Talk:Same-sex marriage in Vermont

message: This sentence is false: On April 2, the House passed the bill 95-52, a few votes short of what would be needed to override a veto.
April 2nd was the second reading of the bill. It wasn't passed until the third reading of the bill which happened the next day, April 3 and the vote on that day was 94-52. 
In Vermont and many other northeastern states a bill must be "passed" three times before it is actually passed.
Source: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/journal/hj090403.pdf , page 22
Correct, it passed April 3. Hekerui (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been corrected. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second reading of a bill is not the same as passing it 

message: Anyone agree?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.124.121 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proprosal to Rename and Reorganize /Rewrite Article to reflect the fact that Same Sex Marriage has passed and civil unions will now be a Historical footnote 

message: It is proposed to merge the articles on Same-sex marriage in Vermont and Civil unions in Vermont into a new (to be created) article called Recognition of gay unions in Vermont. In order not to prejudge the result of the discussion I haven't created this article yet. Other suggestions for the name of the destination article are welcome.
This is part of a general proposed merger of the "Same-sex marriage in..." with the "Civil unions in..." series. Any general points can be discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#"Same-sex marriage in ..." v. "Civil unions in the ...".
In essence these articles deal with the same subject matter and unified articles could deal more comprehensively with the topic and avoid unnecessary repetition. The "Controversy" section of the Civil unions in Vermont already talks about Same-sex marriage. Caveat lector 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, title should be changed. Ron 1987 (talk)15:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree as well, I tagged SSM in Vermont for speedy deletion under G6 (preparing for a move). The move has been done now. Firestorm Talk 18:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Same-sex marriage in Vermont]] 

message: Ok, I'm here.  Since I reverted a change that was made without explanation, I'm not sure what to say here.  All I can do is wait for that explanation, and when it doesn't come, revert again. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I compared the two, and it went from pretty much neutral to pointedly biased.  This is not an improvement. TruthIIPower (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  The version that you put back into the article, TruthIIPower, has several problems.  First, it removed several useful templates (one dealing with weasel words, others dealing with references) and second, the statement introduces several WP:POV terms (such as "purportedly") and third, the statement is factually incorrect in several places.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking it through 

message: "and the first [state] to offer a civil union status encompassing the same legal rights and responsibilities of marriage." In practice, there are precisely zero differences between the ideas of inclusive domestic partnerships and inclusive civil unions except in name only. In California, domestic partnerships are absolutely identical to marriage except for (1) the name, and (2) certain requirements to enter into one. Can we get a citation here? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A belated response. California domestic parntnerships, when established in 1999, provided only very limited rights and were far different from marriage and far different from the rights that attached to civil unions in Vermont in 2000. The rights attached to domestic partnerships in California were greatly expanded later, that is, after VT created its civil unions. See Domestic partnership in California#Establishment and incremental expansion. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Unions v Domestic Partnership 

message: The article has discrepant information about the number of states that had same-sex marriage before Vermont. The prolog says four states (MA, CT, IA, CA) whereas the "Marriage Legislation" section says Vermont was the fourth, implying that only three states had legalized same-sex marriage before.
It may be that there is a confusion here about CA, which made same-sex illegal later by constitutional amendment (since rescinded by the courts). But this should not affect the wording of the "Marriage Legislation" section...VT would still be the fifth to legalize and the first to do it by voluntary legislation. if it is the CA situation that led to this wording, the wording should be changed to reflect what actually happened. Bill Jefferys (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Did some re-writing. Not easy. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy in article