Talk:List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions

message: An article on Same-sex marriage in the United States by state was recently broken out of the previously overlong same-sex marriage in the US article.  The content of that article is similar to this one, though this one, in my opinion, is a better article at this point in time.
I initially thought that these two articles should be merged, but I am starting to think that it may be good to have two separate articles - a list article with good summary information and a state by state historical article.  So, I am hoping to generate some discussion/consensus on whether and how to reconcile these two articles. -Kubigula (ave) 04:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved that original article under a new heading, see the original talk page. I think this article should be retitled to cover the current status of same-sex marriage for each state including unions, partnerships, and bans.--Joshua4 10:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: , ; I would like to bring this conversation back up. I think that this article should merge with Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state --Prcc27 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

text: That's weird, because the article actually has different colors for the different statuses of marriage including pending litigation. In my opinion, they are both articles that would compliment each other, I wasn't suggesting that they didn't have any differences whatsoever. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

text: What is the purpose of having an article that only lists constitutional amendments and statues? Don't you think Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state needs to have more detail  and reflection about the laws rather than just state the laws? These articles may have different purposes, but they're too similar to be separate articles. --Prcc27 (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't involved in the initial set-up of the pages, so I can't answer the first question, but I don't think the pages should be merged ... List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions is the '30,000 feet view': here's where it's legal, here's where it's banned, here's where it's in legal limbo - which is where most of the updating effort is put into.  To continue the analogy, Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state is a much lower altitude view, with legislative and constitutional details, which is much less amenable to tracking the ongoing legal battles. Mw843 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I moved and updated this article from List of U.S. state laws on same-sex unions to serve as a one-stop source for the "right now" legality of same-sex unions in the U.S. by state.  Please remember there are many articles on this topic, each with specific scopes of presenting the material. This article is NOT to serve as a place to note any pending, ongoing litigation, ballots, or legal battles except maybe the very most recent when relevant.  See the following articles:
* Same-sex marriage in the United States
* Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
* Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States by state
* Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state
* Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion
* List of benefits of marriage in the United States
--Joshua4 10:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think this is ridiculously redundant? By the way, I would have appreciated a little more discussion before you unilaterrally moved my article. --Hyphen5 07:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article created 

message: Did someone forget Alabama?
:Yep. —Nightstallion (?) 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops... well, at least it wasn't Poland. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 05:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  49 States? 

message: State	Marriage    	Marriage	Marriage	Same-sex unions	Same-sex unions	Same-sex unions      	Same-sex unions      	Notes
State	Defined     	Defined 	Result  	Civil Unions   	Civil Unions   	Domestic Partnerships	Domestic Partnerships	Notes
State	Constitution	Statute 	Licenses	Def.           	Status         	Def.                 	Status               	Notes
How about this ?  --Mimich 21:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better heading 

message: I think people should be able to express there love by being able to marry that person no matter who he or she is. No matter if they're white, black, big, small, tall, or short. We don't make it illegal for blacks to marry whites. So why should we make it illegal for women to marry women, or men to marry men. I think we should let them marry who they love, because being married is just another way to express your love for that special someone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.3.247 (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  People Should Marry Who They Want 

message: I thought of changing the blurb about Oregon's status by deleting any reference to civil unions.  The OR statute is not like other states' civil union legislation, there are some major differences.  If we want to be most accurate, the legislation is not civil union legislation that uses the term 'domestic partnership,' but rather just domestic partnership legilsation that doesn't reference and is wholly different from civil unions. Ronnotronald 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oregon 

message: A judge in Polk County, Iowa recently declared Iowa's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The Iowa Supreme Court will likely be asked to settle the matter, but it seems that Polk County officials are currently giving marriage licenses to same-sex couples per the judge's order. To anyone who has spent much time working on this article in the past: how should we classify this? Should we mark same-sex marriage as legal in Iowa, or should we wait until the Supreme Court weighs in, especially since the recent ruling only applies to one county? Etphonehome 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iowa? 

message: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF -- Frightwolf (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, you wish. 70.250.209.212 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  California overturns gay marriage ban 

message: Where did this term "ban ballot" come from? Is that simple POV pushing or POV pushing via a neologism? I'm not finding any other hits on the phrase in WP (except on this SSM status page and the SSM legislation page), and a Google search does not turn up any instances of the phrase being used without qualification for at least ten pages of results (except these WP pages). ~ MD Otley (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ban ballot"? 

