Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States/Archive 4

"As of June 2011, 40 states prohibit same-sex marriage via statute or the state's constitution."
Here are a couple of leads checking this number and properly citing it, via Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States:
 * Human Rights Campaign: Statewide Marriage Prohibitions, January 13, 2010
 * "Of the five states that have legalized same-sex marriage, four are in New England; 31 states have now rejected same-sex marriage by referendum." NPR: Maine Voters Reject Gay Marriage by SUSAN SHARON November 4, 2009 from MPBN - HRC numbers, which appear more recent, differ: "States with constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman. (29 states)"

Ideally, the reference cited would include the list of states, to make it easier to check and update in the future. 22:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.104.179.52, 27 June 2011
please put back reference to New York as one of the states that will recognize marriages performed in other states. Here is the line as it was last Friday:

States that recognize same-sex marriage but do not grant same-sex marriage licenses include New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland. 74.104.179.52 (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Jon W


 * I agree; for the moment, NY still has that status. I've restored NY, but noted the impending change. -Rrius (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; for the moment, NY still has that status. I've restored NY, but noted the impending change. -Rrius (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.188.54.188, 28 June 2011
New York should be added to states allowing same sex marriage

99.188.54.188 (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No. NYS won't issue licenses until late July. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Native American Tribe Approves Same Sex Marriage
Does someone who's active on this entry want to consider adding this, from the Kitsap Sun? (Washington state) << ''On Monday, the Suquamish Tribal Council formally changed its ordinances to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. The Suquamish ordinance means gay couples are afforded all the rights heterosexual couples are allowed on the reservation and other places in which gay marriages are allowed. The Tribal Council held a public hearing on the ordinance change in June and formally adopted it in a unanimous vote Monday. The new law allows the tribal court to issue a marriage license to two unmarried people, "regardless of their sex," if they at least 18 years old and at least one of them is an enrolled member of the Suquamish Tribe. In 2009 the Coquille Indian Tribe in Coos Bay, Ore., became what many believed to be the first Indian tribe to marry a gay couple, two women from Edmonds, Wash...Michelle Hansen, Suquamish Tribal attorney, said the Suquamish ordinance does not have effect anywhere else unless that jurisdiction decides to recognize same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere.'' >> Codenamemary (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That the Suquamish offer marriage has already been added in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Neato-o. It's interesting that as some American Indian tribes recognized same sex unions before the appearance of the Pilgrims, some of them are reverting back to those appreciations as they get further from the sort of Christian "missionary work" whites imposed on their culture. And on the topic of Same Sex Marriages in the United States, what's more inherently American than Native American Indians?Codenamemary (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment
Per the guideline to be B-class an article must be "without major issues". B class is certainly not a default to which one returns when an article has maintenance templates on style and structure, neutrality and undue weight. I gave the failing of the B class criteria as a reason in my edit summary. Hekerui (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, the neutrality/undue tags have been there for a year and a year and a half respectively, there's clearly no ongoing debate and I am thus removing them. Other than that, I just see the one list vs. prose template. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 09:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In fairness, even the first sentence of that section is questionable and can be seen as POV-pushing since it states matter-of-factly that Obama support legalizing SSM, which is not evidenced by anything other than a statement from 1996, while he has clearly stated in 2008 that he is opposes legalizing SSMs, which is merely attached to the claim even though that is certainly a stronger statement, on camera even. Apart from that, the flow of the State law section is hindered by its short and choppy paragraphs so I would not call it "reasonably well-written", while the list of "major events" (according to what standard) seems largely redundant to Timeline of same-sex marriage and other parts of this article. A detailed review would certainly help this article, it's not near B class. Hekerui (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Delaware is not incuded when it should be included and 2012 effective date.
In the section:

''California, Colorado, [Delaware (2012),] Hawaii [(2012)], Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois and Washington [state] have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions. As of 1 June 2009, New Jersey has created legal unions that, while not called marriages, are explicitly defined as offering all the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state (though not federal) law to same-sex couples.''

After "Colorado," and before "Hawaii," –

Add; “Delaware (2012),” in blue to form a link to that state.

After "Hawaii" -

Add; "(2012)".

After "Washington" -

add "state", so there is no confusion between Washington state and Washington DC.

Note: Both Hawaii and Delaware civil unions legislation becomes effective from 1.1.2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delaware added. --Piet Delport (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Openly Gay"
Why is it overtly mentioned that Barney Frank and Rachel Maddow are "openly gay?" Obviously, they are biased in the fact that they have a vested interest in allowing gay marriage. Straight people have no personal interest in giving gays the right to marry. Following that logic, shouldn't the article also mention the fact that Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are straight? By mentioning those people's orientations the article is framing (subtly) the issue to be something from the "gay agenda." You can see it as pro-gay marriage seeing the issue as one of equal rights and anti-gay marriage seeing it as one just for the gays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.173.148 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're saying makes sense. We don't mention straight commenters' sexuality in the article, there is no need to mention gay people's. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * People are going to assume someone is straight, until they read otherwise. C T J F 8 3  20:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true, but why is it important in this article? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems important to me to know the orientation of the people supporting/opposing marriage. I can't decide if the IPs comments are disrupting to prove a point or genuine. C T J F 8 3  21:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The point being made in the tortured sentence at issue ("Openly gay Congressman Barney Frank voiced his concern...) is that not all proponents of gay rights support attempts to repeal DOMA at this time. If it were any standard member of Congress, we wouldn't be citing his/her opinion at all. His sexual orientation is included because the opinion of a gay Congressman demonstrates a point, while the opinion of, say, Nancy Pelosi, would not illustrate that point. And we really do have to assume that not everyone who might read this article knows who Barney Frank is. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's start adding in, "Maggie Gallagher, known heterosexual." --Robertbayer (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Barney Frank is being quoted in his capacity as a congressman, and Rachel Maddow in her capacity as a political commentator: the personal details of their sexuality have no direct relevance to the points being made. Highlighting and juxtaposing such personal details without a reason is original synthesis: editorializing to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated in the text.

