Talk:Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States/Archive 1

According to The Oklahoman
I think we should eliminate the "According to The Oklahoman" phrasing. All of Wikipedia is supposed to be dependent on reliable sources, and we cannot have every sentence starting out According To Whomever. Either The Oklahoman is a reliable source, in which case we are treating the information as true and can stand in here without such a disclaimer (although with appropriate ref), or it is not a reliable source, and we should not have the information in here at all. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why didn't you just fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.191.11 (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Long-term formatting
The general formatting of the page is fine for now. However, as time goes on, between more tribes establishing laws and more wikipedia editors determining what laws exist, this format of a subhead for each jurisdiction will become unwieldy; there are, after all, over 500 jurisdictions. So eventually, we should end up with something more list-like: a list of jurisdictions where it's explicitly permitted, a list where it's explicitly not (each list needs little more than the jurisdiction name, the date of legalization/illegalization, and a good reference link), and a separate history section. Not something that needs be done right now, of course. - Nat Gertler (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma
it seems that one same-sex marriage has already taken place before


 * http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/around-oklahoma/samesex-oklahoma-couple-marries-legally-under-tribal-law/-/12530084/22553184/-/101ihp0z/-/index.html
 * http://www.c-a-tribes.org/Websites/michaelwood/images/October_15._2013.pdf (p. 4)

155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, good catch! I've added them! --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * cheers! 155.245.69.178 (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Civil Unions under Tribal Jurisdictions
according to https://graduate.lclark.edu/live/files/15810-tribal-equity-toolkit-20 on page 21 and 141, the he Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Coquille Indian Tribe and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa do offer domestic partnerships/civil unions 109.158.211.26 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * An interesting document (and from the future! Its publication date is two days from now!) but we have to be particularly cautious about using it because of WP:CIRCULAR problems. They repeatedly use Wikipedia as a reference, including this very article. -Nat Gertler (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Potentially useful source
I can't do much editing for the next couple days, but this source may have a few useful tidbits, although a lot of it is "it is unknown whether"s. She has the same count of accepting & banned tribes as we do, which leaves me wondering whether she may be using us as a source... Also http://www.law.louisville.edu/sites/www.law.louisville.edu/files/Justice%20Paper.pdf this] [-Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Tribal Codes
weblinks to tribal codes which are available online here: http://www.narf.org/nill/triballaw/index.htm ... probably someone who has time can read them all :-) 155.245.69.178 (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Mashantucket Pequot
according to Tribal Laws & Same-Sex Marriage: Theory, Process, and Content by Ann E. Tweedy, the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe does allow same-sex marriages ... 155.245.69.178 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a draft document, which asks that we not cite it directly... which also means that it is not yet a WP:RS, and we shouldn't be noting its claim that this was verified by the tribe's attorney. However, having verified its claims about the text of the laws, and with that seems-unlikely-to-be-a-lie aspect, that beats my recent qualms about our own interpretation of law, so I've added it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have verified that this change has not been undone or altered in the more recent, 2012-2014 packet. There is some interesting development in there, in regards to their employment law. "“Spouse” shall mean a man or woman husband or wife joined in lawful marriage, or a significant other who is now and has been residing with a member of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe for no less than three (3) years and has been issued an identification badge as a tribal spouse by the Tribal Clerk’s Office and or a surviving spouse with a child as those terms are defined in Title 29, M.P.T.L., §4, who is in good standing with the Tribe." and one other change also found there leads me to suspect that the tribe was already providing some marriage-like benefits to same-sex significant others, and this became less needed with marriage recognition. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians
one more? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/30/1326000/-Another-tribe-recognizes-same-sex-marriages# 155.245.69.178 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems so, changed the reference 22, I can not find the sections referred to in Article [4-7-6 (c) and 4.7.13]. Sorry if my English is bad: p http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/cooscode/4_4-7.pdf--201.219.190.155 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wind River Indian Reservation
http://county10.com/2014/11/15/first-same-sex-marriage-reported-in-tribal-court-at-fort-washakie/ ... is the jurisdiction the reservation or the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Nations? 155.245.69.178 (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * done 155.245.69.178 (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Original research concern
For a couple of these tribes, we are sourcing things directly to the law, which runs into original research problems. We are saying that they do or may accept same-sex marriage on the basis of our analysis of the law, which is not what we're supposed to do (and please note that I am talking about material that I inserted as well as others.) Laws often mean something different than how we read them, or are not actually applied despite being on the books. We may need to cut out some of this material (particularly speculation on a tribe that may accept such marriages) unless we can find an outside, reliable source. (And when using outside sources, we need to be particularly careful about WP:CIRCULAR, as some coverage in the major media causes me to suspect that they are, directly or indirectly, using Wikipedia's tally of the tribes.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And now I see the Bay Mill group added onto the page, also on a direct reading of the lawbook. To make clear why this is a problem: the law books for several of the states that now offer same-sex marriage still have such man-and-woman references in the text. As silly as it sounds, we cannot judge by reading the law book what the law actually is. If I don't see some objection here, in a few days I'll be deleting those entries based on such primary sources. (By the way, while looking to find a non-primary source discussing Bay Mill and same-sex marriage, I stumbled across an article which may be of use for some legal background, although it is from 2006 and thus will certainly not reflect the current practical situations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * oppose erasing. The tribal codes published on tribal websites remains the best source possible for these chapters. Moreover, the chapters like the "might recognize" one are very carefully worded, showing the exact prudence that is needed when reading the legislation in this chapter. Maybe another even more explicit title is to be considered : "Nations with neutrally worded legislation" — Mimich (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But doesn't this fall very much into the concerns listed in the opening of WP:RS, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." And why are we even saying that a group "might recognize"; what information does that give the reader, other than confessing our ignorance? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutrally worded legislations are not to be neglected. "Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes" allowed a marriage in October 2013 upon such a legislation alone. Tribe-published legislation remains good basic information. But maybe could we find another publication angle to bring them. I'm open to suggestions — Mimich (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and when the C&A did so, then we had information, which trying to read the lawbooks would not give us. I have no trouble with listing quotes from the lawbooks when we are not guessing or suggesting how they were to be interpreted. We could have a section on laws from other tribes which we do not know to have interpreted them in one way or another, so long as we do not try to interpret them ourselves (although then the question becomes whether, lacking such interpretation, the section belongs in an article on SSM, or whether it should really be part of an article on tribal marriage law.) I cannot predict based on the lawbook what, say, the Bay Mills folks would do if faced with a same-sex couple; reference I find elsewhere suggest that the intent of that wording was to stop recognition of polygamous situations.--Nat Gertler (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But then, Bay Mills would have to modify the law anyway to allow SSM. The present text, which says a man and a woman, only forsees for the present time anyway. We can't forsee what tribes in general will do in the future, either. Maybe we should neutralize the wording of the page in general that refers to the intention of the tribe, only to merely give the present state of things and laws. As much as possible, just the facts of law indeed. But to come back to the interpretation in the "might recognize section", the heading only suggests that the neutrality of the text could leave the possibility open to recognition, while admitting no known communication of the tribe on the matter. This is not misleading the reading. Again maybe a better title. — Mimich (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggestion of titles :
 * Nations that provide legal recognition => Nations with documented same-sex marriage
 * Nation with recognition on hold => Nation with evolutive legislation
 * Nations that might have recognition => Nations with partially or fully neutrally-worded legislation
 * Nations that do not recognize => Nations with legislation allowing neither celebration nor recognition. — Mimich (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My opinion of suggested titles: I agree with the 1st title change, Change "evolutive" to "evolving" (but the 2nd one doesn't necessarily need a change), keep the third one to what it is now (so then nations that don't have neutral wording but just aren't clear on whether they ban same-sex recognition can be included in that section), last suggested title seems okay but I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct (it just doesn't seem to flow right IMO). --Prcc27 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think that we need to say that legislation allows or disallows anything, because it may not be strictly through legislation that policy is set (witness the many states that have mixed-sex-only marriage laws ion the books, which have been rendered important by court rulings.) While third party reporting of a specific law to either permit or inhibit SSM may be reasonably read as setting policy, we should not directly interpret the law itself in saying so. Judging wording as "neutral" is not something we should do, although reliance on appropriate third-party sources for such judgment is fine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO almost every native american nation could probably fit under the "might have recognition" column.. --Prcc27 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nat, I have pondered at length your concerns about using original sources. However, the same interpretation and bias issues that you have raised could equally be said from any 3rd party source. The biggest problem, as I see it is the cultural position of many tribes that the issue is not about gender and sexual politics per se, or about sexual preferences, but instead about the traditional place of all people in native societies. Thus even trying to interpret it from a legal position is tenuous at best unless a tribe has taken a specific position. I agree with Mimich that we must stick with the specific legal wording and try to eliminate speculation on meaning altogether in as much as that is possible. As a case in point, refer to the Eastern Cherokee. Their law indicates marriage between a man and a woman is recognized. They are now considering an amendment to ban same sex marriage. We might have interpreted it as already clear, but the member who proposed the amendment did not. SusunW (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, interpretation issues can he said for any 3rd party source, but we do not have to consider all sources to be equal. We can rely on established, reliable, expert sources, as per Wikipedia guidelines; that puts us in a much better situation than relying on the interpretation of whoever chooses to edit Wikipedia. If trying to interpret it from a legal position is tenuous, that's a good reason for us not to take the lead in doing so.... and that may even include the claim that their laws are ambiguous or gender-neutral. (Certainly, there's a bit of point-of-view concern in refering to any pre-1996 marriage law as "gender neutral", as it may have been written with the inherent assumption that the word "marriage" was not neutral in regard to the genders involved.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Confederated Tribes of Siletz