message: There is currently a request for comment on what shade of blue should be used on :File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg to represent full marriage equality. Fry1989 eh?  03:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#RfC:_Shade_of_blue_used_to_show_marriage.3F Request for Comment] 

message: Federal judge ruled that same-sex marriage in other states must be recognized by Ohio on death certificates.  Story here.  Need to update articles. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohio ruling today 

message: If this page is supposed to be a "bottom line" legal status of same-sex marriage/unions, then why are we indicating judicial rulings and pending stays on the map at all? I think this page has too many categories... your thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dialectic2012 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: With regard to the judicial rulings against same-sex marriage bans in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio... why colorize those states with stripes when those rulings apply only to recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages... and again, I say colorizing the pending status of states with judicial rulings doesn't indicate the "bottom line" status of recognition in that state and only adds to the inconsistency of application of anti-marriage laws across the country. We need to remove the yellow stripes altogether if consensus allows. Those are my thoughts. We need less categories, not more. The map is too messy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C555:99C0:6C42:6C51:7F55:5A53 (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judicial rulings and consistency 

message: So, if we are now using two maps... shouldn't the first one be exclusively for same-sex marriage and the second exclusively for same-sex unions that aren't marriage? We could simplify the first map further that way... comments? objections?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 maps 

message: In the interest of contrast and a map that's easier on the eyes, I propose the "Judicial rulings against a ban on out-of-state same-sex marriages" and the "Same-sex marriage in the process of legalization, but has not yet taken effect" be removed from the map... those are worthy of notes and commentary, but not really worthy of the map if the goal is to show "bottom line" status... Comments? Consensus?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition 

message: Arkansas and Michigan, according to the "State-by-state" section, do not have bans on unions similar to marriage... but the map reflects that they do and said bans on unions similar to marriage had been stuck down. I am calling attention the discrepancy, but do not know which information is accurate. If you know how to correct the errors, please do?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors on second map for "same-sex unions similar to marriage" 

message: I support adding the 5 U.S. territories to the "State-by-state" section to elaborate on updates for those places with are also involved in litigation fighting ssm bans. Any takers? Mw583?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territory status on same-sex marriage 

message: If both maps are to be accurate currently, Kansas should be grey like the 3 U.S. territories indicating they are not currently prohibiting or recognizing ssm. The second map (for ssu) should indicate Kansas in grey as well...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kansas 

message: I was wondering if anyone knows if the State of Missouri is recognizing those marriage licenses received in St. Louis?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Louis ssm 

message: "Texas high court to consider state jurisdiction over same-sex divorces - lgbtqnation.com". AP. August 24, 2013. Retrieved December 2, 2014. - This article is extremely dated. Is there a link to a newer article that indicates this case is about to release a court ruling NOW?.......  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The case is still outstanding; closing in on 14 months since it was argued. Mw843 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Texas Same-sex Divorce Case 

message: With the ban on same-sex marriage being stuck down (twice) the Alabama ban on same-sex unions similar to marriage ban has also been stuck down as part of those rulings by default - the statute and constitutional amendment are written to include the ban on ssu similar to marriage. The color on the map should reflect this change.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alabama unions similiar to marriage 

message: Arkansas, South Dakota, and Texas, per each state's respective constitutional amendment, ban unions similar to marriage irrelevant of gender (they ban all unions similar to marriage, not only same-sex unions similar to marriage). Therefore, those same-sex unions bans may not have been struck down under the orders striking down the same-sex marriage bans...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77AE:19C0:221:E9FF:FEDD:6B65 (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arkansas, South Dakota, and Texas unions similar to marriage 

message: Given the state of affairs after the SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell, is there any usefulness to this page?
Should it be merged with Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state, as was suggested last year?
Can the maps be removed? Mw843 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has this page reached its "best by" date? 

message: http://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-virgin-islands-daily-news/20150727/281517929821418/TextView It looks like USVI is now recognizing. I'm refraining from making edits in case I'm reading too much into this, but I think this settles it. 107.199.150.70 (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virgin Islands 

message: I propose that this page be redirected to Same-sex marriage in the United States, because this page is unnecessarily duplicative of the other, more comprehensive article, which adequately explains the current legal state of same-sex marriage in the United States. Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 05:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no objection, I am doing this now. Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 17:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect proposal