If there is a relevant reason to point out an observer's sexuality, it should be motivated in context, with appropriate facts, sourcing, and attribution. Valid reasons would include for example things like establishing context for quotes that assume knowledge of the observer's sexuality, or reporting criticism of an individual's sexuality by political opponents. --Piet Delport (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Undue weight" claim
An editor has recently blanked the section on physical health claiming "undue weight" because it was just one study. "Undue weight" has nothing to do with the number of studies; it has to do with whether a viewpoint is one of an insignificant minority, which was not shown (and I'm unaware of any studies that counter or refute the claim) or if something is shown to be being listed out of scale with its importance - and people's health is quite important, and devoting two sentences to the effect of SSM in the US on health hardly seems out of scale. Have I support for restoring this section? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it looks fine, as is, without threatening WP:UNDUE. --Piet Delport (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not in Washington yet
Same-sex marriage has not yet been legalized in Washington state; it has passed the Senate, but not yet the House, and even then would need to be signed by the Governor. No need to jump the gun here; we're likely to be able to add it soon enough. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And now the house has passed, but not signed by governor yet... but even once it is, it doesn't become available for 90 days, and perhaps not even then if there's a ballot measure challenging it. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While not qualified for inclusion under "marriages performed" in the sidebar, the map of laws-on-the-books could be updated. Sure, a referendum is likely (in which case marriages wouldn't actually be performed until after this year's presidential election), but the law is passed and signed. --69.113.43.117 (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That fact is now mentioned in the lead, but the state certainly can't be grouped among the list for which "Such licenses are granted by ... states" applies. Hekerui (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The image should be updates to say that in the state of Washington, same sex marriage is no longer against the law. It does not have to be colored the same as states that grant marriages but perhaps it can be colored as one that offers civil unions, which is does. It need not be stripped any longer. Also, the law will come into affect in June regardless of whether or not there are enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot. The vote would not come until November and in the interim, the law would be in effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.193.160 (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not true. If enough signatures are gathered, it will not come into effect until after the referendum. My source is Article II, Section 1(d) of the Washtington Constitution; what's yours? -Rrius (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Its already been signed by the govenor!
 * So what? In Washington, the governor's word isn't final. -Rrius (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the constitution. It is as Rrius describes it. --Javaweb (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * Article II, Section 1(d) of the Washington Constitution states that, "Referendum petitions against measures passed by the legislature shall be filed with the secretary of state not later than ninety days after the final adjournment of the session of the legislature which passed the measure on which the referendum is demanded." If opponents can gather 120,577 (one third of the votes cast for governor) signatures before June 6th, 2012, the law will be put on hold until the November election. If opponents reach 120,577 signatures after 6/6/12, the law will come into effect until a referendum is held in the next election year at which point the legality of same-sex marriage will be dealt with.  I realize this is a bit complicated (perhaps too much so for this page), but I'm just laying out the facts.  Now, regardless of whether or not a referendum is held, the fact of the matter is, at this point there is no longer a law on the books in the State of Washington limiting marriage to a man and a woman.  So on the map, the State of Washington can be colored light blue only.  -Vanbis01 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the fact of the matter is that there is still a law on the books against same-sex marriage - 26.04.020, which voids any marriage "When the parties are persons other than a male and a female". The new act that has passed has language which will change that law - that's how the law is written, as an amendment to that - but since it was passed as a non-emergency law, the new act does not take effect until 90 days after the end of the session. Without the act taking action, the "book" has not been changed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, you are wrong about when it would come into effect. The bill will not become law and will not take effect until after the referendum. From Article I, Section 1(d), "Any measure initiated by the people or referred to the people as herein provided shall take effect and become the law if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon." The beginning of the subsection also makes this clear: "The filing of a referendum petition against one or more items, sections, or parts of any act, law, or bill shall not delay the remainder of the measure from becoming operative." Thus, the part petitioned against is delayed, but not the rest. You have to read all of the provision, not just bits and pieces. Hell, history should really be a guide here. In 2010, the same thing happened with the "everything but marriage" amendment to domestic partnership. The bill was passed, signed, and subjected to petition in the spring. It did not become law and take effect until after voters approved it in November 2010. -Rrius (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Voters in 31 states
I removed the statement, "voters in 31 of 31 states that have put the same-sex marriage question directly to the voters through a referendum have rejected same-sex marriage". First, those votes were not on same-sex marriages but on amendments banning same-sex marriages (and more), and one of the amendments was in fact rejected by Arizona in 2006, and that didn't make SSM legal there, so the sentence is misleading. It also sounds like a talking point - the lead already explains that voter referenda have not led to legalization, which is at least accurate. Hekerui (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As much as I'm against including that talking-point (in most of those cases, same-sex marriage would've been illegal whether or not the referendum at hand passed), I will point out that Arizona, while rejecting one referendum in 2006, did approve Arizona Proposition 102 (2008). --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is true. Still, the sentence brushed over any nuance and imparting of relevant information to make a point - we can and have done do better in the lead. Hekerui (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2012
Please add Washington state as another state to recognize same-sex marriage. On Feb. 13, 2012, the Governor signed it into law.