 * http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/oregon_siletz_tribe_says_it_wi.html
 * http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/oregon%E2%80%99s-siletz-native-american-tribe-considering-legalizing-same-sex-marriage200514

155.245.69.178 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's not yet decided, but something to keep an eye on! Good catch. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have input this into the might recognize categories, as I think there is sufficient evidence to show that the tribe recognizes marriages performed within the state of Oregon, thus regardless of whether the tribal proposal passed, the tribe might acknowledge a marriage from another jurisdiction.SusunW (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

name switch
The name should be jurisdictional, rather than racial; I suggest Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States. Thoughts? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not 100% sure about the name, but totally agree with the principle. The article name should be adjusted to capture all jurisdictions of Indian American, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians (Native Americans in the United States). gidonb (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Native Hawaiians have a jurisdictional government capable of granting marriage; the Office of Hawaiian Affairs appears to be solely concerned with land management, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs doesn't even have Hawaii on their map (although they go and put Alaska in the general direction of Hawaii; I presume that's just a convenience and not showing the degree of confusion in that bureau!) The BIA refers to even the Alaska ones as "tribes" (one of which is "Mary's Igloo Traditional Council", love that name), so we should be relatively safe with that terminologoy. Same-sex marriage in U.S. tribal jurisdictions? - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer either Same-sex marriage by native nations in the United States or Same-sex marriage by tribal nations in the United States. Both native nations in the United States and tribal nations in the United States are common used concepts. I think is better not to repeat the word "in" or use the abbreviation U.S. in a title, if given a choice. "By" would better include marriage of nonresident natives by the nations, the official function of the nations, as well as imply the article's organization. gidonb (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to keep down the wordiness. Yes, "U.S." is an abbreviation, but so is "United States". And while the "nation" language is certainly used by some of these jurisdictions, I'm not sure that it is universal and generic across the groups. BIA uses "Indian tribes and Alaska Native entities". (Also, I don't think you meant Indian American above, but American Indian.) How about Same-sex marriage under U.S. tribal jurisdictions, thus avoiding the "in" suggesting a physical location?
 * I am fine with "under tribal jurisdictions". It captures all that I was looking for without repetition, including not confining geographically. It is somewhat longer. This particular use of U.S. is much shorter but conflicts with the style guideline. gidonb (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions, then? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me. gidonb (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Coming in late to this discussion, but the way that it is worded would seem to preclude tribes which are recognized at the state level but not the federal level. There are 566 Federally recognized tribes, but numerous other ones at only the state level. The current wording would imply only Federally Recognized tribes. Since I am trying to check the legal codes on all of them, the task is huge already. However, I would rather err on the side of inclusiveness than exclusiveness. Changing the name to United States: same-sex marriage under tribal jurisdictions would accommodate all tribal affiliations, IMO. SusunW (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Minnesota Chippewa
I am not even sure how to list this into a section. Apparently, the federally recognized entity is composed of 6 bands which each establish their own codes? Since federally this is a single entity, how does one make subsections for it in Wikipedia? Do I just bullet it like I have done? It seems logical to put them in the "might recognize" section, even though the language is inclusive and at least in the case of the Grand Portage Band, they follow state law. And do I leave out the 2 bands where no information has been found? Here is what I have found so far:

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, (aka Anishinaabe, Chippewa and Ojibwe) has 6 component bands. There are no Tribal Codes for the umbrella organization, only a Constitution and Bylaws. Cannot find any tribal codes for the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, so am unclear on whether or not they regulate marriage. The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Ordinance #04/10, as amended (16 July, 2014) Marriage, Domestic Partnership & Divorce at §301 recognize as valid and binding any marriage between two persons which is formalized or solemnized in compliance with the laws of the place where it was formalized. Chapter 4 recognizes the relationship of two non-married, committed adult partners who have declared themselves as domestic partners provided that it is registered. The Grand Portage Band of Chippewa follow state law with regard to marriages as they "do not have jurisdiction over domestic relations" per the Grand Portgage Judicial Code §1.3.e The Family Relations Code of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Title 5 Family Relations Code, Chapter 2 - Marriages establishes at §2.A that the tribe has jurisdiction over all marriages performed within its boundaries and over the marriages of all tribal members regardless of where they reside. §3 defines marriage as a civil contract between two parties who are capable of solemnizing and consenting to marriage. §2.D.2 Requires that the parties declare in the presence of two witnesses, who must sign the declaration, that they take each other as spouses. The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Annotated Statues (7 February, 2014) Title 8 - Children and Families do not address marriages. They provide regulations for protection of children. It may well be that they allowed the State of Minnesota to control marriage relations as the stated purpose of the Children and Families Act was to reestablish the tribal jurisdiction since the state had properly failed to provide for children in the manner the tribe wished. The Family Relations Code of the White Earth Nation defines only marriages which are voidable. Those include per §3.1.a bigamous marriages, those entered into by minors, and those prohibited by degrees of consanguinity. §3.2 a marriage could be declared voidable if the party lacked capacity to consent, consummate the marriage, or was under age at the time it was entered into. SusunW (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake)
 * 2) Fond du Lac Band
 * 3) Grand Portage Band
 * 4) Leech Lake Band
 * 5) Mille Lacs Band
 * 6) White Earth Band

Maybe since Leech Lake is already in as a separate entity we just list them separately and note that they are part of the Minnesota Chippewa? Something like in the might recognize category that the Minnesota Chippewa is composed of 6 bands which individually regulate marriage. See separate entries for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6? SusunW (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Tlingit-Haida
The Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska now authorizes same-sex marriage: -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

