around this page too much anymore; I also know many of you will continue to enhance the LGBT pages for other countries and I hope many of you who haven't considered it join us. The U.S. did get a lot of attention, primarily because of its importance globally. However, there is so much more to do for the vast majority of countries and I hope your talents can find a place with some of them. Let's not have bickering over a map be the way we end this decade's worth of a journey. Happy editing and hats off to all of you who contributed! Chase1493 (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear, and I support your comment staying. The U.S. discussion was very important as it is to date the largest country to legalize SSM. Njsustain (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * SusunW (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Kansas
An editor removed "with the single exception of Kansas, which refuses to recognize its own marriages" from the state recognition discussion, with the comment "KS now recognizing (http://www.kansas.com/news/state/article26606215.html)". But that reference indicates only one driver's license change and explicitly says other parts of the state are not yet recognizing same-sex marriages, which suggests the removal was premature and should be reverted. 209.6.114.98 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Prcc27 (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Kansas has now conceded, apparently: "The order comes a day after Brownback quietly allowed state agencies to comply with the high court's ruling, so couples can now do things like place state workers’ spouses on health care plans.

[...]

Eileen Hawley, Brownback’s spokeswoman, on Tuesday downplayed the move to finally implement the high court's decision, saying it wasn’t a “directive” from the governor’s office. They had been undergoing “a thoughtful process” to comply with the June 26 high court ruling, she said.

“We are a nation of laws and we will comply with the laws of the nation,” Hawley said."

- htonl (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Kansas has not conceded: "Instead of ordering state agencies to immediately comply with Obergefell, Brownback doubled down on his anti-LGBT bigotry and told his agencies how to avoid compliance." Prcc27 (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * - please let it go. Do not conflate the intransigence of a single governor with the issue of state compliance.  The State of Kansas is now recognizing same-sex marriage in every meaningful way - joint tax returns, name changes on state identification, etc.  That Mr. Brownback is making a royal buffoon of himself by trying to create loopholes by which employees of the state might get away with institutionalized bigotry is not the same as a state refusing to comply with or recognize the SCOTUS decision.  A concession speech given by the governor is not required.  You are beating a dead horse by trying to insert every myriad little objection of a single bullheaded executive into this (and other) pages.  Kansas has "conceded" and is both issuing and recognizing same-sex marriages.  Please.  Let this go.  We don't need to mimic Mr. Brownback's intransigence. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 14:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Recognised / Performed
What is the difference between Recognised and Performed in the table? Does Performed relate to countries were gay marriages has actually happened? Because if so, Malta should be in that list. Or does recognised mean it is recognised by the State after being performed? Sapienza (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Performed indicates countries/territories where same-sex marriage is currently being performed (ie. is legal). Recognised indicates a country/territory that is not currently performing same-sex marriages but recognizes those   that have been legally carried out.  In any event, as your question pertains to the template you should direct your comments to it's talk page here : . <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Indian country"???
"In the United States, Congress (not the federal courts) have legal authority over Indian country..." Really? Should that not be Indian territory, or Indian lands? I've never heard the phrase "Indian country" to be used in anything but a negative context, usually referring to inhospitable wilderness, or wild areas where one might be subject to physical attack. Thoughts? Risker (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the wording, just change it, especially if you find it offensive. I don't know who wrote it, but it is a fairly common term and is not usually associated with a negative connotation where I'm from. Possibly instead of "over Indian country" it should be "within tribal jurisdictions"? SusunW (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the United States, "Indian country" has a defined legal meaning in some contexts (although I agree the usage is not clear in this article). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Unclear Segment
There is a segment under "Economic impact on same-sex couples" which reads "One study found that the difference in Social Security income for same-sex couples compared to opposite-sex married couples was per year."

This omits the income value per year, rendering it pointless. Please investigate and see if the specific value can be retrieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.24.193 (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Where do we write about ceremonies?
Wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of articles about gay marriage, but they seem to be all entirely about lawsuits and political activism. Where can we go to read about gay marriage itself? Should it be posted on the marriage article instead? I realzized today that I had no idea how a same-sex wedding would be run, what with the typical "here comes the bride" and the asymmetrical roles of the two partners suddenly becoming symmetrical. I am a terrible writer, an d I honestly dont even expect this edit to stick, but I hoped that the fact that I werote something at all would encouyrage someone to help out even if it goes on marriage or Wedding instead. — Soap — 15:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is about marriage, not weddings. I don't think the recent addition is appropriate. Honestly, I find it insulting to suggest it is even relevant to the issue that this important article discusses. Njsustain (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Wedding ceremonies differ between so many different cultures, and the choice of what type of ceremony is performed is based on the preferences, ideals, and beliefs of the couple. I do not think that a section on how two people choose to celebrate their marriage is warranted, especially since it is such a subjective sub-topic compared to the much more important issues such as history, legality, and enforcement. I strongly object and would hope that this section is removed. Andrew1444 (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed it. I want to emphasize that while the suggested text is not relevant to this article of import, that doesn't mean the test doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia. It just needs to be in an article discussing wedding ceremonies and celebrations, not marriages. Just because they both have to do with same sex couples doesn't mean they belong in the same article. Njsustain (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

American Samoa
I hope this point isn't inappropriate to discuss here. Although American Samoa may be able to weedle out of issuing licenses to same sex couples who are A.S. nationals (not citizens), and this may not ultimately survive a court challenge, the fact is it is still a part of the U.S. So my question, which so far no one seems to have brought up, is what would happen if a genuine U.S. Citizen (not a U.S. national as those born in AS are) were to go to American Samoa? Would his or her same sex marriage be recognized. How could a U.S. Citizen with a marriage recognized by the federal government be denied the rights that the territory gives to married couples? Now, this may be purely academic at the moment. AS is an overcrowded hole of a place, and I don't see a lot of citizens, let alone gay couples, going there for either business or pleasure, but at some point some citizen will be there for some reason and may be denied his or her rights. So, the point as it applies to this article, or the questions that should be addressed at some point are: Will American Samoa have to recognize marriages of U.S. Citizens who travel to A.S.? Will A.S. be required to recognize SSM of people from other countries who travel to A.S., since those marriages are recognized by the U.S. Federal Government? Will A.S. have to issue marriage licenses to U.S. Citizens who wish to get married there, even if they aren't issuing licenses to American Samoa nationals who aren't citizens? Njsustain (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't know.
 * What happens if you go to the Navajo Res and they don't recognize you SSM? — kwami (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really think an entire American territory and a native reservation are comparable. Njsustain (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * An "entire territory" versus a reservation? Are you aware that the Navajo Nation is 350 times the size of American Samoa, with three times the population? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC) SusunW (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn't get my meaning, but as this discussion forum applies to the article, not to the topic in general, nor your indignance, I have nothing further to say. Njsustain (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Although your indignance now is duly noted, your post was off topic as well and did not contribute to the article in the slightest. American Samoa and the Navajo Nation, being a territory and a reservation, respectively, therefore have less ties to the federal government and will probably stay neutral on the topic for the time being.  Although I am curious as to one thing; what sort of "rights" would they be denied? The Pokémon Fan (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone finds reliable source answers to that, they would be of interest, at least so far as they go beyond the default statement of "American Samoa does not recognize same-sex marriages." However, until there is either some government statement or visible test cases, we don't have much to go on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, AS is not "in" the US. It's a territory *of* the US. — kwami (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)