99.62.114.186 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is in the process of being fixed. Currently (if you click on it) Washington is marked as having SSM on the actual image page but its not properly updating on this page. It is not actually directly editable on this page. Cadiomals (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that he's talking about the list... in which case, the answer is that Washington actually doesn't recognize same-sex marriage yet. The law does not go into effect until June, and even then may be pushed back if enough signatures are raised on a referendum to overturn the law. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one that thinks this is a little premature? It won't go into affect for another four months at least, and Maryland may be in a similar situation even longer. Perhaps a dark blue/light blue striped color to indicate a states in transition might be more appropriate? Weebro55 (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously not, since Nat Gertler said the same thing. I also agree that it is premature. The map probably shouldn't be changed until the law goes into effect because marking transitions adds too much complexity. We should, of course, keep up with the status in Maryland, Washington, and Maine in the prose. -Rrius (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree on keeping the map the same until the law goes into effect as does two other editors with me over at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg the status howver remains disputed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again
Maryland's House just passed an SSM bill, and its Senate and Governor look set to join in the fun, but Maryland has a people's veto similar to Washington's. In Maryland's case, the deadline for signatures (and the earliest possible date for the law to take effect) is June 1. If one-third of the 55,737 signatures (based on the turnout figure at Maryland gubernatorial election, 2010) are in by June 1, the deadline will be extended to June 30. If the signatures are collected, the law won't "become a law or take effect until thirty days after its approval" in the referendum. Thus, assuming a petition is successful, the earliest the law would come into effect would be December 6, 2012. -Rrius (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, as passed by the House, the law won't take effect until January 1, 2013, in any event. -Rrius (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Maryland Senate passed a SSM bill as well, is now on the way to the governor's desk. Will soon be legal. Vanbis01 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but where are you getting that quote? The way you wrote it and the way you compared it with Washington's people's veto, it seems like you're saying that the people of MD have to affirm the law in order for it to go into effect (which seems to be the case in Washington). From what I understand, marriage equality opponents in MD have the onus on them to get >50% of people to oppose the bill as covered in the WSJ. Washington is different because they actually have to have > 50% of referendum respondents say that SSM should be legal in order for it to become law. Addy12 04:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addy12 (talk • contribs)

New Jersey Update
Both the Assembly and Senate of New Jersey approved legislation legalising same-sex marriage in the state. On February 17, 2012, Republican Governor Chris Christie vetoed the bill, stating that he would like to see it as a referendum on the ballot. A slim majority of New Jerseyans back same-sex marriage. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/chris_christie_says_no_to_nj_g.html

Adriandub (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC) adriandub


 * That's already covered in Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February 2012
The state of Maryland on February 23, 2012 passed a law allowing same-sex marriage in the state. Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) is expected to sign it. If signed, Maryland will be become the 8th state allowing same-sex marriage. Maryland law allows legislative action to be put up to a popular vote referendum, requiring more around 55,000 signatures before adding it to the November ballot. The most recent poll shows a statistical majority of Maryland residents approve of same-sex marriage, 49% to 47%.

Enowsh (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I checked the 49 to 47 fact and the source says "The most recent poll on the issue, by Gonzales Research and Marketing Strategies, suggested that Maryland voters are divided on the issue. The poll showed voters favoring same-sex marriage 49 percent to 47 percent, but the difference was within the poll's margin of error. And opponents felt more strongly about it." That is a very differnt thing than "The most recent poll shows a statistical majority of Maryland residents approve of same-sex marriage". You need to make sure that the content you want to add presents the conclusions of the source, not just some out-of-context details. Please open a new request if you want to add a more neutral version and please remember to say where in the article you want it inserted. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the event should have been added to the timeline, so I've done so. -Rrius (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Timeline redundancies
It seems excessive to me that we have three line items in the timeline for each bill that is signed into law. There is no practical benefit to having on this general list the dates on which a bill passed each house and was signed into law. Would it not be better to have one item when the governor signs the bill? As a new thing happens to each bill, it would be moved down and reworded. For example,


 * February 12, 2012: [State] House of Representatives passes a bill to legalize same-sex marriage 50–45.

Would become


 * February 20, 2012: [State] Senate by a 22–17 vote sends a bill to legalize same-sex marriage to Governor Jane Smith. The House had passed the bill 50–45.