another article on the topic
Tribal Laws & Same-Sex Marriage: Theory, Process, and Content by Ann E. Tweedy, Hamline University School of Law, an earlier draft version was mentioned above, now an updated and published version 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUS ruling?
Does the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage affect tribes? Since the effect of DOMA is mentioned, this seems important to mention as well. --zandperl (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it should not effect the tribes, unless they have subjugated their rights to the state or federal government they make laws for what happens with their sovereign boundaries. SusunW (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sault Ste. Marie Tribe from Michigan?--201.219.180.111 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ak-Chin Indian Community
a lawsuit targeting a case of non-recognition: https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cleo-pablo-notice-of-claim.pdf 155.245.69.178 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141122203953/http://www.fdlrez.com/ordpdfs/2010/04-10MarriageDomesticPartnershipDivorce2014.07.16.pdf to http://www.fdlrez.com/ordpdfs/2010/04-10MarriageDomesticPartnershipDivorce2014.07.16.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141221123430/http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/sissetonwahpeton%20code/Chapter34.pdf to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/sissetonwahpeton%20code/Chapter34.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150506090218/http://www.winnebagotribe.com/images/tribal_court/Tribal%20Code%202014/2014%20WTN%20TITLE%202%20Civil%20Procedure.pdf to http://www.winnebagotribe.com/images/tribal_court/Tribal%20Code%202014/2014%20WTN%20TITLE%202%20Civil%20Procedure.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 27 one external links on Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150909202213/http://www.narf.org/nill/codes/fort_mcdermitt/ch5.pdf to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/fort_mcdermitt/ch5.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150908070053/http://www.narf.org/nill/codes/fort_mcdowell/ftmcodech10domestic.html to http://www.narf.org/nill/codes/fort_mcdowell/ftmcodech10domestic.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160105164354/http://www.narf.org/nill/codes/mashantucket_pequot/2010-11supp.pdf to http://www.narf.org/nill/codes/mashantucket_pequot/2010-11supp.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141205083344/http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/oglala_sioux/chapter03-domestic.htm to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/oglala_sioux/chapter03-domestic.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131007161048/http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/absentee-shawnee/civil_procedure_ch_11.html to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/absentee-shawnee/civil_procedure_ch_11.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121127021200/http://www.cskt.org/documents/laws-codified.pdf to http://www.cskt.org/documents/laws-codified.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140601011745/http://ctuir.org/Family%20Law%20Code.pdf to http://ctuir.org/Family%20Law%20Code.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528081255/http://www.bbna.com:80/curyung/code.htm to http://www.bbna.com/curyung/code.htm#CH26
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150922075416/http://www.narf.org/nill/codes/ely_shoshone/domestic_122.pdf to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/ely_shoshone/domestic_122.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150922083316/http://www.narf.org/nill/codes/fort_belknap/title5.pdf to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/fort_belknap/title5.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129101647/http://narf.org/nill/Codes/hoopacode/Title%2014A%20Domestic%20Relations%20Code%20June%2019%202008pdf.pdf to http://narf.org/nill/Codes/hoopacode/Title%2014A%20Domestic%20Relations%20Code%20June%2019%202008pdf.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141221121209/http://www.karuk.us/images/docs/tero/WorkforceProtectionAct_04082013.doc to http://www.karuk.us/images/docs/tero/WorkforceProtectionAct_04082013.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101220231700/http://narf.org/nill/Codes/lummi/11Domestic_Relations.pdf to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/lummi/11Domestic_Relations.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141205081623/http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/mississippichoctaw/Title%209%20-%20Choctaw%20Domestic%20Relations%20Code.pdf to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/mississippichoctaw/Title%209%20-%20Choctaw%20Domestic%20Relations%20Code.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141202010817/http://www.nezperce.org/~code/pdf%20convert%20files/14oct2014%20Code.pdf to http://www.nezperce.org/~code/pdf%20convert%20files/14oct2014%20Code.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131007121344/http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/northern_cheyenne/index.html to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/northern_cheyenne/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131007194244/http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/oneidacode/marriage.htm to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/oneidacode/marriage.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131007194613/http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/pawneecode/civilproc3.htm to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/pawneecode/civilproc3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131007185252/http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/pitrivercode/pitriverfamilych3marriage.htm to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/pitrivercode/pitriverfamilych3marriage.htm#2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131007185654/http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/sicode/sanildcodet10domestic.htm to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/sicode/sanildcodet10domestic.htm#chapter23
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141206091817/http://sacandfoxnation-nsn.gov/sites/sfnation/uploads/documents/SF_CODES_Law/code_of_laws/13_ch_1_marriage_divorce_sfn.pdf to http://sacandfoxnation-nsn.gov/sites/sfnation/uploads/documents/SF_CODES_Law/code_of_laws/13_ch_1_marriage_divorce_sfn.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141205085729/http://www.narf.org/nill//Codes/santee_sioux_nation/title3.PDF to http://www.narf.org/nill//Codes/santee_sioux_nation/title3.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141204163411/http://www.shoalwaterbay-nsn.gov/assets/PDFs/Law--Order-Codes/TITLE-20-FAMILY-MOD-11-20-2013.doc to http://www.shoalwaterbay-nsn.gov/assets/PDFs/Law--Order-Codes/TITLE-20-FAMILY-MOD-11-20-2013.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141205090047/http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/shobancode/LOC.ch%20VII.pdf to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/shobancode/LOC.ch%20VII.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141221115635/http://www.spiritlakenation.com/Documents/Title_9_Domestice_Relations.pdf to http://www.spiritlakenation.com/Documents/Title_9_Domestice_Relations.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150506065433/http://mohican-nsn.gov/Departments/Legal/Ordinances/Ch%2061%20Marriage.pdf to http://mohican-nsn.gov/Departments/Legal/Ordinances/Ch%2061%20Marriage.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131019174005/http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/yombacode/yomba8domrel.htm to http://www.narf.org/nill/Codes/yombacode/yomba8domrel.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

3 Needed Groups
I think it would be great if we could maybe get some info on here about 3 Native American groups in California, the Coastanoan/Ohlone and the Chumash. If someone can point me to a good source, I'd be willing to do the reading and writing, otherwise, this is just a suggestion. Stayhomegal (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Law change in Michigan
With the court ruling in Michigan on 03-21-2014, does that mean the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe allows same-sex marriage now? Kumorifox (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oooh, good question! Logically it should... but we should not be the ones to draw that inference. (On the other hand, we seem to be the ones drawing the inference that it was illegal.) With a stay likely, and the tribe itself not yet heard from that I can find, perhaps the best move is to remove them altogether from the page until some WP:RS answers that question? (We could simply keep the text here on the talk page.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the code itself, both the version we link to and the fully current version on the tribe's website, I find that things are even more complicated than we think, because a couple paragraphs above the one we cite is one that specifies that the marriages they will recognize are ones between a man and a woman. Read totally legalistically, when-and-if the stay is removed, the Tribe may be granting marriages and then not recognizing them. Frankly, I think the only thing we can do once the stay is removed is to remove the Sault Ste. Marie tribe from the page entirely, until we have sources that actually present the then-current situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * they changed their code in July 2015 ... 155.245.69.178 (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Changes at Osage Nation
http://osagenews.org/en/article/2016/04/07/bill-recognizing-same-sex-marriage-passes-courts-not-allowed-marry-same-sex-couples/ ... recognition but not performing, under which label will we put this? 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ho-Chunk Nation
http://www.ho-chunknation.com/media/236908/08.09.16k_auth._to_place_amendments_to_the_marriage_ordinance__4hcc10__out_for_45_day_public_comment.pdf 155.245.69.178 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.ho-chunknation.com/media/130096/12.09.14h_amendments_to_ho-chunk_nation_health_plans_recognizing_same-sex_marriage_for_purposes_of_plan_benefits_and_coverage.pdf 155.245.69.178 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
can anyone make sense out of these two documents, does the RCB limit marriage to heterosexual couples or not?