And would end up


 * February 25, 2012: [State] Governor Jane Smith signs a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, it having passed the House 50–45 and the Senate 22–17. The law takes effect on January 1, 2013.

Does anyone object to my combing through and combining information in that way? -Rrius (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, go ahead Pass a Method   talk  23:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, except in cases where there's an unusual amount of time involved (Governor Smith doesn't sign the bill for nine months), or where the precise timing of one part has a clear effect on other events ("In response to the West Dakota house passing an SSM bill, Whigs in the Federal Senate propose the Soylent Gay bill.") --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice to Editors: Could you calm down your tone when explaining why you did an edit? I read some of these and it's like somebody physically attacked you or something and you will not stand for it lol ... just a suggestion. Maybe it's the way I read them. I don't know... - Teammm Let's Talk! :) 05:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

eliminate the marriage privatization section?
The marriage privatization section says nothing specific to the United States. While some of the commentators referenced are American, the concept is not US-specific, nor has the concept gained particular traction or impact. I can point to no laws that have even been proposed in any U.S. jurisdiction, much less passed. As such, while this information may have a place in the main Same-sex marriage article, I have trouble seeing how it has a particular place in this localized article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Has there been a change in policy at Wikipedia?
In all cases where marriage rights for gays and lesbians has been made law, Wikipedia has placed the state (or district) among those that currently perform the ceremonies. In cases such as those in DC, New Hampshire, and Iowa, the state's name was preceded by an asterisk noting the future time when the law will be fully implemented. The current law in both Maryland and Washington State affords same-sex couples the right to wed. The Secretary of State in Washington even has a page available for same-sex couples looking to marry. In both states, the law is clear yet on Wikipedia certain editors have prevented those states from being listed because of a possible future referendum. Wikipedia, to remain neutral, must post about laws as they currently exist and not how those laws might look in the future. Both Washington State and Maryland should be listed under the list of states where marriage is performed with the asterisk as is precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCSDgraduate2003 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Those laws haven't come into force yet, thus it isn't yet legal. When it is, it will be updated. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be talking about how it shows up in the sidebar, which may appear as part of this page, but the content for it is not edited as part of this page (it's a template sidebar so the same content can appear in multiple articles). The proper place to discuss editing of this sidebar is Template talk:Same-sex unions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Title of article - legal recognition of SSM
Shouldn't the title of the article be "Legal recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States"? The whole article appears to be about the law, not about actual practice. Same-sex couples have been allowed to marry in the non-legal sense (have a ceremony, exchange vows, etc. etc.) for a long, long time in most states. This article appears not to be about those marriages but about whether the government will recognize them as such. I'm surprised that this issue doesn't appear to have been hashed out in the past. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Marriage in [country]" articles are pretty much exclusively about legal recognition and laws governing, even when referring to different-sex marriage. If we can find reliably sourced material on extra-legal SSM, customs and so on (it's worth noting that "commitment ceremony" redirects to same-sex marriage) it may be worth including a section on it too, but simplicity, regularity, and WP:COMMONNAME support keeping the article in its current location. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Roscelese; while any tradition of private marriage may not be currently included in the article, it has also not been excluded. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the naming convention is flawed and distorts the political debate, but I suppose that's probably just my own personal bone to pick. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but naming conventions are in place for a reason. People employing the search box for information on same-sex marriage are not likely to begin with "legal recognition of....".  They're most likely to type "same-sex marriage" and the drop down menu will automatically prompt them to select from the various Wikipedia articles that begin with the words "same sex marriage in...".  Again, I get what you're saying, but, as others have said, there isn't a consensus that we should disallow a broader scope of the issue, it's just that editors simply haven't provided a broader view of the subject yet – although I acknowledge that's far less likely to happen when the page is semi-protected, but I'm sure it's locked for a good reason (I think we can all use our imagination as to the state of the page if it wasn't protected). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2012
The North Carolina vote on May 8th 2012 passed which constitutionally banned gay marriage. The page still says the vote has not finished.

Strico10 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ C T J F 8 3  09:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 9 May 2012
In light of these remarks, I think we should update the "President Obama" section. The section should reflect that he now supports same-sex marriage. Embolalia (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ My "specialty" on Wikipedia is really more "vanilla" celebrity topics (actors, awards, etc), and I don't really like to edit "political" articles, so I wanted to wait and let someone else rework the section. But we're now on day two and it's still headline news on every network, newspaper, etc, so someone needed to do it.  The way it was worded (with his current position listed last) was confusing for the reader (who only learned the president's current position at the end of the section), so it needed to be clarified.  I haven't removed any info (other than duplicate passages restating the same thing over again), but I've mainly just tried to lay out his current position first and then attempted to lay out the rest of the section describing the "evolution" of his position into a (somewhat) chronological order.  I'm sure there are others who can do a much better job than I have – but it's international news – something needed to be done in the meantime. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Unconstitutional in most states
I've changed up the first sentence a bit. The original sentence mentioned that gay marriage was legal in several states, but did not mention that it is against a majority of state's constitution--which seems like a very important stat to anyone looking up this subject. The new intro reads: "Same-sex marriage in the United States is not recognized by the federal government, and is constitutionally barred in a majority of states. There are, however, several states that recognize them." Which includes the former sentence.

18:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.223.202 (talk)

Referendumses
A recent edit changing "referendums" to "referenda" was just reverted, with the reverter saying "English version (referendums) preferred over latin version (referenda)". Referenda is English. Merriam Websters lists it first (although Dictionary.com lists it second.) They get about he same number of ghits (slight edge to -ums), and that's not because the web is written in Latin.... but books, where we expect the more formal tones we want in an encyclopedia, has -a beating -um by more than 2:1. I've not going to edit it back (although my personal preference is -a), but thought I should note this should the back-and-forth go back-and-further. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. Referenda is quite proper for the plural, and long established in English usage, as is the case with many other words of Latin origin.  Textorus (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Referendums is the preferred plural in English. See, for example, Garner's Modern American Usage. -Rrius (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Preferred by whom? I didn't say it was the only possible plural, but a proper one.  The New York Times and other publications of stature use "referenda", even if you don't like it and can find sources to support your contention.  There are plenty of dictionaries that contain the word "ain't," but hopefully that don't make it good English.  Textorus (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Referendums is the proper plural word for English usage. It's been debated and is used in the court system and throughout "normal" literature and encyclopedia. Referenda, which is the latin form plural, is reserved for scholarly or academic papers. – Face-smile.svg Teammm  (talk · email) 22:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Referendums, referenda
 * News Referendums or referenda?
 * Do we need a referendum on referendums? etc.
 * Oh now we get into what's "normal" and what's not. Brilliant.  Both versions being acceptable in English, the question is not what you or I prefer, but what does the MOS have to say about it?  Textorus (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a fiction that there's been some decision made. Both are used in the court system. Both are used in "normal" literature. Here in California, we have "referenda" in the election law books, not "referendums". Searching US Supreme Court rulings, "referendums" gets 19 results, "referenda" gets 26, and the most recent ruling to use either used both. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, and my point is, using "referenda" is too formal. It's a minor change, you can go see what it says. Specifically in this context anyway (voter referendums), that version is used. – Face-smile.svg Teammm  (talk · email) 22:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree Referendums is proper and per the others here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone correctly pointed out this is a moot point anyhoo, as the place where it was being fought for really needed a singular. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, well as I tried to explain, referenda is usually used in more formal writing or documents, while referendums would be used in an article like Wikipedia or the news. – Face-smile.svg Teammm  (talk · email) 22:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You tried to explain it, yes, but it's not true. Google news search results show roughly the same number of examples of both - ums gets more than -a, but only about 20% more - not enough to make either inappropriate or a freak result. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which supports what I said, that either is acceptable here. But I wonder if Teammm, being such an expert in English usage that he feels no need to cite reliable sources for his statements, also writes "alumnuses" and "phenomenons."  Just idle curiosity.  Textorus (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)  I withdraw my comment.  This conversation is really not worth my time.  Textorus (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Demooting, as even with the proper restoration of the singular there, the term "implement constitutional referendums" shows up elsewhere. However, that's just an improper construct, referendums do not get implemented. I'd've changed it to "amend state constitutions", but I was in the midst of flagging it for needing a citation, and didn't want to get the "you're asking for a citation for something you just put in" response. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Recognition in the opening sentence
An editor has changed the opening sentence so that it talks about what jurisdictions grant SSM. Thing is, the sentence opens with the statement about the federal government not recognizing SSM, and it seems a shift of context. I recommend that we restore the opening sentence to discussing the states which recognize SSM, and restore the nine state count. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a slight shift that isn't confusing, but what you propose is misleading. By saying "nine states recognize", many (if not most) readers will think that means SSM is available in those other three jurisdictions. Also, whether the number of states that recognize SSMs is actually nine is a bit sticky. On the one hand, it depends on how much emphasis you put on executive orders and AG's opinions, as opposed to court decisions. On the other, it depends on what it means to recognize a SSM. Sure, the six states with SSM and arguably the other three states recognize same-sex marriages as such, but states with civil unions and all-but-marriage domestic partnerships also recognize those marriages, but only as civil unions or domestic partnerships, as the case may be. Also, the shift is warranted by the nature of marriage law in the US. The federal government isn't in charge of marriage law, so the distinction between the the states do with marriage law and what the federal government recognizes for purposes of its laws and regulations is a key concept. -Rrius (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, so there's a whole bunch of sentences need to make the thing-that-isn't-confusing clear, while the notation that some states that recognize do no grant is already covered in the sentences that follow in the lede. If for some reason we do have to have states granting versus federal recognizing, the sentence should start with states granting and then say that the federal does not recognize, as that in context gves the federal government something not to recognize. (As for "recognizing" marriage as a civil union, that strains the definition of "recognize"; if I go up to Newt Gingrich and say "hey, aren't you the Pillsbury Doughboy?", one would have trouble calling that recognition. Misrecognition is not recognition.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, so there's a intellectually dishonest response. The sentences that follow my first were not meant as support for the claim of clarity; rather, they, like it, were support for the proposition that your proposal should fail. For you to twist what I was saying that way was, I would have thought, beneath you, but there it is. As for recognition, the writers of the civil union and domestic partnership statutes would be surprised that recognizing marriage as civil unions or domestic partnerships, giving them all the rights conferred under those statutes, is "misrecognition" and somehow akin to claiming to recognize an overweight, white politician as the Pilsbury Doughboy. The only legitimate point you made is that the the lead should be completely reworded to be explicit about the source of marriage law. I'll go ahead and do that. -Rrius (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I said I'd do it, and I did. My version is more drastic and solves a long-running problem of certain information being duplicated and puts the paragraphs together in a way that flows better. I also attached DOMA to the case that actually triggered its passage, replacing a reverence to its happening before the first state actually did have SSM. I also cleaned up the punctuation for the list of states. A colon is great for introducing a list, but our list has three things in addition to the six states promised by the introduction. Setting the list off with commas is a better (not necessarily perfect) way of dealing with it. -Rrius (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Largely a question of state law"
"Same-sex marriage in the United States is largely a question of state law" is at beast misleading, and silly to open with. The Federal government has laws that put same-sex marriage in a special position with regard to state recognition, and prevent same-sex marriages from being used to gain federal benefits, from being used for immigration, and so forth. That those things do not reflect a large portion of the status of same-sex marriage in the United States is a POV, and that's hardly what we should be leading with. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not misleading, especially since the very next sentence explains the federal position. Give readers a little credit; if they come here to read about same-sex marriage in the United States, they probably aren't going to stop at the first sentence and figure they've learned all there is. Also, note the word "largely". The question of whether a gay couple can marry in the United States is dictated by whether the state or tribe has provided for it. That is the central question. Whether benefits are provided or whether a person can bring in a same-sex immigrant spouse are interesting, and warrant the qualifier "largely", but that stands second to the question of whether SSMs can be obtained. I will try to find wording you'll like better, but try working with me here instead of reverting me. -Rrius (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What you think is the "central question" is not inherently the central question; some may see the question of whether the United States recognizes one's marriage as being central to the topic of same-sex marriage in the United States. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked out the "divided between state and federal law" version yet? Do you approve? -Rrius (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's much better and avoids the problems raised above, but I'm trying to think of a better word than "issue", for two reasons:
 * "issue" in its political terms suggests a problem, and I'm reluctant to start an article like this by defining it as first and foremost a problem
 * "issue" can also be read under another relevant definition (i.e., the issuing of marriage licenses) that can give pause in the reading. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thrilled with "issue", but I was trying to avoid opening a new can of worms by splitting the bold iteration of the title. -Rrius (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We really need to split it in more of the SSM articles, as they almost all end up sounding awkward. People generally ignore the part of WP:BOLDTITLE which says "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it". As we see here, life is better once you leave the bold behind. --00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They also ignore the part that says merely descriptive titles don't need to be bold. I've always assumed that is at least in part due to articles like this where the title's construction can get in the way of good, or at least passable, writing. -Rrius (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We better get to facts in the lead instead of vague pronouncements whose discussion belongs in the article body, so I restored the previous lead that read much clearer and better. Hekerui (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, the lead was crappy and misleading. Also, you've stripped out a number of changes without even bothering to figure out what you'd done. Great job! The new version linked DOMA to Baehr, which actually triggered it; you restored a link to Mass., which is irrelevant. You stripped out the addition of Maine to Maryland and Washington for no reason whatsoever. You also restored a shit citation format. Finally, you didn't bother to give us a clue as to exactly when you were restoring to or why you were completely ignoring the issue that cause the changes in the first place. So really, thanks a bunch. -Rrius (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These are minor issues that were easily addressed, as I see. The overcomplicated and vague version that was replaced was far more problematic for the reader whom this list is supposed to give an overview. Hekerui (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. First of all, it was not easy to get the changes I did, and I'm still not sure I got them all. Why the hell did you go back so far? The major change obviously happened on the 8th, yet you went back into June or before. Second, the version you restored to still had the problem that we went through hours of consensus building to fix. Third, the version you restored starts with the assumption that the reader knows things about marriage law in the United States that it is ridiculous to assume they do. The current version doesn't actually make clear what exactly the federal government's lack of recognition means. The version you reverted, without discussion, explained that DOMA applies to federal benefits and obligations, but that states decide whether they want legalize SSM. That is a basic point should be explained instead of being dismissed as "essay-ish". -Rrius (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph of the previous version begins with some general and unspecific reflections on whether state or federal law are more important when it comes to SSM, which is unneeded when stating the facts is in order. We are not here to give a general introduction about DOMA and consider what people may or may not know, we let the facts speak for themselves and link to DOMA. When readers see that only certain states have legalized SSM they know that "states decide whether they want legalize SSM". Let's not assume readers are stupid. Hekerui (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't ponder relative importance. Rather, it notes the differing involvement of the separate sovereigns in our federal system. You may think it obvious once you say that some states allow SSM, but that isn't necessarily clear, and it is certainly preferable to lay the logical groundwork first. In Canada, for instance, marriage is a federal issue, but SSM was first established by court decisions that only applied within individual provinces. Also, just last week (or perhaps even over the weekend) we had an editor slap a fact tag on the proposition that DOMA doesn't prevent states from legalizing SSM. It is wrong to assume that people already understand who has the power to legalize SSM in the US. It is also odd to suggest that we should refuse to set something out clearly for no more reason than it appears to you to be "essay-ish". Moving from the general to the specific is most logical way to explain something, so the objection that the new version starts with something general doesn't make much sense to me. It really seems that your objection to the newer version is that you don't like it, and that just isn't enough. -Rrius (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I do not like the lead right now. It was good as the July 9 version. – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 23:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Also, whoever rolled back the article got rid of the fixes to references and other edits. I'm putting it back. – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 23:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