- http://redcliff-nsn.gov/Government/TribalChapters/Chapter49.pdf (DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE)

- http://redcliff-nsn.gov/Government/TribalChapters/Chapter56.pdf (CIVIL UNION)

155.245.69.178 (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a reason why we should avoid going off of WP:PRIMARY documents; too much interpretation needed. --Nat Gertler (talk)


 * completely agree, e.g. would like to limit Nations that might have_recognition to those jurisdictions which explicitly e.g. have made political statements or offer some benefits, a general clause about the validity of foreign marriages is in my opinion not enough ... another issue is e.g., that there are many jurisdictions which do not deal with family law or don't have written law or don't publish their law codes 155.245.69.178 (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma
haven't found any indication for a ban of same-sex marriages in the nation's code: http://bahkhoje.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/TITLE-2-CIVIL-PROCEDURE.pdf (Title 11, Family relations) 155.245.69.178 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

CFR court system?
any knowledge how e.g. the [Court of Indian Offenses for Southern Plains Region https://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/RegionalOffices/SouthernPlains/WeAre/ciospr/index.htm] deals with applications for same sex marriage? 155.245.69.178 (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe
according to the new Tribal Equity toolkit (page 53), the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe has legalized same sex marriage in 2015 but haven't found anything else confirming it ... the same document states on page 54 that "Additional tribes choose to follow state marriage laws or informally recognize marriage equality" 155.245.69.178 (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yavapai-Apache Nation?
code says under 3.1 on page 5 that marriages shall be in accordance with state law, Arizona legalized SSM on 17/10/2014. I'm always reluctant to add nations which do not explicitely legalize same-sex marriages, any thoughts? 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

a few more interesting documents
Hopi Nation's marriage form: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5iJZdagMNhTdWtXaUZpWVNBLTg/edit

Organized Village of Kake's domestic relation code: http://www.kakefirstnation.org/uploads/5/4/3/1/54316983/domestic_code.pdf

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma's dissolution of marriage code: https://www.quapawtribe.com/DocumentCenter/View/5046

Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians' Family code and spouse's policy: http://www.shinglespringsrancheria.com/ssr/wp-content/uploads/documents/codes/Family%20Code.pdf & http://www.shinglespringsrancheria.com/ssr/wp-content/uploads/documents/policies/Spouse%20and%20Family%20Policy%20for%20SSTHP.pdf

wouldn't draw any quick conclusions without further evidence

155.245.69.178 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Gila River
The Gila River section only mentioned a Maricopa county report, specifically a footnote explaining that they had removed SSM couples from the number of families reported in the 2010 census, implying that the Gila River rez was refusing to recognize SSM. But this footnote appeared under all of the county's communities in the report and was compiled by the county govt, not the rez. There was no actual information about the rez apart from edited census results, so I deleted the section. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, found a news report that Gila banned SSM after 2015. Could really use a better source, though. I mean, the E.Cherokee 'ban' only banned weddings. — kwami (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Reorganized sections
I reorganized the sections to try to make it a bit easier for the reader to know what they're looking at. I welcome nitpicking or further reorganization. The lists were becoming too long to be perusable.
 * Nations that specifically provide for SSM
 * Nations that specifically ban SSM, even if performed elsewhere. I removed a few and added a few to this list.
 * Nations that accept marriages performed elsewhere (and so presumably afford all rights to SS couples, though you might need to go off-rez to get married)
 * Nations that don't say they accept marriages performed elsewhere
 * Nations with gender-neutral wording in their marriage codes (or that don't specify who qualifies at all, or even whether they perform marriages)
 * Nations with generic gendered wording that may simply have been intended to mean 'spouses' (e.g., if a couple only need to affirm that they're husband and wife, might that be all that's necessary for SSM, with 'husband and wife' not being a legal biological statement subject to perjury charges any more than, per SCOTUS, 'in God we trust' is a theological statement?)
 * Other (idiosyncratic cases,, refs to parts of the code other than marriage, such as housing,, news reports of SSM tourism or CU-like provisions,, strongly gendered language that suggests a SSM ban, etc.)

I started with trying to verify the bans to mark on the SSM map. I didn't review the have-SSM list at all, since it's no longer that important (all Tribes that accept external marriages or do not have their own laws presumably now have SSM, which can therefore be seen as the default situation). What looks to be important moving forward is nations revoking or instituting bans or rewording their codes to clarify whether SSM is banned or not. BTW, please let me know if you think the bans I have on the SSM map are spurious or incomplete.

— kwami (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

CFR Courts
I called specifically for Kiowa. This is a general situation, easy to confirm. — kwami (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Citizen Potawatomi
OR, but I got a call back from the Tribal court that people must be of "opposite sex" to be married, and that they do not accept marriage from elsewhere if you're Potawatomi. — kwami (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Changes at Bay Mills Indian Community
old Marriage Code: https://web.archive.org/web/20190224001808/https://baymillstribalcourt.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Chapter-XIV-14.pdf

1401. RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGES – TheBay Mills Indian Community shall recognize as a valid and binding marriage any marriage between a man and a woman formalized or solemnized in compliance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which such marriage was formalized or solemnized.

new Marriage code: https://baymillstribalcourt.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Chapter-XIV-14.pdf

''1401. RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGES. The Bay Mills Indian Community shall recognize as a valid and binding marriage any marriage betweenany two individuals formalized or solemnized in compliance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which such marriage was formalized or solemnized''

see also https://www.latest.facebook.com/groups/804009906445095/permalink/1210080869171328/?comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22O%22%7D

155.245.69.178 (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus – Sounds like there are further options to explore, so do that and try again later. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions → Same-sex marriage in sovereign nations within the United States – I propose that we rename this page to "Same-sex marriage in Sovereign Nations in the United States." Tribal Nations are nations and are due the respect given to nations. The Supreme Court of the United States, the Federal Government, and the United Nations recognizes Tribal Nations as Sovereign Nations. I believe that "jurisdictions" does not do justice to the Nationhood of American Indian tribes. Calling it "jurisdictions" effectively reduces sovereign nations to city wards or villages. Yes, Nations is the right term. In Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that American Indian tribes are neither foreign nations nor states, but are domestic dependent nations. As Nations, American Indian Tribes are sovereign and this sovereignty is protected by the United States Constitution and is affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I take tribal sovereignty and tribal consultation seriously, so I contacted Equality Navajo as it is an organization working for LGBTQ equality within Navajo Nation as I believe their voice matters on pages such as this. I received a response from Alray Nelson, the President of and founder of Navajo Equality (The Campaign for Diné Equality) and he said that this page should be called "Same-sex marriage in Sovereign Nations in the United States" and he cited that "We are sovereign nations in the eyes of the United Nations and to the federal government." Wikipedia is an encyclopedic source and we deserve to have information presented be educational and worthy of replication. Because this page has been titled "under United States tribal jurisdictions," I have seen discourse directly stemming from this page referring to Tribal Nations simply as "jurisdictions." Use of "Nations" in the title is informative and accurate and respectful of the civil rights and sovereignty of American Indian Nations. I believe this page should be renamed to reflect this. Thank you.