marriage and licensing
We should avoid using the granting of marriage licenses as the descriptor of whether a jurisdiction grants marriages. Not all marriages are done via licensing. Some jurisdictions do not use a licensing process (I would not be surprised if - but do not claim to know - this applies in one or both of the tribal jurisdictions involved.) Additionally, in at least some of the relevant jurisdictions, a marriage license is not the only way to obtain a recognized marriage. the list of jurisdictions that have common-law marriage in the United States includes both jurisdictions with SSM and states without. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Case law sorting
Currently, the case law list is an uninviting wall of text. Would anyone object to it being subdivided? I was thinking of using something like the following categories: That's not necessarily how I'd word the headings or the order I'd put them in; I'm just trying to give a basic idea of what I mean. -Rrius (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Adoption cases
 * Marriage ban valid
 * Marriage ban invalid
 * Federal issues


 * I don't think it would be helpful to separate cases that upheld bans on marriage from ones that struck it down (because they overlap chronologically). Could you also elaborate on what you mean by "federal issues" and how they would play into your organization of the list? I assumed you meant federalism, eg. DOMA cases, but perhaps you mean separating federal cases from state cases? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence v. Texas
While I can appreciate the significance of Lawrence within the wider realm of LGBT rights, I question it's relevance to this article. Further, I take issue with how it was unceremoniously plopped into the middle of the section about state law, without any effort to connect it logically to the rest of the article's contents. A casual reader might not be blamed for thinking, "Gee, this is an interesting bit of trivia, but... what's it doing here?" The addition seems to constitute topic-drift, to my mind, and if there turns out to be a cogent argument for inclusion, I think the material definitely needs to be folded into the text more artfully than was done here today.

By the way, I find it nothing short of bizarre that the existing article on Lawrence isn't already linked in this article's See also section, which seems the proper place for it.

Incidentally, this matter was in fact already discussed (albeit, not at any great length) in the archive, here: Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States/Archive_2


 * I only partially agree. It shouldn't just be thrown out there, but it has been relied on in SSM cases, and there is a certain logical connection between laws outlawing homosexual conduct and the availability of SSM. So to me the relevance of Lawrence v. Texas is clear. I'm not sure though that it warrants more than a very brief mention. -Rrius (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur with the logical connection. Obviously, prior to Lawrence the availability of SSM might be preempted in certain states (if we, ahem, make certain assumptions).  That said, and to reiterate a little, what I'm challenging is the inclusion of Lawrence in the prose of this article, as it's outside the scope and the tie-in is only tangential.  I fully support making it a See Also item.  That makes perfect sense.   Belch fire - TALK  01:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the tie-in is tangential; it's a vital part of the timeline. The first ruling that caused the legalization of SSM (MA's Goodridge v. Department of Public Health) relies extensively on it, and thus we may not have had SSM without it. The dissent portion of the Lawrence ruling discusses SSM as a consequence (perhaps the first time it was mentioned in a Supreme Court decision?). When the history of SSM in America is looked at as a whole, it should be clear  that Lv.T was not only reflective of changes that were taking place, but a proximate cause. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nat, I'm not really disputing your facts and I allow freely that you are far more versed on this topic than I, but if Goodridge relies so heavily on Lawrence, I find it puzzling that our articles for the two cases do not mention each other at all. The Lawrence article even has a Subsequent cases section, but Goodridge - isn't there.  Could the linkage be that solid if no other editor has spotted this deficiency in nine years?  I can only wonder.


 * Moreover, SSM first appeared in Massachusetts. Did that state have a sodomy law that was invalidated by Lawrence?  Did any state that now allows SSM marriage have a sodomy law invalidated by Lawrence?  I'm just asking.


 * Without digging out the ruling and plodding through all of the dicta, I'm reading our Wiki article on Goodridge to say it was decided on Equal Protection grounds. But Lawrence was a privacy case.  So can you just briefly explain the tie-in for me?