TenorTwelve (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Even if we were to head in that direction (I've not settled on my view), it should be "...sovereign nations within the United States". Sovereign nations is not a proper noun, so does not get capitalized in Wikipedia capitalization rules (see MOS:TITLECASE.) The phrasing of "in the United States" makes it sound like there is some federal law that applies to these marriages, when this article focus on the various tribes or nations; "within" is more a physical descriptor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Added: Looking up at the very first discussion on this page, someone raised the issue of tribes that are recognized at the state level but not at the federal level. Would they qualify for the "sovereign nation" terminology? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm of two minds about this, but am leaning in favor (tho more toward Nat's wording). One con is that 'Tribe' (often dab'd w a capital 'T') is the common term. A pro is that this is exceedingly confusing usage (a 'Tribe' is not even remotely a tribe) and I'm generally opposed to it on principal. Individually, we speak of the Cherokee Nation etc. Many of these nations didn't even have a tribal social structure at the time of contact, so the term 'tribe' is doubly inappropriate. But another con is that many of the 'Tribal' governments are not nations either. They're reservations. The Eastern Cherokee and Oklahoma Cherokee for example are both part of the Cherokee Nation, which doesn't have its own government. Some of the nations are divided up into multiple 'Tribes'. I suspect this may be part of the reason (in addition to racism) that the term 'Tribe' continues to be used. 'Nation' is fine for the Navajo, for whom the 'Tribe' and the nation are essentially coterminous, but not for many of the nations that have been divided and scattered due to the reservation system. For them, the unit of sovereignty and the ethnic nation are only tenuously related. Can we have a list of 'nations' that aren't all nations? (Is that any worse than a list of 'tribes', none of which are tribes?) But I can't think of a better term -- 'native sovereign republics'? Except that I don't know that they're all republics, and Euro-, Afro- and Asian Americans have long since become nativized. 'Subnational sovereign states'? Another problem is that many of the 'Tribes' are mixes of nations. So nations are divided up among 'Tribes' that they then each share with multiple other nations. Calling such units 'nations' is exceedingly sloppy. It would be like calling Belgium a nation, or Benin, or Brunei, or Brazil -- none of those states are nation states.
 * So, IMO, "Tribe" is out. So is "native". "Sovereign" is good. But "nation" is inaccurate. I'll support Nat's wording if we can't come up with anything better. — kwami (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, re. Nat's question about state-recognized Tribes -- I haven't heard anything about SSM there. I don't know that any of them even have their own marriage laws, in which case (if not) they'd be irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Some misconceptions I am ready to answer: Tribal nations can have many names and are still considered nations. From the National Congress of American Indians web pamphlet on "Tribal Nations and the United States: An Introduction" http://www.ncai.org/tribalnations/introduction/Tribal_Nations_and_the_United_States_An_Introduction-web-.pdf (Page 11) "NATIONS WITHIN A NATION 573 sovereign tribal nations (variously called tribes, nations, bands, pueblos, communities, and Native villages) have a formal nation-to-nation relationship with the U.S. government. There were 334 federal- and state-recognized American Indian reservations in 2010.
 * Comment: Although "tribal jurisdictions" may not be explicitly exhibiting a very high level of esteem, it is also not derogatory and is objectively accurate and it avoids the issue of tribes that are recognized at the state level but not at the federal level. Is it really all that broken? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not ready to post this yet, but I would like my fellow editors to continue listing what their concerns would be so any misconceptions can be cleared up. I will do my best to find information on the subject but if the questions are specific enough, I may contact experts on the subject to address specific concerns.

These 573 tribal nations are located across 35 states and within the geographic borders of the United States; however, each tribal nation exercises its own sovereignty. Each of the 573 tribal governments is legally defined as a federally recognized tribal nation. State-recognized tribal nations are recognized by their respective state governments."

This tells us that tribes, nations, bands, pueblos, communities, and Native villages are all considered nations. This also tells us that state-recognized tribes are also considered nations.

From page 24: "Alaska Native Governance: All tribal nations are unique. Of the 573 federally recognized tribes, 229 are located in Alaska. Each of the Alaska Native tribal nations is distinctly unique from tribal nations located in the lower 48 United States. Alaska Native tribal nations have no treaties with the U.S. government, as treaty-making ended in 1871, just years after the 1867 Alaska Purchase Treaty with Russia. The governing bodies of Alaska Native communities vary from tribe or village “traditional councils,”  to “Native councils,” “village councils,” “tribal councils, or “IRA councils.” In some instances, the term “village” is used instead of “tribe,” as tribal nations in Alaska were often recognized by the term “village” under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971."

This also tells us that Alaska Native tribal nations are also tribal nations. I'm noticing that NCAI lowercases nations except when it is formally capitalized. I may have to ask an expert on tribal nations for further clarification on when nations were divided into multiple reservations and for when multiple nations are on one reservation. Based on the text I read, it sounds like the division of a nation makes for multiple nations, but I need to verify this. Not all nations have a reservation, I might add. I will also clarify that when I refer to "nations," I am not referring to "countries," regardless of whether said countries are nation-states or not.TenorTwelve (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The National Congress of American Indians may not be an entirely neutral authority to consult on the question of the status of Native American tribes in the United States. As noted in the article about that organization, it is an advocacy group. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would tend to think that an organization led by American Indians would be the most qualified to speak on American Indian issues, particularly when mainstream coverage of American Indians is minimal and is not always knowledgeable of tribal law or tribal customs. Would it be inappropriate to cite GLAAD's media reference guide as it could arguably be called advocacy? The quotes I pulled from their pamphlet are not "advocacy," they are descriptive. I did not include quotes that could be considered "advocacy."-TenorTwelve (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think an advocacy group is the best place to get information to base things like Wikipedia titles on. It is difficult to completely separate objective information from slanted POV, especially when it comes to matters such as what terminology to use when referring to groups and what their legal and civil rights status is. —BarrelProof (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. I can use other sources for the same information. According to the FAQ section of the website for the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the US Department of the Interior says "Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution vests Congress, and by extension the Executive and Judicial branches of our government, with the authority to engage in relations with the tribes, thereby firmly placing tribes within the constitutional fabric of our nation. When the governmental authority of tribes was first challenged in the 1830's, U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the fundamental principle that has guided the evolution of federal Indian law to the present: That tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government." The DOI also refers to federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes as tribal nations. -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That helps. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't feel that "Sovereign Nations" is a common way to refer to these groups. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 14:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I will note that the "tribal nation" term you use would more quickly convey to the reader what the topic is here; throw in "sovereign", and you quickly begin to get assumptions of the sovereign citizen movement, I reckon. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to believe that people would make that mistake, but maybe. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to believe too. Sometimes words are just words; not everything is a dog whistle. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * note An editor altered the RFC's suggested move destination. Folks who were already commenting or are reacting to earlier comments should be aware of that change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That edit may have created some subsequent confusion, because what was shown below the requested move/dated call-out box as the suggested renaming did not match what was in the box. I just removed that mismatch. However, I doubt it matters very much, since the subsequent commentary does not seem to have been about that aspect of the suggestion. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE. The current title is clear and understandable, while the proposed title is somewhat confusing. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE and despite any personal beliefs held by me or others wikipedia is not a soapbox or a means for social activism.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Per objections over WP:PRECISE from Rreagan007 and UCO2009bluejay, I support moving this page to "Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States" -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * TenorTwelve@undefined I'm coming to like that wording. It's an improvement over the current one, anyway. — kwami (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment A tribal nation, if we're to assign any consistent meaning to the words, is not a tribe, but a nation with a tribal social structure. A tribe is a sub-nation. A band isn't even that. In this case, "tribal nation" is incorrect because many were never tribal, and those that were are no longer (any more than the Germans, Celts and Jews are organized into tribes). Though a few of the reservations are for actual tribes. I suspect the only accurate word for these in general is "reservation": SSM in sovereign reservations within the US? That just sounds weird though.
 * Would "Same-sex marriage under United States tribal governments" be an improvement at all? — kwami (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Replying Kwami, there is no hierarchy between entities that call themselves bands, tribes, nations, pueblos, communities, or tribal villages. They are all considered Nations. They just use different names in their titles. They are called Nations because they are sovereign governments with the right to self-rule. Tribal governance has been recorded since at least 1100 CE if not sooner. Since before the founding of the United States, tribes were recognized as nations with sovereignty. Treaties were made between nations and American Indians were mentioned in the United States Constitution, demonstrating that a degree of sovereignty was recognized, if only in a limited imagination. Tribal governments do not derive their sovereignty and rights of self-governance from race or ethnicity.     Tribal governments can set their own regulations for eligibility of citizenship within their own sovereign nations.
 * All of that is true, but has nothing to do with whether they're nations or tribes. For the most part, they clearly are not tribes. And a large number of them are not nations either. They were nations, back before the US broke them up, wiped them out or otherwise screwed with them, but many are no longer. Sure, we can be sloppy and call them either, but it is sloppy. (Just as sloppy as calling a non-comic non-book a 'comic book' -- Nat certainly has a point.) If we're going to use a word arbitrarily, then we could call them 'sovereign tribes' or 'sovereign nations' or 'sovereign gumballs' -- once we decide not to use a word for its denotation, but for its contextual meaning, it doesn't really matter. At that point we're down to COMMONNAME, and by that standard 'tribal' is more correct than 'nation'. I suspect that 'US tribal governments' would be better than 'US tribal jurisdictions', though. — kwami (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Tribal Nations still exist. The US Department of the Interior refers to the 567 federally recognized tribes as Tribal Nations. This includes Nations that were separated into different Indian Reservations. For example, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe were both part of the Great Sioux Nation on the Great Sioux Reservation. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is a Nation and so is the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. The treaties that acknowledged tribes as Nations are still valid and still have legal force. Treaties, including American Indian Treaties are regarded as the Supreme Law of the Land in the United States Constitution. Treaties weren't all bad news for Native Americans. While land was often lost, these treaties often gave tribal citizens the right to hunt and fish and secured land rights. These treaty rights are still asserted today by tribes. Yet these rights are still so often ignored, which is the reason that tribal nations assert themselves as sovereign nations. When the treaty system was ended in 1871, the treaties remained in legal force. As Nations, in 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe asserted their rights as Nations over land and water use under the 1851 and 1868 Treaties of Fort Laramie during the conflict with the Dakota Access Pipeline. It is for reasons like these that American Indians assert Tribal Nations as sovereign Nations. -TenorTwelve (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Kwami, I am confused on your definition of tribe vs. Nation. -TenorTwelve (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Tribal nations" seems to be appropriate within the context of the US govt. Per above, I think it's a reasonable wording. But these words have meanings in govt parlance that they don't for the rest of the world. A nation is essentially an ethnicity, which many of these 'nations' are not. And a tribe is a particular governmental structure at the sub-national level. There's empire - nation - tribe - clan - family, basically. A tribal nation is a nation that's organized into tribes, which many of these 'tribes' are not. But per below, that's like objecting that comic books don't come in hard-cover and aren't funny. — kwami (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply - kwami, I don't think your analysis into what a "tribal nation" should mean trumps what it does mean when it's used, and it is used by the NCAI and others. It's like me trying to disallow the term "comic books": to discuss the latest issue of House of X-Men because it is neither comical nor is it a book. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Concession/Counter-proposal I move we change the name to "Same-sex marriage in Tribal Nations in the United States." This is the name I originally wanted. I sought to change the name of this article as I felt the "under/jurisdictions" language did not reflect the Nationhood of tribes. I recently wrote a paper on tribal sovereignty, including on tribal consultation/consent. So coming from that paper, I took a risk and attempted to engage in tribal consultation without any formal training. Navajo Equality was the only LGBTQ American Indian advocacy group I knew of, so I contacted the organization. The title given was "Same-sex marriage in Sovereign Nations in the United States."
 * To be clear, Tribal Nations ARE Sovereign Nations. Please do not let this diminish this. Tribal Nations assert themselves as Sovereign Nations because the sovereignty of tribes is so much under threat and has been since the foundation of the country. Yet this is a statement of advocacy and advocacy is not permitted within Wikipedia especially when it comes to the titles of pages. Furthermore, many do not understand the concept of sovereignty of tribal nations without a complex understanding of Constitutional Law and history. So "Same-sex marriage in Sovereign Nations in the United States" would be very unclear to many readers and many readers would not understand that it is referring to Tribal Nations. Wikipedia has policies related to the recognizability of titles and policies against advocacy in titles. Therefore, I am breaking an impossible promise I made. I too enthusiastically jumped into something I was not prepared for. I still hold tribal sovereignty in the highest esteem. I recognize that me doing so is like how the US Government has broke many a promise to American Indians. I apologize for making a promise I could not keep. Yet, in the spirit of tribal sovereignty, I propose that this page be moved to Same-sex marriage in Tribal Nations in the United States Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States. It is accurate and it is respectful and it is neutral and it is recognizable and it is succinct and precise. Thank you.
 * With a humble heart,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It is also the same title that I suggested when I launched the very first discussion on this page, ten years ago. The only difference is that I suggested "tribal nations", lower case, because it is not a proper noun, so the Wikipedia title standard is for it not to be capitalized. I hold by that suggestion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Update So I heard back from Alray Nelson and he approved three other names.

"Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States"

"Same-sex marriage in sovereign tribal nations in the United States"

"Same-sex marriage in Indian Country in the United States"

My thoughts on this: While "Indian Country" would be an accurate term, I tend to think very few people would know what it means outside of folks deeply knowledgeable about American Indians in the United States. "sovereign tribal nations" is arguably POV, so I think that leaves us with "Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States."

Note that there were some other names I proposed but did not get approval on "Same-sex marriage in sovereign nations in the United States (American Indian/Alaska Native tribes)" ""Same-sex marriage by tribal governments in the United States" "Same-sex marriage on Indian Reservations in the United States" "Same-sex marriage in American Indian/Alaska Native Nations in the United States". Presumably I did not get approval. He just listed those said three with no other text in the reply regarding my question if any other names were acceptable, so I presume he was ok with those three other names but maybe not the other ones. -TenorTwelve (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Tribal nation" seems more consistent with Wikipedia usage; tribal nation directs readers to coverage of these entities; sovereign nation does not, and for the purposes of List of sovereign nations, these entities are considered non-sovereign dependencies. Which is actually similar to the U.S. individual states, which also exercise real sovereignty under the Constitution, even if limited and to some degree subject to federal law. Either "jurisdictions" or "nations" is fine by me; whatever people feel is more dignified if they have strong feelings. "Nation" has a number of different meanings, only one of which is "fully sovereign country", and these entities are commonly described as such. -- Beland (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A 'nation' really has nothing to do with sovereignty. That's why we say 'nation state', which is an ethnic nation that's also a sovereign state. But people shorten that to just 'nation', which gets confusing. — kwami (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: I changed the proposal to "Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States." -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Per above, that works for me. — kwami (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's OK with me too, after the information that both the NCAI and BIA accept the term "tribal nations". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 August 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: It's unanimous, plus support above, so page moved. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions → Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States – The request above was a bit confusing, given that the target name changed several times. The 'oppose's were all for earlier wordings. It looks like we were coming to consensus for "Same-sex marriage in tribal nations in the United States", so I'm listing it again under that wording. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging previous respondents:, , , , , ,


 * Support as second nominator. — kwami (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ---TenorTwelve (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support-in Oklahoma where I live tribal nations is the WP:COMMONNAME for these organizations (as per previous objections tribes aren't truly sovereign.) As such this seems like an appropriate move.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Colorado River Indian Tribes
the domestic relations code of the nation has recently been amended:

Previously at 2-102 (B):

"A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized, and registered as provided in this Chapter is valid."

new version of 2-102 (B):

"A marriage between two consenting persons licensed, solemnized, and registered as provided in this Chapter is valid."

think that this can be considered as a legalization of SSM?

155.245.69.178 (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
there is an Opinion by the Attorney-General of the MBCI from May 4 2016 which states that the tribal court recognizes SSM licenses by the state of Mississippi and under the current legal circumstances is not prohibited by the tribal code to issue a marriage licence to a same sex couple, can we count that as a recognition? 155.245.69.178 (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Forest County Potawatomi
new family law code: https://www.fcpotawatomi.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Chapter-3-3-Family-Law-2.9.2019.pdf

155.245.69.178 (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
looks like they legalized SSM in 2022: https://ecode360.com/GR1800/laws/LF1656076.pdf 81.159.155.163 (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Added in, adjusted map. — kwami (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

BIA list of Federally Recognized tribes
[undated thread, link broken]

Here is the "official" list of all 566 FEDERALLY recognized tribes. http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc006989.pdf

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
https://dvc479a3doke3.cloudfront.net/_uploads/site_files/TCR-2022-58-TO-ADOPT-CHAPTER-2-MARRIAGE-DIVORCE-AND-CUSTODY-OF-THE-TENKWAHSWANONNA-FAMILY-CODE.pdf 155.245.69.178 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * Is there a change of wording that affects SSM? Any indication that a change was intended to affect SSM? — kwami (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * sorry for the late reply, think that on page six is a explicit statement that defines marriage as a contract between two persons regardless of their sex, think we can move it to explicit recognition 155.245.69.178 (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems pretty clear. I'll make the change. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * cheers 155.245.69.178 (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

new Mohegan marriage ordinance
gender-neutral ordinance but no explicit recognition: https://library.municode.com/tribes_and_tribal_nations/mohegan_tribe/ordinances/code_of_laws?nodeId=1255371 155.245.69.178 (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)