 * Lawrence is an important case for everybody, not just gays. We all had our freedoms increased as a result, and the ruling is to be celebrated, no matter where one stands on SSM.  But if it's truly a key part of this narrative, it shouldn't be too awful tough to point to something really solid and self-evident to show us that.  Back to you, sir.  I'm all ears.   Belch fire - TALK  03:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Goodridge article doesn't mention it doesn't make it unimportant. All of the same-sex marriage cases have relied on it, and at least one of the DOMA challenges specifically relies on it for the standard of review used to hold section 3 unconstitutional. The fact that an article about a specific case doesn't explain how Lawrence figured into the decision's reasoning doesn't mean it isn't important enough to mention in the body of this article. The case should be mentioned in the body for both the timeline aspect and the case law aspect. -Rrius (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with Nat. The fact that the case (or specifically the majority opinion, because the dissent does) itself doesn't address SSM is not significant when we consider its great importance in subsequent SSM cases that are making their way to SCOTUS and that are also significant already (eg. Goodridge, Perry). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If I might toss in an idea and run, there's been fairly widespread punditry about the possibly prophetic nature of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence. “Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned,”  I'd normally discount a dissent as much of a signifiant link, but this particular one has been discussed so widely as being possibly prophetic that one could make the argument that some textual linkage to Lawrence belongs here.  Anyway, carry on, fascinating discussion. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ros, on a non-Wikipedia level, I don't disagree, and I've already said so. But for the article, can you show me a solid connection based on sources?  This argument you're making smacks of OR, and WP:CRYSTAL.  At the risk of repeating myself (but in hopes of being better understood)... if Lawrence belongs here, it shouldn't be too tough to demonstrate that.  I don't see how we can justify it on the basis of "future SCOTUS decisions will use this as a precedent."  Belch fire - TALK  03:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Ros can back up the "prophetic" bit, but no one is trying to justify inclusion on that basis. All the SSM cases rely on it, the DOMA cases rely on it, and the timing deserves mention all on its own. None of that can be addressed in the "See also" section. -Rrius (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone, I agree with Nat Gertler as well. The placement of Lawrence should be exactly where it was, but after the sentence containing Goodridge as the first to find a constitutional right to marriage for gay couples. Lawrence did have an important influence on the court's rationale and it should be noted that Lawrence had been decided just a few months before Goodridge in Massachusetts. It would be a necessary expansion to that paragraph and fit in appropriately with the timeline."'I do not doubt the sincerity of deeply held moral or religious beliefs that make inconceivable to some the notion that any change in the common-law definition of what constitutes a legal civil marriage is now, or ever would be, warranted. But, as matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families.  See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).'"
 * I like that quote. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Stand by, I'm looking at Goodridge. By the way, Teammm... I'm only on the second page and there's a quote that I like, too: ""Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."  That's good stuff, no matter where you stand.   Belch fire - TALK  04:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Love that quote too. Thanks for sharing. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 04:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm no lawyer and I don't need to pretend to do some sort of detailed analysis. Having searched Goodridge, looking through the 12 mentions of Lawrence, I'm convinced the linkage is strong enough to see Lawrence as being integral.


 * One request, if I may... could we enhance the educational value of using Lawrence by making the historical narrative a little more idiot-proof? Honestly, the edit that I reverted earlier had a really random feel to it, and that contributed a lot to my viewing it with a jaundiced eye.


 * Thank you all for your patience, this has been a good dialog.  Belch fire - TALK  04:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, that's what I'm talking about. We should (somebody should) put the information back but after the Goodridge sentence. Put it all in the same paragraph and explain the relationship between that and the Lawrence decision. Just a minor detail to explain that Lawrence had that particular impact/influence. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 04:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for outdenting, but I'm tired and not going to try to answer all of Belchfire's statements in the right place, since I think this discussion is sufficiently uniform to follow. What we're talking about here is not crystal balling future SCOTUS decisions; we're talking about extant state court decisions. Whether MA had a sodomy law is immaterial (they had a non-gender specific one about "Unnatural and lascivious acts"), because it's not the absence of sodomy law that sets whether the state has the right to other laws in the face of the Lawrence logic. I'm certainly not going to review almost a decades worth of revisions on those articles you cite (nor would I be making much of a statement by doing so, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source); it's quite easy to find significant sources making the point of the import of Lv.T. One can find things like the NYT article "SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: THE CONTEXT; Supreme Court Paved Way for Marriage Ruling With Sodomy Law Decision"... heck, with that headline, you don't even need to look to the article itself! You can find the National Review saying "the Goodridge decision drew directly on the precedent of Lawrence", the Pew Forum saying "Many lawyers subsequently arguing for a right to same-sex marriage pointed to Scalia's dissent in Lawrence as evidence that the majority opinion in that case generated a constitutional right to marriage for people of the same gender" and "the Lawrence decision dramatically changed the same-sex marriage landscape by articulating a constitutional framework that could provide robust rights for gay and lesbian couples", and... oh, I could give more links, but I'm a tired boy. Really, the NYT headline sez it all.

I should note that my statements are not meant to address the specific edits that someone was adding regarding Lawrence, because I haven't looked at 'em (again, tired. Also, lazy.) I'm merely addressing the general question of whether Lawrence has a place in this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll probably notice by the time you see this that I just reset the article back to where it was. Somebody closely familiar with the subject matter should undertake the improvements, so I thought it best to turn that back over to others.  I'm glad you understand that last concern I have, though, Teammm.  That gives me confidence.
 * Nat, I'm assuming it took you a few minutes to type all of that - quite possibly the same few minutes I was using to look over Goodridge. I have no intention of being obstructionist about this, I just needed to satisfy my skepticism that was triggered by how the article was laid out earlier, and that's done now.   Belch fire - TALK  04:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Belchfire, I also thought it was a bit off but figured Student7 might have a plan and I might as well add some sources. Looks like it worked out:)
 * Btw, Lawrence rests on due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth...
 * — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)